Regarding the new Bush Administration tax cutting stimulus package, professor George Reisman warns,

Today, we have a credit crisis emanating from the collapse of the real estate bubble that the Fed launched in order to cope with the effects of the collapse of the stock market bubble that it had launched only a few years earlier. Now, in order to cope with the effects of the collapse of the real estate bubble, the government and the Fed are looking for yet another program of monetary "stimulus." This time it's to be in the form of cutting taxes while financing an undiminished, indeed, an increased amount of government spending by means of the creation of still more new and additional money.

Little surprise right? This is Compassionate Conservatism at its best: compassionately cut taxes to ease the very economic crisis their Keynesian tricks caused, only to increase the national debt, raising the inflation rate (by printing and circulating these unbacked - by gold - dollars), and ultimately crushing us with the debt, but more especially with the interest, both of which ultimately must be paid back.

When in doubt about all this, remember what J. Reuben Clark Jr., warned years ago: "interest never sleeps."

Read: A Creditors' Protection Bill - Mises Institute

The Liberty Letters are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Liberty Counsel. Long Beach, CA – The Long Beach District School Board has approved a
settlement agreement with Christopher Rand, a high school student who
was denied credit for community service hours he completed at his
church. Chris has now received full credit for the hours. The district
administration also rewrote its community service learning policy to
allow students to complete mandatory community service hours at either
secular or religious organizations, including churches, on the same
terms.

In October 2007, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the
district because Chris’s school refused to grant credit for more than
70 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at Long
Beach Alliance Church. He interacted with the children in the church’s
programs, answered questions, assisted with crafts and art projects,
supervised activity time to help ensure safety, and performed other
duties.

After Chris submitted the required documentation regarding his
volunteer service, he was denied credit because the district’s prior
community service learning policy stated, “Service to your religious
community does not count.” If Christopher had given the same service in
a secular school or in a nonreligious childcare program, his service
would have been credited. Shortly after Liberty Counsel filed suit, the
district agreed to award Chris credit for the full 72.5 hours that had
previously been rejected.

In addition to giving Chris credit for his community service, the
district accepted input from Liberty Counsel in revising its policy to
comply with the First Amendment. Under the new policy, religious
organizations will receive the same treatment as other nonprofit
organizations in terms of the types of community service work that is
permitted. Students are expressly allowed to supervise and assist with
leading organized children’s activities, such as those performed by
Chris. The district also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs to
Liberty Counsel.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty
University School of Law, commented: “When community service is a
graduation requirement, schools cannot limit service to secular venues.
Discrimination against performing community service for religious
organizations violates the First Amendment and offends the rich
religious heritage that made this country great.”

Used with permission of Liberty Counsel

The Liberty Letters are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

U.S. News & World Report, which has made a name for itself by ranking and announcing the best colleges every year, is now ranking and listing the best careers for young people. A comparison of the latest lists shows a shocking disconnect and makes for dispiriting holiday reading.

While the price of a college education has skyrocketed far faster than inflation, many careers for which colleges prepare their graduates are disappearing. U.S. News' Best Careers guide concludes that "college grads might want to consider blue-collar careers" because bachelor's degree holders "are having trouble finding jobs that require college-graduate skills."

Incredibly, U.S. News is telling college graduates to look for jobs that do not require a college diploma. Among the 31 best opportunities for 2008 are the careers of firefighter, hairstylist, cosmetologist, locksmith, and security system technician.

Where did the higher-skill jobs go? Both large and small companies are "quietly increasing off-shoring efforts."

Ten years ago we were told we really didn't need manufacturing because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, that auto workers and others should move to information age jobs. But now the information jobs are moving offshore, too, as well as marketing research and even many varieties of innovation.

The flight overseas includes professional as well as low-wage jobs, with engineering jobs offshored to India and China. Thousands of bright Asian engineers are willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages, which is why Boeing just signed a 10-year, $1-billion-a-year deal with a government-run company in India.

Society has been telling high school students that college is the ticket to get a life, and politicians are pandering to parents' desire for their children to be better educated and so have a higher standard of living. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., wants the taxpayers to guarantee every kid a college education, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says more education is the means for Americans to compete in a global economy.

But it doesn't make sense for parents to mortgage their homes, or for students to saddle themselves with long-term debt, in order to pay overpriced college tuition to prepare for jobs that no longer exist. Tuition at public universities has risen an unprecedented 51 percent over the past five years.

President George W. Bush calls the loss of U.S. jobs "the pinch some of you folks are feeling." I guess his words are designed to show his "compassionate conservatism," but the reality is far more than a pinch.

U.S. News offers this advice for the nerds who still spend five to six years earning an engineering degree despite increasingly grim prospects of a well-paid engineering career: "Look for government work." Or maybe you can be an "off-shoring manager" and be part of the process of shipping your fellow graduates' jobs overseas.

A Duke University spokesman said that 40 percent of Duke's engineering graduates cannot get engineering jobs. A Duke University publication suggests that the best prospect for good engineering jobs is for the U.S. government to start another major project like going to the moon.

U.S. News warns us that "government is becoming an employer of choice." Corporations are getting leaner, but government can continue to pay good salaries, with lots of vacation days, sick leave, health insurance and retirement benefits, because government rakes in more tax revenue in good times and can raise taxes in bad times; and if the Democrats win in 2008, we can expect government to expand even more.

Presidential candidates have gotten the message from grass-roots Americans that we want our borders closed to illegal immigrants. Headlines now proclaim "Immigration Moves to Front and Center of GOP Race" and "GOP Candidates Hold Fast on Immigration at Debate."

But Republican Party candidates haven't yet gotten the message that jobs are just as big a gut issue as immigration. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey conducted Dec. 14-17 reports that, by 58 percent to 28 percent, Americans believe globalization is bad because it subjects U.S. companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.

Where are the limited-government fiscal-conservatives when we need them to refute the notion that the best an engineering graduate can hope for is a job with the government? Are fiscal-conservatives too busy chanting the failed mantra of "free trade" even though it has resulted in millions of good U.S. jobs being shipped overseas?

When are we going to call a halt to the way globalism is destroying U.S. jobs by foreign currency manipulation, theft of our intellectual property, shipping us poisonous seafood and toys, and unfair trade agreements that allow foreign subsidies (through the so-called Value Added Tax) to massively discriminate against U.S. producers and workers?

Used with permission.

The Liberty Letters are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism, and are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell and friends.  Support these projects with your purchase of Steve's highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose."

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Phyllis Schlafly

My friends - No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. With the assistance of that Divine Being, who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him, who can go with me, and remain with you and be ever where for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. - President Elect Lincoln's Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861

Gratitude, grief, humility, faith, trust, interdependence, love. It is all there. A sublime and inspiring bit of prose, from the President Elect of the United States. The sort of mastery of words and humility before a Higher power that guided our nation through civil war, inspiring us then and now to carry on, and do what needs to be done, regardless of the test, trial, or tribulation..

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism. Please help support both of thee worthy projects by getting your copy of Steve's highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose." Click here to read the reviews.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul received a sympathetic ear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Leno told Paul on Monday night’s show: “I’m trying to figure out why Fox News chose not to put you on.”

“You know, we tried to find that out,” Paul replied. “But they didn’t return our call."

And you know, we at Liberty Letters can't help but notice that Ron Paul received ten percent of the vote in Iowa, broke all records for fund raising in one quarter ($20 million this past quarter) - which shows a huge swell of support; and by contrast establishment guy, Rudy Giuliani, gets 4 percent in Iowa, and is included.

And so we really want to know, does Fox News really believe in the democratic process? Should any conservative still tune in to a network that pretends to appeal to their values? Is Fox going to re-think its position, and perhaps follow Mitt Romney's example of humility and say, flat out, "I was wrong," before it's too late?

We're all waiting to see. It's only their continued legitimacy and financial well being that is on the line … oh yeah, and our rights and freedoms to elect the candidates of our choice after hearing all of their positions and arguments.

Will Fox News return America's call?
The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Definitions can be important. An important technique of the socialist revolution against religion, morality, and true liberty has been to hijack words and reinvent their definitions to their exact opposites.One example is the word liberalism. In the founding era, liberalism, or as we call it today, classical liberalism, was an outlook on  political science that believed in limited government (thus maximum liberty) on the one hand, tempered by an educated and moral people on the other hand (which can also imply liberality, or fairness, or loving one's neighbor as himself), which hopefully translates into "ordered liberty," or "freedom to do what is right."

And again, freedom to do what is right means the state will stay out of your way in things like your career choices, or how you run your business, or what how you exercise your religion, so long as you don't hurt anyone, or deprive them of their sacred rights in the process. But if you do, then the state has a legitimate interest in looking into the matter, and restraining or punishing you if necessary.

Others would add to this definition by stating, as Joseph Smith did, that "to every kingdom there is a law, and to every law there are certain bounds and conditions."

I like that. For true liberty can only exist where there are certain basic laws in place (with some logical and fair-minded flexibility), otherwise there is anarchy, followed by the rule of the jungle, and after that, complete tyranny as a police state steps in (at the invitation of the victims) to restore order.

Freedom to exist, must have a reasonable set of limits. But beyond these, we are very liberal with man's freedom of choice. That was liberalism. Minimum government, with a few good moral and eternal laws keeping freedom within reasonable bounds, and of course, an educated and moral populace so that those limits will be, for the most part, respected.

Liberalism today, to illustrate my point, is the precise opposite of the original and true definition; that is, maximum government and control on the one hand, and yet absolute freedom in the morality department to do whatever one pleases, that is, as Karl Marx taught, there is no morality, there are no eternal truths, there is no reason or legitimacy in a few fixed laws and bounds, it's all relative, relative to empowering the state. Why? Because what we have is the pincer strategy - pressure from above, and pressure from below. Pressure for centralize power mixed, as government is the answer for everything; and pressure from below because without moral limits cries comes every sort of crime, in ever increasing numbers, which cries for ever increasing intervention from the state. Or as someone once said, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

And yes, here's the kicker, it all backfires on the politically correct immorality grouping of the day, who will with ever centralizing power have their "freedoms" taken by and by with everyone else's. Welcome to Reality 101.

The hijacking, and redefinition of the word "gay" by the left, is another obvious example … and thus what was once a pathology, homosexuality, is now redefined as "normal, happy, healthy," everyone smile … even though the suicide rate among gays is exorbitantly high. It just isn't a happy lifestyle. Never has been.
Another word re-invented by the left to its opposite is discussed in today's National Review Online, by Rich Lowry; it is fascism. Fascism, as this editor has long taught (but which has not been taught in the schools or the media), is but a form of socialism. Indeed, Lenin's NEP was fundamentally a fascist model, as was Gorbachev's Peretroika. That is, by way of one example, complete state ownership of the major industries, highly regulated status of the other industries and businesses, and free enterprise for Mama and Papa businesses.

On another level, there was private ownership in those regulated and Mama and Papa industries, but it had aggressive, freedom destroying limits. Publishers could freely compete, but not with a variety of political views (they had to pull the party line), but they could only compete for audiences; e.g. the senior audience, or the youth, or, let's say, manufacturers.

Thus, they had the economic benefits of private ownership and competition, but not freedom of speech as we understand it. Similar examples abound.

Lowry reviews a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism," that exposes the fraud of the conservative right and Christians as fascists. Fascism and communism are sisters of the left. Both are highly centralized liberty destroying variations of the same idea.

Definitions are important.

Read the review: Rich Lowry on Liberal Fascism on National Review Online

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

A registrar in England is refusing to perform gay weddings because they violate her conscience and deeply held religious convictions. She is taking her local council to court over the matter. The secular approach is a very invasive one which insists that simply being “offended” is grounds for all kinds of lawsuits. And while we at Liberty Letters find the secular legal outlook that protects the favored minority of the moment from being "offended" by another man's views, a dangerous assault on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Yet, we wonder why it is that these freedom loving individuals won't extend the same protections against "being offended" to Christians around the world? Can't they see that this movement they've attached themselves to is not about freedom, but statist control? Not about protecting private moral decisions, but vigorously assaulting that moral order, the Judeo-Christian ethic, that stands in the way of political revolution?

Read the story in the UK's Daily Mail.

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell and friends; and are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

A Liberty Letters wacko environmentalism moment courtesy of IVA:

Ø Unfortunately for environmental alarmists, there has been no global warming now for almost a full decade, even though carbon dioxide concentrations are up about 4% since 1998. In fact, the southern hemisphere last year experienced one of its coldest winters on record, with record low temperatures and widespread frost and snow. It snowed in Buenos Aires for the first time in 89 years, and in Johannesburg for the first time in 25 years, while Chile suffered losses of $200 million in agriculture because of the tough winter. Even New Hampshire set a record for December snowfall, breaking a mark that had stood since 1876. (Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe)

Ø As you have been warned in this space, environmental authorities
in Britain are now calling for the evacuation of any room in which a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) breaks, because of its mercury content. The UK Environment Agency insists that debris not be removed
with a vacuum cleaner, but rather must be handled with rubber gloves, sealed in a plastic bag, and taken to official recycling sites. Good luck with that. (WorldNetDaily: Warning: Vacate room when CFL bulb breaks)

A Liberty Letters PS.: The environmental movement is not about protecting the environment, but about promoting the state, especially a future socialist state under the United Nations where your views about the environment, if you have any, will be relegated to "Who cares!" The best check on pollution is free enterprise coupled with the old legal approach of only going to the law, and that the traditional court system, when your back yard, your water supply, your whatever has been tainted by negligence or design. This with a removal of case law, making each issue to be handled by a case by case basis; and add to this, environmental law drafted, legislated, controlled and thus accountable to local voices, is the better, more inspired policy. There may be occasional exceptions to such an approach; but under the Jeffersonian approach to such exceptions, they must always and forever be treated as exceptions, with the general law still in force.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

When it comes to "limited government" as defined by the Founding Fathers, Liberty Letters sides with the inspired electoral college process created in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one which rather than making for a pure democracy (or something like unto it) gave us representative government - but more than that: mixed forms for representation coupled with a variety of checks and balances that prevented power from concentrating, as well as providing a check on passionate and frequent overthrows of the law. Change was not to be impossible when desirable, but only after a deliberate process of debate, reasoning, and separation of time from any supposed crisis (outside of war). The Electoral College system set up for electing Presidents of the United States is part of that inspiration.

The Idaho Values Alliance, the Idaho Affiliate of American Family Association notes today:

Not too many people are happy with the current proess of selecting presidential nominees – too long, too expensive, too confusing. The simplest solution would be to go back to the system envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. According to the Founders, what this season should be about is not electing a president but electing the people who will elect a president.

 

 

As Article II of the Constitution says, Election Day is not the day to choose a president but rather the “Time of chusing (sic) the Electors.” This is a reflection of the often-forgotten historical truth that the Founders created a republic, not a democracy, when they established the government of the United States.

 

 

The Electoral College was designed by the Founders to consist of those people that the voters of each state have chosen, on the first Tuesday in November, to actually select the next president of the United States.

 

 

We should not, at this stage of the process, be hearing from presidential candidates but rather from candidates for the position of Elector.

 

We should be hearing from Idahoans seeking to convince us, by the criteria they will use in casting their votes, that they can be trusted to pick a president on our behalf.

 

 

The system is designed to work in such a way, according to Article II and the 12th Amendment, that we would not know who our next president is until the sealed Certificates listing the votes of every Elector from every state are opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C.

 

 

Then, if no one candidate received a majority of the votes, the House of Representatives would choose the next president from the top five vote getters in the Electoral College.

 

Bottom line: if we’re disenchanted with the current process, there’s no reason not to go back to the Constitution and do it the way we’re supposed to.

We agree, but add: An additional step to true election reform would be to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, which amendment called for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, rather than by the Founder's method, which was the election of Senators by their state legislatures - a radical departure. The Founder's formula sought to provide a vital check against the concentration of power on the national level, provide a balance of power between the states as well (by giving every state, large or small, two Senators directly responsible to their respective state governments and interests), and also a check against socialistic schemes for the forced redistribution of the wealth which they were sure would arise in the more democratic house (and thus this was a check on the dangers of pure democracy). And to coincide with these, election of Senators by their state legislatures was supposed to provide for more statesmanship, more independent thought, more sense of history, more sense of moral maturity, for the thought was that by in large these Senators - thus elected - would be the tried and tested senior statesmen from each state.

When one really considers what the Founder's did, and what later generations undid with the 17th Amendment, we are also led to exclaim, "If only we were to repeal and return, here would be true campaign-finance reform!" For it would mean, in large part, an end to millions of dollars from corporations and other private interest groups flowing into election campaign coffers for senatorial and presidential elections. Only in the House would the problem continue to be the problem we have today …  just as the Founders predicted and wanted. It was the House that represented directly the passions, whims, and or legitimate concerns of the people, and yes, groups of people (associations). There they would be aired in either their glory or shame … but they would be aired … and then hopefully, even if some of the more shameful measures made it through, then in the Senate, a more mature legislative body, representing a different constituency would provide the balance, checking the bad, and only concurring with the good.

Powered by ScribeFire. Quotation used with the permission of our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

It doesn't get worse than this - the grassroots candidate that raised $20 million this quarter, more than the next closet Republican in the field by $9 million, has been snubbed from their debates this upcoming weekend.

Liberty Letters suggests that you email Fox News and respectfully voice your disappointment, even outrage. Tell them that you believe in free elections, free speech, and the democratic process, and that you thought they did too.

Just what are they afraid of when it comes to Ron Paul? Read the story here: Newsmax.com - Ron Paul Furious over Fox Debate Snub

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell