“Let us, my fellow citizens, take up this Constitution with the same spirit of candor and liberality; consider it in all its parts; consider the important advantages which may be derived from it; let us obtain full information on the subject, and then weigh these objections in the balance of cool, impartial reason.” – Oliver Ellsworth, 1787
Walter E. Williams | Free Markets: Pro-Rich or Pro-Poor
Listening to America’s liberals, who now prefer to call themselves progressives, one would think that free markets benefit the rich and harm the poor, but little can be further from the truth. First, let’s first say what free markets are. Free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, refer to an economic system where there is no government interference except to outlaw and prosecute fraud and coercion. It ought to be apparent that our economy cannot be described as free market because there is extensive government interference. We have what might be called a mixed economy, one with both free market and socialistic attributes. If one is poor or of modest means, where does he fare better: in the freer and more open sector of our economy or in the controlled and highly regulated sector?
Ben Shapiro | Why Obama Wanted Times Square Bomber to be a Lone Nut
Why did the media and the Obama administration decide that this man was Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, as opposed to the radical Muslim he so clearly was? Because the media buys into President Obama’s worldview — a worldview which suggests that all crime springs from social circumstance. In order for President Obama to foist his socialist vision on the world, he must suggest that redistributionism solves social ills like crime and terrorism.
Tony Blankley | Cut Spending Today to Save Tomorrow
This country is divided into three parts concerning national politics. About a third think President Obama is moving in the right direction, with many of them impatient for the president to be bolder with his leftist agenda. Somewhere in the vicinity of 40 percent to 50 percent of Americans are shocked and appalled at the nation’s rush toward bankruptcy, socialism, fundamental transformation of our way of life and the permanent weakening and impoverishing of America. And some 15 percent to 30 percent are quite concerned about the current state of the country but see no imminent crisis and think that with some substantial adjustments, Mr. Obama’s efforts may end up being useful. (The foregoing numbers are merely my subjective judgment, not based on any particular poll.)
If the percentages of the shocked and appalled are close to 50 percent while the concerned but not panicked are closer to 15 percent, November probably will see a transforming election, with the Republicans taking over both the House and Senate. I’m obviously in the shocked and appalled group.
But it is that third category — concerned but not panicked — that will decide the election. No one better represents the third group than the gentlemanly, moderately conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. During the election, he was enamored of Barack Obama. He was impressed with Mr. Obama’s mind, his temperament, his sense of American history and culture and his style. As things have gone rocky, Mr. Brooks has been quite tough on the president one week and renewed in his admiration the next.