There has been a renaissance in the reading of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in the past year and there deserves to be one for The Law as well.  And unlike Rand’s thousand-plus pages, Bastiat’s work is only 58 pages in the Foundation for Economic Education’s 2007 printing.

Bastiat is classified as an economic writer because his main topic is economic liberty.  But in his defense of economic liberty he finds that the main threat is government and it’s application of the law.  It’s brilliant, really: writing just after the 1848 revolution in France, Bastiat nails the socialists to a “T”.  He could be writing about the Progressives of today.

His defense of liberty is absolute and clearly in line with the social contract theory of Locke that the Founders built into the Constitution.  Government’s sole purpose is the defense of our God-given liberties.  It is justified in taking our money only for that purpose; everything else is legalized plunder designed to reward the followers of the party in power.  Does any of this sound familiar?

Utopians are simply socialists who think they are smarter than the rest of us and therefore have the right to make laws to control us and to mold us into the kind of people they think we ought to become.  Socialists are simply communist-lite.  As various factions fight for power, they court the voter with one face only to change face immediately upon gaining that power.  Each faction in turn rewards its followers and punishes its enemies.  The law is not absolute–it is a weapon to be wielded against one’s opponents.

I have heard some on the left say that our Constitution is outdated because it was written in the 18th century, borrowing on 17th century ideas and designed for a pre-industrial society.  Here is my answer: Bastiat writes in the middle of the 19th century during the Industrial revolution and in the middle of the rise of socialism.  The critique of socialism proves liberty still prevails.  In today’s post-industrial society it is socialism that has become obsolete.

Outside of the Declaration of Independence you could not ask for a better defense of Liberty.

Frederick Bastiat, The Law, Foundation for Economic Education, 2007.

I just finished reading Sarah Palin’s autobiography.  The whole book–not just Chapter 1 as Deborah J. Saunders, who wrote a dismissive review on Townhall last week, obviously did.   Not just the juicy campaign parts that the media immediately pounced on.  As Sarah herself might say, the whole kit and caboodle.

I’ll give you my appraisal up front: it’s a great book.   I’d read her biography by Kaylene Johnson last year so I already had a good idea of who the real Sarah Palin is.  Palin’s book is about 400 pages and the first half mirrored in greater depth the events of Sarah’s life before she burst on the national stage in August 2008.

The second half deals with the vice presidential campaign, the events up to her resignation from the governorship and the writing of the book itself.  The campaign parts are fascinating to someone who’s never been on the inside of a political campaign but who did watch the events of 2008 unfold.  It is very honest, complimentary to many and not so much to others.  She doesn’t give herself a pass either.  It’s been written that she plays the victim. I didn’t read it that way at all.

I can’t help but contrast this biography with those of Barack Obama.   She didn’t have a ghost-writer and she sticks to the facts.  That’s a big difference between the conservative mindset with an emphasis on facts and rationality and the liberal one with an emphasis on feelings and where the truth is relative.

I would also say that this is an important book.  Read it and reflect on it.  If, when you finish reading this book, you still don’t understand or agree with Sarah Palin, then you don’t really understand or agree with the ideal of America.   She’s as American as apple pie: a strong faith and a belief in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and the unlimited potential of the American people.

I had read about this book last fall when it was first released and, reading about it again recently, finally bought it and read it.  I am certainly glad I did.

von Campe was forced to join the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) as an adolescent.  Not a Nazi, he nevertheless fought what he believed was a patriotic war for Germany.  After the war he came to realize the enormity of the crimes perpetrated by the German people in the name of National Socialism–and how the National Socialist Party fooled the German people into going along with it.

He became–in his words–a true Christian and joined movements for peace and reconciliation.  He worked for them for over twenty years before becoming an entrepreneur and factory owner in Mexico; now he lives in the United States.   Reading his background, one could easily believe he became a “peacenik” or some kind of radical anti-war leftist of the Code Pink variety.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

And truth is his main theme.  He faced the brutal truth of his and his country’s Nazi past.  He understands the truth of Marxist socialism as well and tells us how it is simply a variety of the same totalitarianism that motivated the Nazis.  The same for radical Islam.  All are equivalent forms of totalitarianism: what Mark Levin has called “statism;” the elevation of the state over the individual.

He believes that America today is moving in the direction of totalitarianism and he shows us how and why.  It is a sobering analysis.  What can overcome this march toward socialism?  According to von Campe: only truth, embodied in moral renewal, and our love of freedom.

“You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

Very highly recommended.

I think it is quite fitting to review this book on Halloween: it is a very frightening book.  The long subtitle pretty much tells you what the book is about.  Sequentially, the authors introduce you to George Soros, his methods and his relationship with Hillary Clinton.

Then they begin to describe his philosophy–the reasoning behind his hatred for all things American–and how he uses his vast wealth to bring about regime change.  This part answers a question I’ve always had: why does someone who has benefited from the freedom and opportunity of the capitalist system in the USA seek to destroy it?  It is a complex answer and Horowitz and Poe do a good job in explaining it using Soros’ own writings and speeches.

Finally, they show how Soros uses the networks he has set up to destroy regimes.  The last couple of chapters describe regime change attempts in Yugoslavia, Georgia, the Ukraine, and Kyrgystan.  Finally–and most chillingly–the authors hint at how his radical networks are going to attempt regime change in America.

This book was published in 2006.  The regime change he wanted took place in 2008.  This book is a vital link in understanding what happened to our country.  If you’ve watched Glenn Beck piece together the puzzle, you’ve seen the radicals in the White House and the administration; if you read this book you’ll know where they came from.  For a current look at the Shadow Party, David Horowitz maintains the Discover the Networks website.

Absolutely required reading.

A good understanding of Progressivism can be had from American Progressivism, ed by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto.  It’s a collection of the writings of early 20th century Progressives–I’ve briefly reviewed it and highly recommend it.

It seems to me that progressivism is really composed of different strains.  One theme was about making parties and politicians more responsive to the people.  Ideas such as the caucus, the initiative, the referendum, and direct election of senators are progressive ones.  The Constitution is silent on parties (“faction” as they were then known) and these reforms have generally been good.

Another strain believed in progress itself–that society is always improving.  That idea is as American as apple pie.  As it applies to government, however, it begins to diverge.  Progressives thought that if you got the right experts together you could solve any problem.  That’s American, too, isn’t it?

In the free market of ideas it works.  Who’s to say your experts are better than mine?  Competition does.  The market decides who’s got the best mousetrap.  The market is each of us acting in the way we think best.  It’s a familiar economic argument and it works.

James Suroweicki, in The Wisdom of Crowds, goes one step further.  He writes convincingly that the crowd, collectively, is smarter than the experts.  From counting jelly beans in a jar to managing traffic patterns, experts can’t match the inherent wisdom of large groups of people.

The implication for the progressive or socialist theories of government are damning.  The government-appointed “experts” will never come up with the best solution.  Worse, they will use the coercive power of government to enforce that solution.

And as night follows day, there goes liberty.

This book was one of four recommended by Glenn Beck.  It is worth the read.

Pestritto and Atto are university professors who put this book together as a reader for their courses studying the Progressive Era.  We are seeing more modern liberals calling themselves progressives so it is well worth understanding what that means.  Is this just another effort by the left in this country to confuse the debate by changing terms? (Swine flu = H1N1 comes readily to mind these days.)

The bulk of the book is about progressives from the writings of progressives.  Very, very helpful, I think to go back to this original source material.  The book’s introduction and the introduction to each of the articles are also quite useful in setting the stage.  But the bulk of the book is the progressives in their own words.

The writings are divided into eight topical sections and some authors appear in more than one.  We all know about Teddy Roosevelt the Trust Buster and the Rough Rider but here we see TR the Progressive–and I don’t like this side of him nearly as well.  Why is education in this country all messed up?  Read John Dewey’s educational creed: Dewey is almost revered in schools of education today.  Growing up in Wisconsin, I’d heard a lot about Robert LaFollette–all of it positive.  Here I read in his own words what his beliefs were.

So is a modern liberal a progressive?  Could be.  Progressivism–if I can generalize in a few words–is a form of socialism with a uniquely American belief in progress for the betterment of mankind.  TR says he’s not a socialist.  Oddly, most of the progressive agenda was passed a long time ago and virtually no one today would argue with such things as child labor laws or the initiative and referendum.

But in my view, most of these modern liberals are downright statists of the democratic socialist or Marxist variety.  Yeah, they’re just trying to look better by changing the terms of the debate.  Read this and find out the truth for yourself.

It’s one of those books that is quite timely: read it now or forget it, it will be out-of-date.  Picked it up at Costco and started it almost immediately.  It had gone to press in April; so far, as of September, the predictions are holding true.

I finished it on the plane to DC on 9/10 and left it with my host Ken.  If you listen to Dick Morris at all, the style and substance is familiar.  He has some amazing in-depth information about the corruption of some of the long-time politicians now running Congress and thus the re-defining of America agenda.  None of it makes me feel good about what’s happening in Washington.

The art of the book is in putting it all together, not so much in research.  There’s very little that the student of the political scene hasn’t heard before.   Trouble is, of course, that most ordinary people haven’t been paying attention and so the yhave not heard it before.  And although the Democrats come in for their share of blame, Republicans don’t come off scot-free either.  Any idea what 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole is doing now?  Why, he’s a lobbyist and invited Tom Daschle to join the firm he works for.

It’s just such a shame that we haven’t done anything about all the corruption and cronyism that Catastrophe describes.  But if I sense the mood of the country right, we’re about to.

Hoover was known as “The Engineer” and as much a progressive activist as Roosevelt.  I had no idea.  Many of Roosevelt’s early policies were simply a continuation of Hoover’s.  My parents grew up in the Depression and it was common knowledge among their generation that Roosevelt didn’t get us out of the depression–World War II did.  Yet today, that is all but forgotten.

What also came as a surprise was that not only did Roosevelt not lead us out of the Depression, but he made it worse.  Massive spending, new taxes, soaking the rich, attempts to take over the utility industry.  Any of this sound familiar?

She takes the story to January 1940 when the economy still hasn’t recovered and war in Europe looms.  I get the distinct feeling that Roosevelt may not have gotten that third term if we were not on the brink of war.

Wendel Wilke comes across as a much stronger figure than I thought.  And whatever happened to Hoover after losing the election in 1932?  He doesn’t exactly fade away.

If you want to understand the halcyon days that Hilary and Barack and so many leftists hark back to, this is a must read.  What they are trying to do is succeed where Roosevelt failed, to implement the rest of the socialist/communist/statist/elitist agenda.

Read and be warned.  God help us if they succeed.

It reminds me, of course, of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty as I expect its meant to do.  The first two chapters present opposing pairs: Liberty and Tyranny, Prudence and Progress; I think that from a philosophical perspective they’re the best.   The next four chapters discuss what America was meant to be about: the Founding, the Constitution, Federalism and the Free Market.  This is all good reading and puts you in mind of the ideal of America.

Then Levin discusses the things happening currently that work against those ideals: the Welfare state, Enviro-Statism and immigration.  We’ve been going wrong for a long time.  Self-preservation is really pretty much about America’s place in the world.  The final chapter, A Conservative Manifesto, is fairly short and is actually titled “Epilogue.”  Having gone this far, one has a good idea of what needs to change in order to bring America back to the path the Founders put it on, but Levin summarizes some specific areas and actions that need to be taken.

A really good read: first on the best seller list for a long time and at this writing still #8 on Amazon’s list, on it for almost six months.  Highly recommended.

This is a nice little book for someone who really doesn’t know what conservatism in modern America is all about.  It’s less than ninety pages so you could read it in one two sittings.  He boils conservatism down into four principles and then measures specific issues and candidates against those principles.  A good technique and definitely better than the usual “the other side are a bunch of idiots” argument.  I think he tries too hard to make McCain into a conservative but others might disagree.

It makes you think and that’s always the mark of a book worth reading.