Yes, It Was Ransom

Iran hostage crisis, 1979 -- 52 American hostages from the U

.S. embassy were held for 444 days

By Eddie Howell

Obama promised “hope and change,” and he's brought about quite a bit of change and left many of us hoping for an end to his changes. The change promised by Donald Trump is essentially designed to return our country to a normal condition, rather than let it be destroyed by Hillary Clinton. She would double down on Obama's misguided policies and leave America greatly weaker, poorer, less safe. And less free than we've been since the days of King George III.

Obama's changes have brought about a “new normal” of amazingly large and unwise actions that do not in any way benefit America. In this latest ransom payment (“contingent on release of American detainees”), serious weaknesses in America's dealing with the terrorist nation of Iran are highlighted.

Our 1979 hostages were released when Ronald Reagan took office. To get the hostages freed, the Carter Administration agreed to return frozen Iranian assets of $7.9 billion, and made several other concessions. That looked a bit like a ransom. Iran apparently didn't want to negotiate with Reagan. Carter's Secretary of State Warren Christopher negotiated the deal, but Reagan signed the agreement. Carter was detemined to get the crisis ended before his term expired. Possibly Reagan thought the only alternative would be war, and, anyway, he chose to honor his predecessor's agreement. 

Subsequent events events should have been sufficient to void the agreement before now. Serious sanctions have been placed against Iran in the years since the hostage crisis. The sending of an airplane loaded with $400 million in cash to Iran was, in my view, extremely unwise and arguably treasonous. Oh, and coinciding with the release of prisoners makes it even more foolish and shameful. Yes, Iran says it was a ransom. They got $400 million to speed up their nuclear project, and increase their terrorist activities. This is supposed to have partly settled a deal from 35 years ago, when America sold Iran weapons, that were never delivered because of the hostage situation. Why should that money ever be paid back? And the $400 million is just the first installment of $1.7 billion to be refunded to Iran. The deal was made before the jihadists came to power. It's not properly the current government's money anyway.

If any other president, particularly if he were a Republican, had a plane loaded with $400 million in cash sent to Iran, whatever the reason given, he would have been endlessly criticized and probably impeached. But the Obama Administration's lame explanations are supposed to satisfy everyone that this was not ransom. If it looks like ransom, sounds like ransom, and smells like ransom, chances are it's ransom. 

As has been observed, the U.S. is now the world's greatest financier of terrorism around the world. The bad behavior of Iran should long ago have caused them to forfeit any agreement to end sanctions or have anything returned to them beyond what the U.S. Congress thought necessary. And this wasn't necessary. It puts Americans everywhere is more danger than they were in previously. Iran has killed lots of Americans. We shouldn't be facilitating our own victimization by terrorists. What next? Getting Iran's “Supreme Leader” to address a joint session of Congress?

With the Clintons, Dishonesty Is Just Part of the Problem

By Eddie Howell

The documentary motion picture “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, based on his book of that name is available for free viewing on YouTube

There's an old one-liner that goes, “I've read so much about the dangers of smoking that I've decided to give up reading.” That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about politics in America these days – I've read so much about the fawning so-called “journalists” who love Hillary, and the lying liberals who seize on every opportunity, real or imagined, to demean Donald Trump, it's just disgusting.

Trump has a very good chance of becoming our next president if the left doesn't assassinate him.

I watched the documentary “Clinton Cash” on YouTube the other day, and I must say, it seemed very factual and well-sourced. I plan to read the book as soon as it arrives at my house from Amazon.

[I also plan to see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary “Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” currently in theaters. It is based on D'Souza's book of the same name.]

Based on the film “Clinton Cash,” and what has been reported over the years about the scandal-a-week Clintons, it seems to me that Hillary is like Al Capone, only on a much larger scale, and probably a lot meaner. She almost makes Capone seem like a philanthropist by comparison.

The scale of Clinton corruption and hypocrisy is breath-taking. By selling influence and virtually inviting bribes, directly, and through their “charitable” foundation, the Clintons have amassed great wealth for themselves and their friends through shady, and often taxpayer-funded, schemes. In Haiti, for example, with Bill representing the United Nations' and Hillary the United States' relief efforts after the devastating earthquake several years ago, great promises of rebuilding were made. Large contracts were awarded to Clinton cronies, but very little helpful rebuilding work was actually done. But the Clintons and their friends made a great deal of money at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, using the people of Haiti, then the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Similarly in Africa and elsewhere, the Clintons have praised and propped up tyrannical dictators in order to get lucrative concessions awarded to their friends, friends who have directly paid them six-figure speaking fees and/or contributed millions to their foundation. And so it goes. As the film points out, they have often back-tracked (flip-flopped) on some of their cherished liberal principles to do some of these deals – things like environmental concerns, human rights abuses, and other issues. As is often said, “follow the money,” and Schweizer and friends have done that and it turns out that many millions of dollars have found their way to the Clintons personally and to their foundation in very questionable circumstances.

The Clintons are adept at saying the right things, but if one observes what they actually do, one must wonder how they get away with these things.

America has seen some rich, profit-making families, but never on this kind of scale, profiting from influence peddling on the basis of past and present government offices held. It is shocking and would be much more so if more people were paying attention.

But dishonest activities are not the only, and not even the main, thing that makes the Clintons a blight on America. Their political agenda is, I believe far more dangerous than their crooked money-making schemes. They are right in step with the globalist elites who are working toward a one-world government that holds tight control over everyone and everything. Agenda 21, anyone? Saul Alinsky?

Their kind of “progressivism” (Hillary's that is, not what President Bill Clinton practiced) threatens doom for the American ideal of liberty. The Bill of Rights would soon be out with the daily trash, starting with the Second Amendment, then the First, and so on, until our “rights” would be defined by a statement of political correctness, in line with what the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, etc., want.

Hillary, as president, would double down on Obama's policy failures (though from the Progressives' standpoint, successes) in health care, taxes, “social justice.” race-baiting, etc. She would continue to push onerous taxes (but ever-greater borrowing), reams of regulations, massive legislation that no one reads, all aiming at total control over the local neighborhoods from police to housing to land use. Their ideal would be a docile, government-dependent population living in small spaces, driving small cars that cannot go far or fast, or, better, no cars, just public transportation. Eventually the majority of people would be on food stamps and in poverty, maybe getting “free college,” but with nothing meaningful to use it for. The elites would be the exceptions, living like the Obamas live now in terms of luxury and a degree of freedom. Eventually, dissidents would be placed in re-education (FEMA?) camps or just eliminated entirely.

All that sounds (and is) extreme, but it would take place over several years and a few generations, little by little, as the government became able to neutralize opposition in order to implement it. At some point, even “elites” who were no longer helpful would be gotten rid of also. These things would happen gradually but methodically. “Progressives” have pursued their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson and before, and history shows that they flirted seriously with fascism and Soviet communism along the way, and have been enamored of collectivism in general, and great executive power in particular. As a present-day example, Obama, often and on many issues, shows his disdain for the government-limiting Constitution, bypassing Congress and ruling by decree.

Conservatives have complained and even sued, but Congress generally has shown little to no inclination to seriously stand up to Obama's usurpations. And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan et al wonder why people are upset with the establishment, including the Republican establishment?

Personally, I say away from the GOP with those Republicans who will vote for Hillary. Their days of GOP influence will soon be over. Trump is not everyone's choice for president, but he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. The fate of the nation is at stake. The next election and the next few years will show whether America is willing to stand up for her principles, and whether Western Civilization is deemed by the people in all Western countries to be worth saving. To the extent that the globalists have their way here and in the West generally, there will be large Muslim population growth, greatly increased terrorism, much more racial strife and the obliteration of America as a sovereign nation. There will be more unconstitutional treaties and regulations, bad trade deals, crime, poverty, and general misery. That's if the globalists win. The Brexit vote and the Donald Trump presidential campaign represent a movement that is probably our last best chance to stop globalism and preserve America as America.

ADDENDUM: HOW THE GLOBALISTS' PLANS MIGHT FIT INTO

END-TIME BIBLE PROPHECY

Some people who might be labeled “conspiracy theorists” have said that the Bible-prophesied Antichrist (“The Beast”) and false prophet of Revelation have appeared already, and they name who they believe it is. I'm not prepared to think that, although things seem to be moving in such a manner, that if left unchecked, it will soon be feasible for these satanic characters to appear. See Revelation, Chapter 13. Consider: Technology is already in place that could be used to implement the “mark of the beast,” insofar as not allowing anyone to buy or sell unless he or she possessed some required physical or electronic “mark” is concerned. Two things pointing toward this are (1) the cashless society – everyone could buy or sell only through a universal banking system, with every transaction recorded, monitored, and fully traceable, and (2) negative interest rates, which would preclude earning anything from savings or checking deposits, with balances gradually and selectively dwindling, so as to reduce or eliminate economic power of account holders. Negative interest rates are currently being used in some places, and the idea of a cashless society is being talked up, and seems to appeal to some people. What's not in place yet is the religious aspect, whereby people will worship the Antichrist, which is what the “mark” would signify. Scripture says that those who refuse to take the mark will be put to death, and those who take the mark can never be saved, but would spend eternity in hell. Our secular-minded world would greatly be deceived into believing the Antichrist's lie. But this is how the Antichrist could come to power – through a one-world government, trying to take control over everyone and everything. Of course, they couldn't do it entirely, but great damage would be done and millions of souls forever lost, and many saved only by giving up their physical lives. Only the return of Jesus Christ will prevent all humanity from being wiped out. But He will return and prevent this total destruction, and set up His righteous kingdom.

Many Christians believe these things will happen soon. It may be fairly soon, or not for a considerable time. One thing certain is that no one knows when Christ will return. When He does, it will be unexpected. Another thing certain is that He will return. Therefore, Christians are advised to be ready.

New Taxes, Anyone?

By Eddie Howell

 The late conservative columnist Robert Novak said that God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes. The GOP has a very mixed record in this regard; their opponents the Democrats have been very consistent in their efforts to increase taxes and spending. Since it's hard for tax revenues to keep up with massive spending programs, stratospheric deficits have resulted, to which both parties have contributed.

Both presidential candidates have spending plans that would strain the deficit, but depending on the makeup of the Congress over the next few years, there could be some restraint applied. Of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton has the most aggressive spending plans, seeking to provide everything liberals could wish for, and maybe even outdo Bernie Sanders' admittedly socialist agenda. Free or nearly free college, more government regulation and enforcement for mandatory benefits for workers (child care, paid family leave, equal pay for equal work), more refugee and other immigration with benefits, plus more military adventures abroad. If you listen to Hillary's speeches, you may note that almost everything she proposes will require more government, more regulation, and much more spending, not to mention more in-your-face and on-your-back government. While supposedly aiming the financial burden at the “rich,” it turns out that the rich are everyone who owns a business, and ultimately anyone who has a job and is currently paying income taxes. But it's true that higher incomes are hit harder as percentages, due to the Buffett Rule.

According to Tax Foundation analysis, Hillary's plan, if enacted would increase tax revenue, and decrease after-tax income across the board, and reduce economic output. In other words, it would lead to a recession. There would be reductions in jobs, wage rates, and capital investment. Not a good prospect for middle-class earners who haven't seen a real raise in years.

Donald Trump's plan calls for significant corporate and individual tax reductions that would stimulate economic growth. According to Tax Foundation analysis for Trump's plan, wages would increase, jobs would increase, and capital investment would increase.

Neither plan looks likely to decrease the national debt, but progress on that can be made only by cutting spending. You can be sure that Hillary's plan will exacerbate the deficit problem more than Trump's. Her plans for more social engineering and massive immigration would preclude any deficit-reducing progress. Spending cuts would be easier to find in a strong economy than in a declining one.

Economically, it's a clear choice: pro-growth with Donald Trump or no-growth (except government) with Hillary Clinton.

Either Freedom or the Establishment: Has It Come to This?

George Soros

By Eddie Howell              (Photos: Wikipedia)


America is scheduled to have a general election in November that is nothing if not momentous. Assuming Obama does not declare martial law and attempt to stay in office, we will elect either a successful businessman, who appears to have repented of some of his establishment beliefs, and wants to “make America great again,” or a relic from the past, Hillary Clinton, whose biggest accomplishment is getting away with serious crimes. Her record in statesmanship consists of a world set aflame, largely through her decisions and ineptness, which seems consistent with her “extreme carelessness” in handling sensitive information. Her proposals promise what I would call “more of the same, only worse,” building on the “achievements” of Barack Obama. Obama's record would be better if he had spent his entire two terms taking vacations and playing golf instead of trying to do anything serious. But he is a member, with George Soros, of the elites of the world, who view ordinary people as beneath contempt and large institutions as their piggy banks and servants.

Hillary, like Obama, has no problem receiving any kind of financial contributions from foreign powers and suspect domestic entities. She will do nothing that Wall Street wouldn't like, or that might slow down dangerous “refugee” immigration. She is for open borders, and would continue Obama's come-one-come-all immigration policies. Whatever decent or constructive impulses she possesses are completely overshadowed by her dangerous and destructive policies. Her support for Planned Parenthood, which was founded with the deliberate aim of wiping out the black population, is just one example of her death-dealing political views. For some others, see the Middle East.

The so-called “Free World” we have enjoyed for lo these many years is in its greatest danger since the Cold War and the beginning of the Iron Curtain. The establishment elites know this and are either orchestrating the trouble or else they are pathologically stupid. My belief is that they are not on the side of liberty, and are deliberately out to destroy what's left of Western civilization as we have known it. Enough billionaires seem to be planning some kind of apocalyptic retreat of safety (maybe even on another planet), that it makes one wonder about their overall state of mind.

The elite trend setters of Hollywood and elsewhere are doing all they can to destroy traditional morality and religion and put the focus on pleasure, government dependency and “free stuff.” Political Correctness exists in order to stifle opposition and try to shame people who might oppose the demonic destruction of the West. Muslims must be protected from “Islamophobia,” homosexuals from “homophobia,” and Christians presented as ignorant bigots and therefore fair game for whatever abuse the elites think they can get away with.

The “populist” anti-establishment movement, exemplified by the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Britain's “Brexit” vote stem from real and valid concerns.

The American Declaration of Independence includes the following statement:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Emphasis added)

 

To “throw off such government” should, ideally, happen through elections. That seems to be the goal of the world populist anti-establishment movement. We'll see where it leads. But there must be some important changes, and fairly soon.

The present U.S. Administration seems to regard the Founding Fathers as radical extremists who should have never encouraged the Revolution. In fact, the Founders were extraordinarily brilliant, talented and courageous men of strong moral fiber and foresight, who were willing to risk everything for liberty. There aren't too many people like that around today.

Benito Mussolini

The liberal elites (“progressives”) have tried and to a considerable extent succeeded in selling the notion that “America” is supposed to provide everyone with all they need, and freedom must be curtailed if it gets in the way of the Progressives' great program, which includes everyone, “for their own good.” Progressivism is simply thinly veiled fascism, a la Mussolini, with a strong dose of Marxism mixed in. Crony “capitalism,” with big corporations colluding with government to wipe out competition and rule the marketplace, is actually the very opposite of a free market economy. The favored few will benefit, at the expense of everyone else. Obama might not be able to destroy our economy entirely in eight years and replace it altogether with fascism, but he is making a lot of “progress.” The end result would be massive poverty, a third world economy, and banana-republic politics. Freedom as we have known it will be a distant memory.

To listen to the misguided speakers (some of whom are well-intentioned) at the Democrat convention is a gut-wrenching experience for anyone who is devoted to the American ideal of freedom. The liberals want to make everything they don't like illegal (guns, for example) and everything they like (free college, for instance) mandatory. The underlying theory, of course, is that people are too stupid to decide things for themselves and must be guided by a faraway firm hand at the top. Any reasonable study of socialism will show that it is not sustainable. Experience shows that eventually the worst people are in charge, and dissenters are put to death. Before that, an economy like Venezuela comes about, and government micromanagement like Communist East Germany is installed. All leftist government flies in the face of American tradition, economic reality, and human freedom. The natural rights of human beings are sacrificed on the altar of dictatorial tyranny.

The top levels of government in the United States are characterized by extreme, widespread cynicism, greed, and lust for power and money. If the entire top echelons of the Executive Branch, and much of Congress and the federal judiciary were to resign and leave America today, it would be a great improvement.

If the anti-establishment forces don't have substantial success in the next few years, we will see Europe overrun by Islamic violence and America in turmoil over terrorism, violent crime, and liberal attempts to take away guns, and to establish mandatory political correctness and shred the Constitution. We are witnessing in these days, if not the emergence of the Antichrist, at least a look at how he is likely to come to power.

Vote as though your vote were the most important of all. It may be one of our last meaningful elections.

Easy Choice: Trump, Not Hillary

Donald Trump

The Donald Trump phenomenon has been useful in bringing to the debate some important issues, issues that have been suppressed in the name of globalism and the New World Order by the elitists. Now that Trump is the GOP's presumptive nominee, having accumulated record numbers of votes, the voices of the candidate and his supporters are being heard. This suggests that many Americans are tired of having their concerns ignored and disagreeable and evil policies thrust upon them by their supposed betters. (Disclosure: I was a Ted Cruz supporter until he dropped out of the race, so I'm a bit late to the Trump train. I like Cruz's outsider perspective and conservatism.)

But Donald Trump is the vote-getter, with an admittedly populist message that deviates from Cruz's conservatism. The GOP can ill afford to ignore the voting results. The voters' concerns ought to be those of the great majority of the GOP constituency, for these concerns have been ignored too long. For Republicans of the #NeverTrump movement, I say this: If you prevail, the US could very well be done in by the Obama-Clinton monstrosity you would allow into office. A third-party run could do that.

Hillary Clinton

There are many reasons for Trump's appeal, among which is that Trump would be a far, far superior president to Hillary Clinton. She represents the continuation of Obama's socialist/fascist attitude that is destroying freedom day by day. She represents those who want “free stuff” with as little individual effort and responsibility as possible. She represents those who want to force upon our nation every kind of sexual immorality and perversion they can. She represents those who want to embrace the Muslim invasion, the illegal immigration, and the anti-Christian attitude. She represents those who literally want to take away all guns from citizens, and has said as much. She represents those who want to anoint climate change as the number one priority when in fact it is an evil hoax designed to empower government and impoverish the citizens. She represents the anti-life agenda of Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. She would pack the Supreme Court with “progressive” (read: socialist) activists who would dismantle the Bill of Rights in the name of “social justice” and judicial supremacy.

Trump has indicated that he would appoint conservative justices to the Court, starting with someone to replace the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia. Hard shoes to fill, but it must not be with an activist liberal.

Trade, one of Trump's core issues, is an area where he will need conservative advice. Tariffs will not help the economy, nor will they bring jobs back. The way to do that is, as much as possible, get government out of the way, promote real free trade, and get out of those awful entangling globalist agreements. Trump wants us out of WTO, NAFTA, TPP, etc., and that's good. If he wants “fair trade,” establish real free trade with the government stepping in only to prevent trade abuses such as dumping below-cost products in America to gain a market foothold.

I think Trump will build the wall he has proposed, and it will be a bargain whether Mexico pays for it or not. Gaining control of our borders is essential to immigration reform and national security. It is not at all unreasonable to place a moratorium on all further immigration pending the repair of our system, and it seems imperative that we prevent the proposed thousands of “refugees” from entering our country. A temporary ban on all Muslim entry into the US is not out of the question. As for the deportation issue, Trump's proposal to deport all illegals certainly is feasible, and makes more sense than Obama's policy of releasing convicted criminal illegals into the population to kill, steal, rape, drive drunk, etc. even further. And the Border Patrol needs to be allowed to do their job. Hillary Clinton, of course, would do none of this. Nor does she have the first clue about how to grow the economy or create jobs. She could only, like Obama, grow government and create more regulations and taxes.

Foreign policy is an area where Mr. Trump would need good advice and help. America First is a good starting point. Based on his foreign policy speech, he seems to be mostly on the right track. He knows it is very important that we rebuild our military, since Obama has been determined to gut it. I believe he would treat our allies better and deal with our adversaries far better than Obama and Clinton have done. Together, they have created the biggest mess in the Middle East in years, with prospects for improvement steadily diminishing. Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and ISIS show their abject failures. Trading high-value terrorist prisoners for an accused Army deserter, and lying to the families of the Americans killed in Benghazi, are two of the most egregious scandals on the Obama-Clinton record. It wouldn't take the world's greatest statesman to do better than this. Trump did not build his business success without getting advice and help from good people along the way. His stress on competence is good, but he also needs some encouragement in downsizing government. I would be optimistic about a Trump Administration, and near despair if it's Clinton or Sanders.

I believe that for Republican leaders and officials who still believe Trump must be stopped at all costs, your days of inflluence in the GOP are likely numbered, just as the anti-Goldwater people seemed to fade from the party after 1964, even though Goldwater lost big. The GOP leaders whose main contribution in recent years has been to fund Obama's agenda and refuse to stand up to him, need to see the light and either change their ways or be shown the door. While Trump certainly would like to unite the party and smooth things over a bit, a Trump Administration will be a rebuke to government incompetence and malfeasance on the part of either party. Hopefully, Trump will see the truth of Reagan's 1981 statement, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Much can be accomplished simply by getting government out of the way and focused on its legitimate functions, which do not include controlling absolutely everything Americans do.

Trump represents the triumph of American nationalism over globalism and the assertion of an “America First” economic and trade policy. Sounds good to me. Even if Trump is a less-than-perfect president (they all are), we can be put on a better track than what we're on now, and begin to see something positive out of government instead of pure negativity. I will be happy to vote for Trump and pray that he wins.

Can Trump Make America Great Again? Doubtful.

Donald Trump

Peter Schiff

By Eddie Howell

Donald Trump has a catchy phrase: “Make America Great Again.” But in every major area that presidential politics must address, serious doubts arise as to foreign policy, domestic policy, and economic policy. If he is to succeed in economic policy (if he becomes president), he will need to rethink what he's been saying about trade policy. As it is, he'd be an improvement over Barack Obama, and be much, much better than Hillary Clinton.

Trump likes the idea of threatening or imposing tariffs on trade partners he regards as unfair to America. Certainly, many improvements can be made in regard to American trade policy, but Trump's plan does not look like the answer.

Fee.org (Foundation for Economic Education) analyzes the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs (1930) in regard to its contribution to the Great Depression, and finds that its negative effects were more profound than many economic historians believe today, and finds fault with their economic models. For instance,

[I]f losses of GNP were not evenly distributed across the economy but were concentrated (say, in export-oriented states), the tariff most likely distorted monetary conditions significantly. Two percent of GNP does not sound like a big change, but if it’s concentrated in one-fifth to one-third of the states, it’s very large indeed. The tariff dramatically lowered U.S. exports, from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.4 billion in 1932, and a large portion of U.S. exports were agricultural; therefore it cannot be assumed that the microeconomic inefficiencies were evenly distributed. Many individual states suffered severe drops in farm incomes due to collapsing export markets arising from foreign retaliation, and it’s no coincidence that rural farm banks in the Midwest and southern states began failing by the thousands.

Donald Trump should understand that the tariffs he has in mind would be counterproductive. Peter Schiff has the following straight-forward analysis of why Trump's tariffs wouldn't work.

I should note that Schiff is predicting a major economic collapse soon, which would render the tariff issue moot. Schiff makes sense on tariffs and lots of other things, but, while there are danger signs, the kind of collapse Schiff predicts seems unlikely in the near future, especially if Obama's regime is replaced by a pro-growth administration. At least we can hope so.

Paul Kivel's Misguided Criticisms of Christianity

By Eddie Howell

At an event called "The 17th Annual White Privilege Conference," activist Paul Kivel's speech blamed Christian beliefs for a whole array of the world's ills, from Middle East trouble to racism. David Limbaugh, writing for Newsmax, easily answers these criticisms, and notes that Kivel reflects the positions of many leftist academics: Anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-conservative, intolerant of dissenting opinions, and focused on identity issues such as race, gender, environmentalism, etc.

David Limbaugh

Leftists have a warped view of capitalism, (the actual enabling system for bringing millions out of poverty and into prosperity), blaming it as a "flawed" system that makes people poorer. This arises from their well-known love affairs with socialism and Keynesianism, which lead to certain failure. If we actually had the "unfettered capitalism" that Pope Francis bemoans, we would have pro-growth, pro-individual policies that give rise to prosperity and liberty. That would be much better than the high level of government control of everything we have now.

Paul Kivel

Limbaugh shows the errors of Kivel's criticisms of Christianity and capitalism. The concern over "white privilege." of course is right in line with the left's ramped-up race baiting, which too many whites are too willing to embrace. I think Limbaugh's brief article should not be missed.





Photos from Yahoo image search. For attributed original sources, moviepictures.org for Kivel and Veritas Evangelical Seminary for Limbaugh, each link resulted in "File Not Found."

Related articles

• Obama: Socialism, Capitalism, Whatever, Just Pick One
• Obama: Capitalism, Communism... Tomato, Tomato