It's getting awfully lonely out here for the shrinking handful of us who still think government should be limited to those few things it can do well if it holds to its proper role. We rail against Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health care and John Edwards' promise he will end poverty and Barack Obama's apparent desire to cure all ills from Washington, and George Bush goes to the United Nations and gives a speech that makes all the Demorats seem like rightwing pikers:
Second, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from hunger and disease. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food and clothing and housing and medical care." Around the world, the United Nations is carrying out noble efforts to live up to these words.
I could quote more from the speech, but it's all like that, a complete abandonment of the idea this country was founded on -- individuals free to pursue their own version of happiness -- replaced with government defining and doling out that happiness, the tyranny of kings that people have been bleeding and dying to end for all of humankind. Is there any doubt any longer that "compassionate conservatism" is just effete liberalism by another name?
What Bush and the United Nations define as "rights" are merely the paternalistic justification for the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. You do not have the right to keep what you earn -- it must be taken from you by the higher authority and spread around.
There has only been one war in the history of the world -- the individual vs. the group. Guess which side is losing.
Comments
There is virtually no difference between the neoCON and neo liberal agendas.
Both favor open borders, "free" markets and trade, foreign interventionism, redistribution of wealth (but apparently not in the direction you seem to think it is Leo), a wealthy elite ruling class, with a permanent underclass, big government and big spending and many more too numerous to list here.
The differences between the two are subtle and mostly a matter of prioritization.
Bush is a neocon. Hillary is a neocon.
Democrats make little secret out of their intentions about govt size, republicans lie about it to get votes
It is always easy to spot the losers. They smear everything with a broad brush, denouncing, in this case, even the slightest variation from their ideas of what is the "proper role" of government.
Just so you and Matt Kelty (the one Catholic of the two candidates for mayor who seems to like to wear his Catholicism on his sleeve) know who and what you're taking on, I will quote from a missive written on Sept.23 of this year by Pope Benedict XVI: " Catholic social doctrine has ALWAYS(emphasis mine) supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development."
He also cites Pope John Paul II as saying that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization.
The Pope adds:"Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet. Instead, when the logic of sharing and solidarity prevails, it is possible to correct the course and direct it towards an equitable, sustainable development."
I'm sure both you and Mr. Bogle would leap to call these statements as "necon" or "liberal" or some other,to you, derogatory description. I prefer to refer to them as part of another philosophy:Christianity.
I belive you and I CED are in more agreement than you might suspect.
Somewhere in the hijacking of christianity the compassion for the less fortunate as taught by Jesus has been conveniently overlooked.
It seems that the Pope and Naomi Klein have something in common - check out the new book "Shock Doctrine"
CED said:
"It is always easy to spot the losers. They smear everything with a broad brush, denouncing, in this case, even the slightest variation from their ideas of what is the
Mr. Wiggins:
You are quite correct in that name calling is not part of a "Christian" philosophy. That was simply evidence that I am not a perfect Christian, as perhaps you are.
And you are also correct that the constitution was not written to satisfy the teachings of Catholic social doctrine.
However, if supporting a declaration that states that people have rights beyond just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a violation of constitutional principles, then so be it. It does seem to me, though, that the Declaration of Independence, at least, stated that these three rights were only "among certain unalienable" ones, leaving open the existence of others.
You are entitled to prioritize what principles and teachings are important to you. I will do the same. I personally find the Constitution quite important, but I suspect that you and I would disagree on what it's intent was and is.
The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights underpin our nation. I can't imagine the American citizen who would quarrel with that "given."
If you, whoever you are, start sawing on any piling which is part of the foundation of our 200-year experiment, you should expect to suffer the predictable and appropriate consequences.
Activists feign shock when they receive just desserts, but feigning is the devious opposite of simple ignorance.
No activist can, nor would want to, assert his/her ignorance. Activist protesters invariably insist that they know precisely what they are doing. It is kind of the whole point of honest protest.