Category Archives: Founding Fathers

The Bush Affirmative Action Mortgage Program

Affirmative Action, Bush, Constitution, Economy, Founding Fathers, Private Property, Ron Paul, Socialism

I began this thread, “NO Small ‘r’ republicans In The House,” with a visceral response to Republican Fred Thompson’s sudden discovery of the principles of fiscal responsibility—principles he said very little about during his bid for the nomination of his party.

More accurately, if Fred had spoken about spending and the Republican Party losing its way—the cliché those charlatans adopted—it was in the vaguest of terms, never confessing to the specific policy catastrophes he regretted and would reverse. War, the thing that propelled the country into debt, was just dandy, and “let’s have more of it.”

Myron has forwarded me Rep. Paul’s splendid response to the legislation known as the “American Dream Downpayment Act. “HR 1276” has exacerbated what Steve Sailer has termed the current “Diversity Recession.” Before I excerpt the entire thing, I’d like to make the following point:

This is not about Ron Paul getting it right on this one issue. Paul has been responding in the House in exactly this fashion for decades. He has never wavered; has always been morally and politically true and correct, always gone straight to the marrow of the argument; articulating what the Constitution and the Founders provided.

Unlike Fred, Paul responded in the heat of the debate, not after the fact; and for the benefit of the People, not for political expediency.

Now over to Ron Paul, and his rapid-fire response to the Bush affirmative action mortgage program:

“The American dream, as conceived by the nation’s founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, oftentimes sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the federal government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.

H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the America people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politicians and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.

H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of
private citizens.

Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

I hope no one confuses my opposition to this bill as opposition to any congressional actions to ensure more Americans have access to affordable housing. After all, one reason many Americans lack affordable housing is because taxes and regulations have made it impossible for builders to provide housing at a price that could be afforded by many lower-income Americans. Therefore, Congress should cut taxes and regulations. A good start would be generous housing tax credits. Congress should also consider tax credits and regulatory relief for developers who provide housing for those with low incomes. For example, I am cosponsoring H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which provides a tax credit to developers who construct or rehabilitate low-income housing.

H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.”

Dare To Defend Christmas Like VDARE

Christianity, Founding Fathers, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Propaganda

And MSNBC’s resident thug, Keith Olbermann, will libel you.

And TIME too:

Before it became part of mainstream conservative punditry, the leading proponent of the War on Christmas was a former magazine writer and editor named Peter Brimelow. A virulent anti-immigration crusader whose views were considered extreme by mainstream conservative journals like National Review, Brimelow founded a website called VDare.com that soon was at the forefront of the fight to sanctify Christmas cheer. Beginning in 1999, Brimelow ran a competition to spotlight offenders in the War on Christmas. The inaugural villain was the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which earned the dubious honor for hosting a holiday party dubbed “A Celebration of Holiday Traditions.” The following year, Amazon.com became a target of Brimelow’s wrath for subjecting consumers to the nondenominational greeting “Happy Holidays!”

Related: “Mercer Sets O’Reilly Straight On The War Against Christmas.”

BillO Tosses & Gores Governor Gregoire; So Far So Good (But…)

Christianity, Conservatism, Founding Fathers, Freedom of Religion, Law, Media, Natural Law, The State, The West

I’m pleased Bill O’Reilly is targeting the left-liberal governor of Washington State. Seldom do I identify with any of the causes BO champions, other than his offensive against sanctuary cities and criminal aliens. I appreciate his passion over those issues. For the rest, he might as well be speaking Greek.

(I’ve noticed BO’s “theories” about Big Bad Oil have taken a back seat of late since market forces combined with an induced recession to render gas prices at an all-time low.)

I also defended BO effectively when he took the unpopular stance of personal responsibility with respect to Shawn Hornbeck.

But notice that BO always argues from the stance of the positive law. There is no such thing as natural justice in his universe, although his righteous anger about crime, by illegals or others, comes close.

In the case at hand, the odious Governor Gregoire sanctioned an atheist diatribe alongside the traditional holiday display of the Nativity scene in the state capitol building. BO defends Christmas on the grounds that it’s a federal holiday. Logical consistency, then, compels him to defend every foul federal holiday, including Martin Luther King’s dedicated day. (I’m sure there are other more ludicrous that the last.)

Since nobody notices how poorly written his columns are, no one will be the wiser about BO’s poorly constructed arguments. (Except those who read this space.) However, his fans would do well to think through how deficient BO’s argument against Gregoire really is.

Think about it: if Christmas were not a public holiday, would the vile, rude display this uncouth woman sanctioned be justified? How do you justify Christmas with reference to this country’s founding faith if you defer to State law that has banished that tradition from the public square?

You can’t! You always come short when you argue from the positive law.

As I’ve written (it’s under Quotables–and you have to attribute), “sometimes the law of the State coincides with the natural law. More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.”

How much legislation? A lot:

We labor under over 56,009 pages of laws in the U.S. Code; 134,488 pages of regulatory laws in the Code of Federal Regulation, and more than 68,107 pages of laws in the Federal Register. There are upwards of 2,756 volumes (and counting) of judicial precedent. Correct me if I’m wrong. (Where is my good friend Jerri Ward when I need her?)

Over and out,
Your consummate natural lawyer

BillO Tosses & Gores Governor Gregoire; So Far So Good (But…)

Christianity, Conservatism, Founding Fathers, Freedom of Religion, Law, Media, Natural Law, The State, The West

I’m pleased Bill O’Reilly is targeting the left-liberal governor of Washington State. Seldom do I identify with any of the causes BO champions, other than his offensive against sanctuary cities and criminal aliens. I appreciate his passion over those issues. For the rest, he might as well be speaking Greek.

(I’ve noticed BO’s “theories” about Big Bad Oil have taken a back seat of late since market forces combined with an induced recession to render gas prices at an all-time low.)

I also defended BO effectively when he took the unpopular stance of personal responsibility with respect to Shawn Hornbeck.

But notice that BO always argues from the stance of the positive law. There is no such thing as natural justice in his universe, although his righteous anger about crime, by illegals or others, comes close.

In the case at hand, the odious Governor Gregoire sanctioned an atheist diatribe alongside the traditional holiday display of the Nativity scene in the state capitol building. BO defends Christmas on the grounds that it’s a federal holiday. Logical consistency, then, compels him to defend every foul federal holiday, including Martin Luther King’s dedicated day. (I’m sure there are other more ludicrous that the last.)

Since nobody notices how poorly written his columns are, no one will be the wiser about BO’s poorly constructed arguments. (Except those who read this space.) However, his fans would do well to think through how deficient BO’s argument against Gregoire really is.

Think about it: if Christmas were not a public holiday, would the vile, rude display this uncouth woman sanctioned be justified? How do you justify Christmas with reference to this country’s founding faith if you defer to State law that has banished that tradition from the public square?

You can’t! You always come short when you argue from the positive law.

As I’ve written (it’s under Quotables–and you have to attribute), “sometimes the law of the State coincides with the natural law. More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.”

How much legislation? A lot:

We labor under over 56,009 pages of laws in the U.S. Code; 134,488 pages of regulatory laws in the Code of Federal Regulation, and more than 68,107 pages of laws in the Federal Register. There are upwards of 2,756 volumes (and counting) of judicial precedent. Correct me if I’m wrong. (Where is my good friend Jerri Ward when I need her?)

Over and out,
Your consummate natural lawyer