Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There is a Marxist/ Liberation theological strand in the Catholic church which I once considered to be more of a fringe element but have notice their rhetoric to have seeped into what many consider “main stream” in recent years.
The excerpts of Sen. Santorums writings include the phraseology and philosophy espoused by this element. It is taught in theology classes at Catholic universities and, in fact, permeates the curriculum across all disciplines at some of these institutions. Invited speakers and authors who decry American values, rail “against the pursuit of happiness”, foster class antagonism in the name of social and economic justice are celebrated and their ideas are often advanced in the form of “common reader” , cross curriculum assignments.
Seemingly benign and overflowing with pathos and compassion for the less fortunate, parishioners, idealistic college students and many in the general population find the words noble and readily embrace what they perceive to be moral social teaching in the spirit of Catholic identity.
I heard it when Newt described how he would deal with illegal aliens who had resided in this country for some period of time and I recognize the strains in Sen. Santorums words quoted above. Some are calling it big government conservatism. I have come to the conclusion that the rhetoric is more like a gateway drug to socialist-progressivism.
Be very, very, very careful. This is not the stuff that was in your grandmother’s catechism.
Memo to all those who think that “the guy who shouts the loudest about the social issues is the true conservative:”
Ain’t necessarily true. Can you say “Santuckabee?”
Socialism is the morally corrupt belief that we each can (and must) live off of the income and wealth of others. Christians should know how this violates at least trhee of the Ten Commandments: lies, coveting and theft. But recall that socialists themselves love to scold the rest of us about “sustainability”, yet as Margaret Thatcher once quipped, socialism works until they run out of other people’s money.
So, the dirty secret about socialism is that in the long run, it is not economically “sustainable”, and is in fact built to fail. Sadly, socialists not only think they have the right to seize the income and asset of others, many of whom they have never met, they don’t stop there. To read Keyenes or Marx is to read the plans and proposals of someone who assumes the right to own, control and in the end, to even wholely consume the personhood of others. It is a sociopathology so vast in scope, that it is only restrained by how many humans it can place under its insatiable grasp.
Socialism is evil, plain and simple. Those who advocate socialsm are advocates and supporters of evil. They are our our enemies and are a threat to our lives and our prosperity.
The economist Ludwig von Mises showed in 1920 [1,2] that since a socialist economy destroys price information via government intrusion, the myriad of participants in the economy are unable to make a fully rational calculation about true profit and loss. Any economic activity that operates at a loss cannot be “sustainable”, a concept the left loves to scold us about, yet cannot really grasp.
Taking another approach, the Nobel economist F.A. Hayek showed that a national economy had such an immense myriad of dynamic economic relationships that no single committee or bureaurcracy, no matter how smart or how well staffed, could possibly know enough to direct prices or production levels. His Nobel Lecture [3] was entitled The Pretence of Knowledge. Hayek had previously used this idea as the basis for a very thorough article [4] on the subject, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
When these two different withering critiques of socialism are combined, it is easy to see that not only is it dangrously foolish to think that economic decisions can successfully be made by government, but that competing bureaucracies will invariably react to the consequences of intrusions in the marketplace by each other. It would be like trying to control the height of waves on a lake by measuring them from the back of a boat circling in its own wake.
[1] Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
[2] Why a Socialist Economy is “Impossible” by Joseph T. Salerno
http://mises.org/econcalc/POST.asp
[3] The Pretense of Knowledge
http://mises.org/daily/3229
[4] “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, XXXV, No. 4; September, 1945, pp. 519–30.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=92
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once,
Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison [Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970, pg. 257
I’ll still take him over Newt any day.
I think Newt knows where a lot of keys to a lot of closets are and knows the combination to more than a few locks.
America needs someone that will do more than lead, we need also someone that will be, in the blue collar world, a pusher that gets things done.
There's still time before the election, and I am not bored with what is happening before our historical eyes.
With that pathetic bunch of insiders running for president, it’ll either be Romney or Obama, and socialism in our future.
Is he better than Romney? yes
Is he better than Paul? yes
Is he better than Newt? possibly
There isn’t a perfect candidate but there are several which are far worse.
The whole thing is a chopped up hit job on a man with an extensive record easily taken out of context depending on the author's political bias.
Nothing here.
No, of course not.
What, then, is the meaning of the mish-mash of quotes rendered here?
Well, let us recall the Founders idea of self-interest eventually raising the standard of living for all. Certainly, that's a conservative ideal? Using nicely clipped quotes, I would imagine I could subvert that notion into something like: ‘a governments role...should foster...individual...contribution to the whole.’ I mean, this kind of boiler plate distortion is just what lefties have used to distort the general welfare clause into the entire welfare system. Something the Founders, BTW, could not even imagine on any scale of their time. It goes without saying that it is also anathema to their other codes and principles.
What Santorum is arguing, IMO, is that it is in the gub’mints interest to foster (real two parent) families (Duh, that's a Western concept, no?) so that in the fullness of time they, in fact, will better everyone in the physical, moral and social sense. It goes without saying (should, anyway) that the opposite has been going on for a long, long time and the result of the gub’mint Daddy model is crime, disorder, immorality, disease and decay of our national order. In short, by not supporting the family (no, not with welfare checks but with the creed of our founding ideals) we are surely killing ourselves. Nowhere in this screed is Santorum advocating an expanded welfare system to spend billions more and bring about more of the same disorder and decay.
It is the governments role to foster the values that contribute to freedom and liberty - chiefly through upholding those values in the laws and institutions of our land. Those values are Judeo-Christian. Those values used to be common sense. These days, all bets are off and the gub’mint, in fact, makes war on all these things. Santorum is not arguing for more of the same. He is simply arguing for a return to the essential basis for a strong and free society; that is, a return to strong and free families.
My $0.02
Taking money from one person under threat of punishment and giving it to another is theft, regardless if it is the local street hood or the government. Some once said that he would rather be robbed than have his money taken by the government, since the robber would leave and not talk about all the great things that would be done with his money.
The truth is if the government was less intrusive, there would be more generosity by those who work, as they would have more to give. Yes, some would be greedy and not give at all, but why is that a government issue?
But the government and the poor don't like this. The government doesn't like it because private charity reduces government influence. The poor don't like it because private charities are more discerning in their giving, and many will require the poor to better themselves.
What is it then?
Is Santorum this “Big Government Conservative” we’ve been reading about, or is he the guy that wants to bring immediate cuts to Social Security and put grandma out on the street like what was reported last week? You can’t have it both ways here.
He also is well connected to the lobbyist community — Rick is no “outsider.” People who put there hopes into him as some true conservative outsider are going to be very disappointed.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
That idiot Rick Perry is looking better and better every day.
“selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.”
There is a difference between “contribute” and “compelled”.
The kind of difference that sparked creation of this country in the first place.
This plays directly into the Left’s hands. Divide the conservative vote 3 or 4 ways while the conservatives continue to search for the “perfect” candidate (there isn’t one, and never has been), Romney is the only one left standing, Obama waltzes to a second term. Game, set, and match.
Who are you astroturfing
For ?
You post a blogger rant with an agenda whose facts are
Dubious at best .
Either Perry and Santorum get behind Newt or it's a done deal for Romney, and Romney will NOT beat Obama.