MORE THUGGERY AT POLITICAL EVENT

"Supporters of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul wrestled a liberal protester to the ground and stomped her head against a sidewalk.

Lauren Valle, of the progressive group MoveOn.org, was wearing a wig and planned to present the Tea Party-backed candidate with a fake award prior to a debate with Democratic candidate Jack Conway Monday night in Lexington, Ky.

Television footage shows Valle's blonde wig being pulled off before she's pinned to the ground. A man then puts his foot down on her head a couple times and presses down on her.

Valle said the incident left her with "a bit of headache" but the incident did not require any extra medical attention. Paul's campaign released a statement calling the altercation "incredibly unfortunate" and expressed relief that Valle was not injured.

Police said they were not aware of any arrests."
ABC

I haven't seen any reporting on what the actual cause of this was but really, do we need to go to swinging all the time. Unless the woman threatened someone and looked ready to act what possible reason could there be for this?

It'll be interesting to see how law enforcement and the prosecutor react to this after the non reaction to the Kenneth Gladney beating in St. Louis last year by SEIU thugs.

POPE AGREES THAT STATES HAVE RIGHT TO DEFEND BORDERS

"States must treat migrants with dignity but have the right to regulate immigration and defend their borders, Pope Benedict XVI said on Tuesday.

The pope made his comments in his message for the Roman Catholic Church’s World Day of Migrants and Refugees, touching on a subject that has caused tensions between the church and governments in European countries, including France and Italy.

He said everyone had the right to leave home to seek better conditions of life in another country.

”At the same time, states have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person,” he said.

He said immigrants had the duty to integrate into their host countries and respect their laws and national identities."
New York Times

Once again the Church walks the middle path. No honest person would say that if they were placed in the shoes of the Mexican that crosses the border illegally that they wouldn't do the same thing if it meant the survival of their family. That doesn't make it right. Countries have not only the right but the responsibility to make sure their borders are secured. Especially today, with the terrorist threat flowing from Islamic radicals, we must know who is coming in and going out and why.

We also need to understand that while, as people, but particularly as people of faith we have a responsibility to help the poor, we also have a right and responsibility to defend ourselves and our families and that right takes precedence. As the economy slips further into depression and the jobless rate grows in America, can we allow the Mexicans to come across and take jobs, often at slave wages, away from members of our American family that need them? I say no!

So we must treat the illegals humanely; that goes without saying. But we also must realize that turning them away is not an inhumane act in and of itself. We have to regulate our borders or we will see our sovereignty disappear, and our way of life along with it.

THOSE VOICES DON'T SPEAK FOR US

Thanks George and Barb (not Bush)

A Republican organization put this together so it's accusations are directed towards the Democrats, the major Progressive party, and they deserve all that is suggested. However, the lesser Progressive party, the Republicans, need to look in a mirror. They've been party to this great theft of our liberties, working alongside the Democrats every step of the way.

This election is the turning point. And not because the Republicans will likely gain back some control. No, the eyes of the nation are focused firmly and resolutely on the actions taken by the Republicans after the elections. If it's business as usual with more big government and bailouts of the bankers and corporate interests there will be revolution. Hopefully not the kind with guns and violence but honestly, I don't know what other options may be left. We can hope to continue to elect more and more to positions of power that actually believe in limited government and over time maybe we can slow and then stop the growth. The problem, though, is time.

We are hearing the last, gasping breaths of our republic as our birthright is sold to the highest bidder. As the fed begins to print more money next week, further debasing our already battered currency, investment will flee from our shores, making our already monumental debt impossible to service, forcing the once great American powerhouse to quiver and shake, begging for relief from our enemies.

We're at the end. The only way out will be so painful that no politician will be able to fix it. This will require leadership of an epic nature and courage and I don't see anyone of that caliber on the horizon, Republican, Democrat or independent.

In short, the coming election will change nothing. Batten down the hatches and get ready for the storm.

And pray.

FOOD FOR FUEL

"The U.S. will pay farmers to produce non-food crops that can be converted to fuels for planes, cars and power plants to reduce reliance on imported oil and boost rural economies, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said today.

The Agriculture Department will resume payments to farmers under the 2008 Biomass Crop Assistance Program for eligible perennial crops and work with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop aviation fuels from farm wastes, Vilsack said today at the National Press Club."
Bloomberg

Absolutely freaking brilliant. We're facing the very real possibility of a global food shortage and what do our overlords in Washington do? They incentivize farmers, using our money, to grow corn and other crops for fuel instead of food. Absolutely brilliant!

Here's an idea; call me crazy if you want. Get the federal government out of farming!!! Completely and totally. No more subsidies or directives. No more Dept. of Agriculture. Nothing. Let the farmers deal with their states and communities. Forget about feeding the world and concentrate on feeding their families and communities. Let the farmer decide what to plant based on demand, experience and best practices.

If the states want to set up a government agency to help farmers to be as efficient as possible and to maybe help to think in terms of long range goals for the state, fine. That's perfectly within the powers of the states. That and the states should have a much better feel for the needs and problems of the local farmers.

But get the fed out of the farming business. Otherwise we're going to end up with plenty of fuel to fly the airplanes but no passengers to put in them because we'll have all starved to death.

If the fed is so concerned about energy then forget ethanol and think nuclear. Proven, efficient technology that will not use our food to run it.

WALMART AND GLOBAL DOMINATION

Go to Business Insider and read 16 facts About Walmart that Will Blow your Mind.

I don't want to pick on Walmart because I know they've provided a lot of jobs. We shop there all the time because, for many items, we don't have much of a choice. All that aside there's one thing about Walmart that really bothers me. This company has become so large, so powerful and in may ways so necessary that if it were to fail it could take the world economy with it. And that's the problem with unhindered free markets and the Objectivist view of the world. When any company becomes as large as Walmart the free market disappears in relation to it.

Tell me that Walmart cannot influence governments to act in its interests. Tell me it cannot encourage behavior by its suppliers that would be detrimental to its competitors. Who's to stop it? Certainly not the U.S. government or any of its regulators. With this fragile economy America can't afford to piss off Walmart.

The only way to protect the free market is to limit the size and power of any given company. This isn't to say that a guy that has an idea, risks it all and succeeds shouldn't get rich. There has to be a reason to risk because without risk there is no advancement. But no one or company should be able to control the market or the political system to such an extent that they can destroy the freedom of others. George Soros comes to mind but it could just as easily be someone from the right. And Walmart is the easiest example of a corporation with the same kind of power, maybe even more.

We've gone beyond the point where much can be done about it but, after the collapse, maybe while we're putting things back together we may want to consider just how much of any given market any company should be allowed to control. I mean, how is Walmart different than the phone company? Busting up Ma Bell may have caused some short term problems but it sure allowed for a whole bunch of competition and innovation in communications.

True free markets require small businesses with as much free enterprise as possible for as many as are willing to take a risk. Huge multinational corporations are the polar opposite of freedom.

The article excerpted below, an interview with author Christopher A. Ferrara, is well worth the read. Click on the link at the end.

"Those “traditionalists” who equate Socialism and Distributism have no idea what Distributism is or else are presenting it dishonestly. I am amazed at the level of obfuscation that has surrounded this simple matter. Distributism means simply the widest possible ownership of private property—that is, widely distributed ownership, hence Distributism.
Distributism means a society of small owners, which is what the whole pre-Socialist Western world was under Catholic social order. It means as much free enterprise as possible for the common man. As Chesterton put it so brilliantly: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

Carping “traditionalist” critics of Distributism spend a lot of time rooting about in the works of particular distributist sources, such as the writings of Penty, in order to find evidence of the spectre of socialism—the same bugaboo liberals always raise to herd the masses into the concentration camp of rampant economic liberalism, where Wal-Mart with its Chinese wage slaves is portrayed as a bulwark of human liberty.

But in principle, Distributism is the polar of opposite of Socialism. Nothing about Distributism involves government seizure of anybody’s property. On the contrary, Distributists seek drastic reduction in the power of government precisely because Big Government has always favored Big Business and helped it to crush the small owner in a thousand different ways. As government recedes, and with it the massive advantages of Big Business over its small competitors, small ownership would return naturally.

Capitalism, as I show in the book, is not even at the midpoint between the two poles of Distributism and Socialism, but has actually evolved Leftward into a privatized socialism—Big Business in league with Big Government and Big Finance all over the world. Exhibit A: Bill Gates, promoter of socialism. Exhibit B: Warren Buffet, promoter of socialism. Exhibit C: Wal-Mart, which urges its employees to rely on government-subsidized health care. Exhibit D: The entire capitalist-created network of fractional reserve banking, which goes back centuries, was invented by financial “entrepreneurs” and is now protected by government at the behest of Big Finance. Exhibit E: Limited liability, publicly held, multinational mega-corporations, which are purely the inventions of government saddled to capitalist interests. Pius XI specifically condemned the innumerable abuses arising from this legal invention in Quadragesimo anno.

Anyone who thinks that Wal-Mart and its communist government-subsidized legions of wage slaves in China, or any of the other globe-spanning corporate megaliths that free-ride on government privileges and outsource labor, represents “free enterprise” versus evil Distributism needs to acquaint himself with the Church’s social teaching immediately.

Why do certain “traditionalists” oppose Catholic social teaching? For the same reason I once might have: They do not understand that they are bourgeois liberals who merely think they are “conservatives.” They have accepted the false dichotomy by which Liberalism has overtaken and overthrown all that remained of Christocentric social order: “freedom” or “socialism.”

To read more go to The Distributist Review.

70% OF STOCK TRADES HELD FOR 11 SECONDS

As I was asking yesterday, are you really comfortable with your money in the stock market when it's nothing more than a rigged game?

"The fact that the vast majority of stock market trades are held for 11 seconds shows that the stock market is not a real market with real traders governed by the law of supply and demand, and with no real price discovery."

Go to Washington's Blog to read more.

SUBSIDIARITY AND THE TEA PARTIES

The Catholic Knight had an article today about the need for Catholics to become more involved in the TEA Party movement, and he's right. He suggested, and I think this is brilliant, that Catholics should carry a large sign with the single word "subsidiarity" in bold letters and that we should stand with rosary in hand at the rallies. This would attract people curious about the meaning of the word to us, offering an opportunity to explain authentic Catholic social teaching.

Subsidiarity is central to the role of government in Catholic social teaching. The idea that power should be concentrated at the lowest possible levels, only to move up when a solution can't be found is both logical, sensible and Biblical (Matthew 18: 15-17), which should appeal to our Protestant friends.

Below I've reproduced a section from the Catechism that explains the idea of subsidiarity. For further reading on this topic and Catholic social teaching in general may I suggest The Distributist Review.

1882
Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883
Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884
God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

COLORADO PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE

Blunt, brutal and exactly right on the money. The more the pro-life believers get in the face of the pro-deathers the faster we can get Roe v. Wade overturned. Lovely video!