|
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Your Vote is needed/ Please Register online/ It so easy & so important
President Trump’s First Year
President Trump’s First Year
Originally published at Fox News. By Newt Gingrich
January 20 is the first anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration.
I have known nine presidents, beginning with President Richard Nixon. Of those nine presidents, the only one who was as effective as President Trump in his first year was President Ronald Reagan.
That judgment may surprise a lot of people because the opposition in the news media and among the left-wing “resistance” has been so strong and one-sided that they have consistently misrepresented and maligned President Trump and his administration.
This effort has produced a distorted, minimized view of what has been accomplished by this remarkably energetic and controversial Commander in Chief in the White House.
To understand the current distortions, remember what a year ago was like.
In January 2017, it seemed amazing that this businessman-publicist-marketer
It seemed equally extraordinary that he won the general elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These were states which had consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates in recent years. One could have made a lot of money betting on the entire trifecta going to Trump.
These achievements sent the Left into a state of shock. The day after President Trump’s inauguration, they organized mass rallies in Washington and other cities across the country. Left-wing protestors promised “resistance” to the so-called “imposter,” who they simply could not accept as President of the United States. At the rally on the National Mall, Madonna proclaimed, “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” The crowd loved it.
Professor Allen Guelzo, the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College, commented that the last time we saw this depth of hostility and contempt for a president was after the election of Abraham Lincoln. The slave owners in South Carolina and other parts of the South absolutely loathed him.
One year after President Trump’s inauguration, the Left’s hostility toward him is even worse.
The White House Press Corps’ reaction to White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson’s briefing on President Trump’s annual physical was a perfect example of this hostility. The media’s antagonistic (and just plain stupid) questions proved the propaganda war against Trump was not going away.
After a highly-respected Navy Rear Admiral, who served as White House physician in both the Bush and Obama White Houses, clearly and explicitly reported to the media that President Trump was in excellent physical health for his age – and that he had completed a flawless cognitive exam – the White House Press Corps doggedly repeated ludicrous questions, clearly seeking to undermine the doctor’s assessment and skew his report to fit the phony narrative that the President is “unfit for office.”
This TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), unfortunately, has become a major barrier to accurate coverage of the Trump Presidency.
So, in a highly polarized world of intense media hostility with overwhelmingly negative coverage of President Trump, how can we assess his first year?
The best way is to look at results and measure them against what candidate Trump said he would try to accomplish.
Trump promised to appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. With advice from Leonard Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society and remarkable leadership in the Senate by Mitch McConnell, President Trump has delivered Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a justice dramatically more conservative than anyone Hillary Clinton would have appointed. Additionally, in Trump’s first 12 months, 12 Appellate Court Judges have been approved by the Senate. As Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pointed out, no other first-year president has seated this many Appellate Court Judges in the 228-year history of the court.
Trump is also now, without question, the all-time champion of rolling back red tape as he has taken on the Washington bureaucracy and deregulating. Under President Trump, the Congress has eliminated 14 Obama-era regulations through the Congressional Review Act. The current estimate is that the Trump Administration is repealing 22 regulations for every new one it has created. This is a major contribution to economic growth and a big plus in implementing campaign promises.
Trump promised a new, smarter, lower-risk strategy to enable the military to do its job and defeat ISIS. ISIS has lost virtually all its territory at minimum risk. This is yet another promise kept.
Iran and North Korea must be considered works in progress. Neither problem has been solved but neither has imposed its will, as of this writing.
Announcing that the Israeli Embassy would be moved to Jerusalem is another campaign promise in which Trump followed through, and it doesn't seem to have caused any major disruption in the Arab world.
Trump’s instincts for rebuilding the American military are right, but he has not yet solved the problem of getting the Congress to pass the stable funding stream the military must have.
On the other hand, Trump methodically waged a disciplined 11-month campaign to get the large tax cut he believes the American economy needs if it is to grow faster.
The response of the American business community to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been more positive and more visible than anyone could have hoped.
He is also making good on his pledge to make better trade deals for America. Saudi Arabia alone signed as much as $400 billion in contracts with American companies during Trump’s visit to Riyadh.
As a result of President Trump’s economic leadership, the “new normal” of less than 2 percent annual economic growth is rapidly being replaced by estimates in the range of 3.5 to 4 percent.
At the same time, the black unemployment rate is down dramatically, and CEO and small business confidence are up dramatically.
The first year has seen some disappointments. Failing to repeal Obamacare was painful. Not even getting started on infrastructure has been disappointing. Failing to develop conservative solutions for poverty in America has been unfortunate. Allowing the symbolic language and arguments about race to drive people apart has been counter to the promise inherent in Trump’s Inaugural Address.
However, on balance, it is fair to say President Trump has already achieved so much that he rivals Reagan as an effective, focused leader, and we are incredibly fortunate to have him in the White House as our nation’s 45th President.
Your Friend,
Newt
Newt
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
For Immediate Release
Kass: Ives Crushes Rauner in Tribune Governor Debate
He’s got the money to win. But she’s got something else. And he doesn’t want any part of it.
He’s got the money to win. But she’s got something else. And he doesn’t want any part of it.
By John KassChicago Tribune
January 30, 2018 - Toward the end of his debate with GOP challenger Jeanne Ives before the Tribune Editorial Board on Monday, I asked Gov. Bruce Rauner if there would be another Republican debate.
“We’re debating right now,” he said.
But won’t there be another?
“We’re debating right now,” the governor said.
In other words: You’ve gotta be kidding me. No way.
Rauner is a tough guy, a man who’s made hundreds of millions of dollars in business deals. He made his own money, took his own risks, and he ran for governor in 2014 because the state was sinking. But on Monday, judging just from his eyes and body language after debating Ives — a West Point graduate — Rauner looked like a man who’d been whipped.
He just couldn’t quite come to grips with the whipping.
And he won’t debate her again, because she crushed it and she crushed him and it wasn’t pretty.
If you’re interested, and I hope you are if you live in Illinois and pay taxes in Illinois, and perhaps wonder what the heck happened to the state that your friends are running away from, you might want to find the video of the Ives-Rauner debate at chicagotribune.com.
Jeanne Ives crushed it so hard, way up into the upper deck, Rauner’s re-election dreams bouncing up there all alone, echoing desperately, and all the governor seemed to be able to say was “Mike Madigan” again and again. How many times did he say Mike Madigan? You couldn’t keep count.
Shortly afterward there was more Ives news: Conservative Lake Forest businessman Richard Uihlein had dropped $500,000 into her campaign chest. And there’s more to come.
Ives, the Wheaton conservative, accomplished several important goals in her Tribune debate. She had to prove she could take him on. She did that. She had to prove she was a viable candidate, and nothing removes doubts like a big fat campaign check from Dick Uihlein.
Ives had to demonstrate that despite the liberal spin, she is more a serious policy wonk than a social conservative warrior. She had to show she had the stuff to lead. She accomplished all of that.
In many ways, Rauner was at a disadvantage in the debate. The questions were even-keeled. There were no cheap shots or dramatic histrionics or posing, as you might see in a TV debate. After all, this was the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. But even so, he was injured, wounded, and couldn’t cover up and protect himself.
It was Rauner who invited the Republican primary challenge by signing a sanctuary state bill into law and by signing House Bill 40, which provides for taxpayer-funded abortions. Republican lawmakers and even Roman Catholic Cardinal Blase Cupich said he lied to them.
Rauner kept insisting that all this was a distraction from the important issues of defeating Boss Madigan’s hand-picked Democratic candidate for governor, J.B. Pritzker, and of driving Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House for decade upon decade, into the wilderness.
“Madigan would like nothing more than for Rep. Ives to be the primary victor, and having to run against Pritzker,” Rauner said. “He would love nothing more. Because I am the only person at this table that can beat Pritzker in November, Illinois is on the verge of becoming Detroit, hollowed out by corrupt politicians, massive job loss, massive tax hikes.”
To which Ives kept saying, “Platitudes and generalities.”
“He’s picking on Madigan again because he said he is not in charge,” Ives said. “Gov. Rauner has said he’s not in charge. And he’s acted like he’s not in charge. And so this is the result. Nothing gets done. Now it is interesting that he wants to pretend this primary battle is about Mike Madigan, but the truth is, his base has left him. … He will be Mark Kirked out of office because nobody trusts him anymore.”
The Mark Kirk reference might mean little to Democrats, but to Republicans it means a great deal, this invoking of Kirk, the establishment Republican who lost the Republican base. Calling someone a Mark Kirk is calling them toast.
Still, Rauner isn’t all wrong. And neither is Ives.
The governor is absolutely correct about Madigan being the problem. Boss Madigan bears responsibility for the state’s downward spiral, and a Pritzker victory would protect the Madigan regime, and also that of Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. Rahm may have been Rauner’s wine buddy once, but the mayor’s sitting happily in Madigan’s lap these days, waiting to share snacks with Pritzker.
But it was the governor’s two fundamental errors — the gift of fatal political advice — that invited the Ives challenge. He signed sanctuary city policy when he didn’t have to. He signed taxpayer-funded abortion when he didn’t have to.
And now he wears the Mark Kirk cloak of inevitability.
Rauner couldn’t very well go on an all-out attack against Ives, because if he beats her in the primary he’ll need those conservative votes in the general election. He’ll need votes from conservative women. But putting the Republican Party together after what he’s done to it might be impossible. He won’t be able to put this one together with a Republican unity breakfast the day after the primary.
Ives said this election was all about character.
“That’s why we don’t trust him,” Ives said. “He said he would veto the (taxpayer-funded abortion) bill. He lied to the cardinal.”
“Outrageous!” said Rauner.
But he didn’t have much else to say.
After this debate, I’d bet you’ll never see Rauner within a mile of Jeanne Ives. Not if he can help it, not if he wants to win the primary. He’s got the money to win. But she’s got something else. And he doesn’t want any part of it.
“We’re debating right now,” he said.
But won’t there be another?
“We’re debating right now,” the governor said.
In other words: You’ve gotta be kidding me. No way.
Rauner is a tough guy, a man who’s made hundreds of millions of dollars in business deals. He made his own money, took his own risks, and he ran for governor in 2014 because the state was sinking. But on Monday, judging just from his eyes and body language after debating Ives — a West Point graduate — Rauner looked like a man who’d been whipped.
He just couldn’t quite come to grips with the whipping.
And he won’t debate her again, because she crushed it and she crushed him and it wasn’t pretty.
If you’re interested, and I hope you are if you live in Illinois and pay taxes in Illinois, and perhaps wonder what the heck happened to the state that your friends are running away from, you might want to find the video of the Ives-Rauner debate at chicagotribune.com.
Jeanne Ives crushed it so hard, way up into the upper deck, Rauner’s re-election dreams bouncing up there all alone, echoing desperately, and all the governor seemed to be able to say was “Mike Madigan” again and again. How many times did he say Mike Madigan? You couldn’t keep count.
Shortly afterward there was more Ives news: Conservative Lake Forest businessman Richard Uihlein had dropped $500,000 into her campaign chest. And there’s more to come.
Ives, the Wheaton conservative, accomplished several important goals in her Tribune debate. She had to prove she could take him on. She did that. She had to prove she was a viable candidate, and nothing removes doubts like a big fat campaign check from Dick Uihlein.
Ives had to demonstrate that despite the liberal spin, she is more a serious policy wonk than a social conservative warrior. She had to show she had the stuff to lead. She accomplished all of that.
In many ways, Rauner was at a disadvantage in the debate. The questions were even-keeled. There were no cheap shots or dramatic histrionics or posing, as you might see in a TV debate. After all, this was the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. But even so, he was injured, wounded, and couldn’t cover up and protect himself.
It was Rauner who invited the Republican primary challenge by signing a sanctuary state bill into law and by signing House Bill 40, which provides for taxpayer-funded abortions. Republican lawmakers and even Roman Catholic Cardinal Blase Cupich said he lied to them.
Rauner kept insisting that all this was a distraction from the important issues of defeating Boss Madigan’s hand-picked Democratic candidate for governor, J.B. Pritzker, and of driving Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House for decade upon decade, into the wilderness.
“Madigan would like nothing more than for Rep. Ives to be the primary victor, and having to run against Pritzker,” Rauner said. “He would love nothing more. Because I am the only person at this table that can beat Pritzker in November, Illinois is on the verge of becoming Detroit, hollowed out by corrupt politicians, massive job loss, massive tax hikes.”
To which Ives kept saying, “Platitudes and generalities.”
“He’s picking on Madigan again because he said he is not in charge,” Ives said. “Gov. Rauner has said he’s not in charge. And he’s acted like he’s not in charge. And so this is the result. Nothing gets done. Now it is interesting that he wants to pretend this primary battle is about Mike Madigan, but the truth is, his base has left him. … He will be Mark Kirked out of office because nobody trusts him anymore.”
The Mark Kirk reference might mean little to Democrats, but to Republicans it means a great deal, this invoking of Kirk, the establishment Republican who lost the Republican base. Calling someone a Mark Kirk is calling them toast.
Still, Rauner isn’t all wrong. And neither is Ives.
The governor is absolutely correct about Madigan being the problem. Boss Madigan bears responsibility for the state’s downward spiral, and a Pritzker victory would protect the Madigan regime, and also that of Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. Rahm may have been Rauner’s wine buddy once, but the mayor’s sitting happily in Madigan’s lap these days, waiting to share snacks with Pritzker.
But it was the governor’s two fundamental errors — the gift of fatal political advice — that invited the Ives challenge. He signed sanctuary city policy when he didn’t have to. He signed taxpayer-funded abortion when he didn’t have to.
And now he wears the Mark Kirk cloak of inevitability.
Rauner couldn’t very well go on an all-out attack against Ives, because if he beats her in the primary he’ll need those conservative votes in the general election. He’ll need votes from conservative women. But putting the Republican Party together after what he’s done to it might be impossible. He won’t be able to put this one together with a Republican unity breakfast the day after the primary.
Ives said this election was all about character.
“That’s why we don’t trust him,” Ives said. “He said he would veto the (taxpayer-funded abortion) bill. He lied to the cardinal.”
“Outrageous!” said Rauner.
But he didn’t have much else to say.
After this debate, I’d bet you’ll never see Rauner within a mile of Jeanne Ives. Not if he can help it, not if he wants to win the primary. He’s got the money to win. But she’s got something else. And he doesn’t want any part of it.
###
For more information or to book Jeanne Ives, contact Kathleen Murphy at 630-329-4680 or kathleenemurphy26@gmail.com
Ives vs. Rauner: It's on.
Ives vs. Rauner: It's on.
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner would love to spend these gray winter days focused on his November re-election bid against a Democrat opponent, but he can’t. First, he’s got to win the Republican primary on March 20, in which he will face off against former ally state Rep. Jeanne Ives of Wheaton.
On Monday, Rauner and Ives made a joint appearance before the Tribune Editorial Board at which they sparred over who has the better strategy for addressing Illinois’ political dysfunction and creating jobs. This is their only scheduled debate; you can view it at chicagotribune.com/gopgov.
Turns out Rauner hasn’t been able to bend House Speaker Michael Madigan and the Democratic-run General Assembly to his will. The governor’s “turnaround agenda” stalled. Residents are fleeing high-tax Illinois. Employers are bailing, too, or choosing instead to invest in other states. We’ve begun to think about this election in dire terms. The Land of Lincoln has a festering pension crisis and a reputation as a loser. Job growth is weak. A lot of voters think Illinois must change or die.
Ives, a social conservative, edged into the race after Rauner signed legislation expanding taxpayer-subsidized abortion for women covered by Medicaid or state employee health insurance. But now that she’s in, she’s running hard as a critic of the governor’s economic policy chops and his relentless public feuding with Madigan. One of Illinois’ problems is that Madigan actively blocks the governor’s job growth efforts.
Before the primary, we will endorse a Republican and a Democratic candidate for governor. Today we reach only the conclusion that Ives, now in her third term in the Illinois House, makes a persuasive case as an alternative to Rauner. Especially on the question of who might work with, or work around, Madigan and colleagues, Ives presented herself as a Republican legislator who knows how to work with Democrats in Springfield.
We said at the top of this editorial that the governor is eager to run against a Democrat, not another Republican. He made clear Monday he thinks his greatest adversary is Madigan, whom the governor attacked for being a property tax attorney in a state where many property owners challenge their assessments. “We need to focus on Speaker Madigan and his corruption,” Rauner told us. He then connected dots from Madigan to J.B. Pritzker, one of the Democrats running for governor. “Pritzker is Madigan’s handpicked candidate for governor. He’s in effect Madigan’s bagman for funding that whole corrupt culture.”
One comment about such incendiary talk: We don’t see how it convinces employers such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who values a stable culture of governance, to invest money and hire in Illinois.
Rauner wishes Madigan would just disappear. Rauner’s second wish is that the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Illinois’ favor in two cases that could weaken the role of unions and thus make the state appear more friendly and flexible to employers. Indeed that’s possible, but it’s bad policy to bet the farm on the deliberation of judges. Yet Rauner, as if he were quoting James Earl Jones in “Field of Dreams,” sounds convinced of his own good luck.
“You watch us boom” after the court victories, Rauner promised. “Even if Madigan is still in power, which I hope he’s not after November, we will get changes through the courts that will allow us to compete. And the companies will come from Indiana. They’ll come from Wisconsin and Texas and Tennessee. We will be a rapid growth state.” (Remember that fantasy sequence from “Field of Dreams”? “People will come, Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom.”)
As a challenger rising from Springfield’s backbenches, Ives has a debating advantage because she can make fresh promises uncompromised by past performance or daunting realities. But she made a good point about having a track record of working across the aisle. She made another good point about targeting smaller victories to prove to employers and investors that Illinois can be more business-friendly. Her example: Address pension reform by shifting new state employees to 401(k)-style retirement plans. “It would have sent a strong signal to the bond market, to the business community, and to residents that we’re finally serious about doing something about not digging the hole deeper,” she said.
Monday’s conversation was one moment in the campaign. The candidates have more time to differentiate themselves. Another debate or two would help. Bruce Rauner, with a strong polling and millions in his coffers, showed no interest. But he should capitalize on the chance to sell Republicans on himself. Because in Jeanne Ives they’ve got a legitimate alternative.
The American system is not capitalism
The American system is not capitalism
One of the great myths of our time is that America is a capitalistic country. It is not, and has not been close to capitalistic for more than 150 years.
Capitalism is a social system in which an individual’s rights, including his rights to own property, are recognized and all property is privately owned. In a capitalistic society, governments acknowledge that individuals and companies can and should compete for their own economic gain, and the prices of goods and services are determined by the free market. The role of government in capitalistic societies is to ensure that markets function without interference and to protect individuals from fraud and/or the use of physical force by others.
Capitalism is not about greed. Capitalism is about human freedom, or as we term it, personal liberty. As Adam Smith posited in Wealth of Nations, when individuals are permitted to pursue their self-interest through markets, they are amazingly good at finding ways of bettering not only themselves but society as well.
In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand writes:
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control… In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree — and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.
Americans no longer have property rights. Think you do? Try going a year or two without paying tribute to the king (via property taxes) and you’ll see who owns your property. The local sheriff will evict you; the state or local government will seize your property and sell it to the highest bidder or its favorite crony.
Try building a structure on your property… or even remodeling your home. If you don’t obtain the proper permissions (approval for your design, building permits and inspections), you will be fined and forced to tear your structure down. Failure to do so will result in armed agents of the government invading your property, assaulting and incarcerating you until you comply with the government’s demands.
Try damming a creek, tampering with the watershed or capturing water for a pond on your property. You will get a visit from federal agents representing the Environmental Protection Agency and the result will be fines, expensive court costs and possible visits by armed federal agents who will forcibly escort you off your property and into a prison cell.
Try growing livestock or certain plants on your property. Unless you live in an area zoned for agriculture, you will likely get a visit from a local or federal “inspector” who will order you to dispose of your animals and/or uproot your plants in favor of others approved by the local authorities.
Try selling a product you grew or made. You will be forced to comply with regulations regarding harvesting, production, packaging and distribution. You will be forced to act as agent of government and collect government tribute (taxes) which you must then pass along to government — regardless of the time and effort required to comply. Failure to do so will result in fines and/or imprisonment.
Want to inform people about and sell a protocol that experience and use has shown to be beneficial to good health? You must first obtain permission from local and federal agencies, provide proof that your protocol has been tested, tested and retested, regardless of the expense or inconvenience to you. You must then comply with any and all regulations regarding marketing, production, packaging and distribution. Failure to do so will result in seizure of assets, fines and/or imprisonment.
Want to not sell your product for a reason — or no reason at all — not approved by the establishment? That is not allowed and you will find your business shuttered and you will be subject to fines and revocation of your previously-acquired permission to conduct business.
The establishment will tell you that once enter into business you have surrendered your individual rights to the collective, and all your activities must be geared toward the collective good. This is the very definition of force — government force, which is anathema to voluntary exchange and individual liberty.
The federal government works overtime to ensure we are not a capitalist system by passing legislation and enabling federal alphabet soup regulatory agencies to create rules favorable to certain businesses and unfavorable to others. Congressweasels pass tax laws to encourage and discourage behaviors.
The federal government subsidizes certain products, driving up prices and encouraging unsound business practices that skew the market. There are still price controls on food products that were put in place during the Great Depression.
The Federal Reserve, which is not a federal agency but a privately-owned bank, prints money to infinity, which encourages mal-investment and skews the market. It is depreciating your currency.
Here is what has happened to the American people: The money creators, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury as symbiotic partners, are creating non-substance (fiat money) and “buying” (stealing) substance with it.
Has anyone wondered why “federal money” never gives out? As admitted in congressional testimony and in Federal Reserve publications, the federal money creators can create any amount of “money.” Of course this money is non-substance fiat. It is imaginary numbers that appear either on green pieces of paper called dollars or as computer symbols.
The key word to describe fiat non-substance is infinity. This imaginary money system can be created to infinity and indeed is on its way. The American people (and the world) believe that this non-substance is real money. This is an exercise in an unbelievable and unimaginable delusion that is accepted by the mind as real.
This is socialism at its most perfect creation and it is doing exactly socialism’s work of transferring the wealth and savings of the American people to the state without payment.
Every writer, commentator politician in America refers to the U.S. as a democracy of free enterprise capitalism with individual privacy and property rights. We live in a fiction of freedom perpetuated with semantic corruption that has evolved us into economic fascism. Language and words that support a free society have been turned inside out.
The American economic system, and in fact the world’s economic system is failing, and that failure is being attributed by many on the left (and some on the right) as a failure of capitalism. This is a big laugh to any sober person.
All governments are fronts for monopoly capitalism, and monopoly capitalism has many names: fascism, socialism, communism and democracy. Big business has and will promote every ideology and philosophy known to man to disguise its madness for profits. But one equals the other. They are all immoral systems that use the power of government to exist and to suppress human freedom.
Capitalism is the only moral system. It was American free market capitalism that fueled the growth of the U.S. economic engine beginning in the 1800s and raised the standard of living around the globe, before monopoly capitalism began to exert greater and greater control over the U.S. economic system beginning in the mid-1800s and accelerated after the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last 200 years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.
Sadly, it’s not just the progressive left and ignorant millennials that oppose free market capitalism. In any discussion forum where true or laissez-faire capitalism is discussed, “conservatives” are quick to make the disclaimer that “we must have some regulation” or, “we can’t have unfettered capitalism.” In truth, most so-called conservatives are really closet socialists. This is a testament to the powerful propaganda we are subjected to.
Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the 20th century, collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, Nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.
The return of capitalism will not happen until there is a moral revolution in this country. We must rediscover and then teach our young the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Then and only then, will there be social justice in America.
I was denied service based on beliefs — and I’m OK with that
I was denied service based on beliefs — and I’m OK with that
This week I was denied a service because the company’s values are at odds with the values that Alliance Defending Freedom stands for — values I personally hold. And guess what? I’m okay with that.
Allow me to explain.
As a writer, I’m always looking to improve my skills. And working for a no-debt ministry like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which can only take on cases and clients as the funds are provided through our generous Ministry Friends, fundraising is an important part of what we do.
Using my work information, I signed up for an online course created by Moceanic, a team of talented fundraisers who have created a coaching and training business to help writers better connect with donors. I’ve read blog posts and books that the team has produced, and I truly admire their talents. They have a gift for connecting with people.
Organizational values vs. customer values
What I didn’t know when I signed up for the course, however, is that Moceanic does a lot of work with organizations such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and LGBT activist organizations. If you know anything about ADF or have read my blog posts before, you know that ADF and these organizations don’t exactly share the same values.
I received login information from the course and was excited to get started. But late last night I received an email notifying me that they had refunded the cost of the course with no explanation as to why. I was a little perplexed by the email and when I logged into their website this morning, the course was no longer available to me.
That’s when I starting digging deeper into the brains behind Moceanic, and it didn’t take long for me to discover the values statement on their website. Here are a few key excerpts:
We work with progressive charities and movements…This includes LBGT+ rights, Planned Parenthood, ACLU… We won’t work with organisations that oppose these movements.This is important to us, and we reserve the right to choose not to train people working directly for, or on behalf of, organisations whose missions or values do not align with ours.
My first thought was; “I get it—no further explanation needed.” I mean, why would they want to train someone who is going to work to raise money for their opposition? My second thought was, “We actually have more in common than they think!” This is somewhat like the kind of freedom that Jack Phillips and numerous other ADF clients are fighting for.
Freedom of belief not upheld
ADF recently argued on behalf of Jack at the United States Supreme Court. Jack was sued because he politely declined to design a custom cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. He believes that marriage is sacred — between a man and woman — and designing a cake that celebrated a very different message than his religious beliefs was not something he could do.
It’s not that Jack had any problems serving the couple requesting the cake. In fact, he offered to design them cakes for other occasions or sell them any of the premade goods he had available. But Jack’s faith is important to him, and as an artist, he has the right not to create art that contradicts that faith.
And it’s not just the cake artist or Barronelle Stutzman, the florist, whose case we have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alliance Defending Freedom is defending website designers, promotional printers, photographers, film production companies, and other small business owners who are fighting for the same freedom in court — the freedom not to betray their most deeply held beliefs and values.
Our clients serve everyone; they just can’t custom design material that sends messages that violate their faith. But Moceanic has taken it a step further. They denied me not just their coaching program involving customized material — they declined to serve me entirely, even refusing to allow me access to a pre-existing course.
Of course, Moceanic shouldn’t be forced to coach me on how to speak in a way that generates excitement and engagement for a cause that they disagree with any more than Jack should have to create a cake celebrating a marriage that conflicts with his beliefs. But they also want to decline me pre-existing courses lacking any custom designed coaching or content.
Tolerance and respecting free speech is mutual in society
Although Moceanic’s actions go further than protecting against compelled speech, I understand why they wouldn’t want to advance the mission of their opposition. We live in a diverse nation where people hold differing views about a lot of different things. The freedom to disagree is what makes America so unique. If we’re all forced by the government to adhere to the same ideology, then we are no longer the land of the free.
As Justice Kennedy stated during oral arguments in Jack’s case, “[T]olerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.” If the government can take away Jack’s freedom to speak and create consistently with his conscience, then freedom for all of us — including Moceanic — is at risk.
Whether they realize it or not, it appears the Moceanic team agrees with that sentiment. And although they might have taken it further than our arguments in Jack’s case, I wish them all the best.
Reprinted from Alliance Defending Freedom.
— Marissa Mayer
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.