Is the free market morally superior or inferior to other economic systems? If it's morally superior, what makes it so? If it's morally inferior, do we need greater government control of the economy? Walter Williams, renowned Professor of Economics at George Mason University, faces these questions head on and with bracing clarity.
Showing posts with label Free Enterprise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Enterprise. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Dr. Walter Williams - Prager University - Free Market Morality
Is the free market morally superior or inferior to other economic systems? If it's morally superior, what makes it so? If it's morally inferior, do we need greater government control of the economy? Walter Williams, renowned Professor of Economics at George Mason University, faces these questions head on and with bracing clarity.Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Herman Cain - The Greatest Country in the World
The Job Creators Solutions Truth Tour sent Herman Cain to the University of Michigan on Sept. 27 to tell the crowd of students to follow their dreams and help save free enterprise in the greatest nation on Earth. Some in the crowd didn't think they were living in the greatest nation on Earth. Cain brought them a dose of truth.Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Doug Giles - Rowdy Cluckers: The Chick-fil-A Rebellion
Well, the anti-Chick-fil-A thing sort of backfired, now didn’t it? Yep, the rabid gay crowd thought they were going to shut CFA down, but instead their fascist demands that Chick-fil-A’s Presidente Dan Cathy repent of his free speech actually catapulted the fast food chain into record profits. Cha-ching!
I have one word for that homo faux pas of trying to stifle a private company’s free speech, it’s: Ahahaha. Boy, you guys really read the pulse of the American people … Not.
Now, I will give the onerous gay activists this: Aside from the huge boom in ammo sales since Obama was elected, their boycott of Chick-fil-A actually spurred the first definitive economic stimulus of the Obama era. Muchas gracias.
Look, I knew this anti-free speech/chicken sandwich protest was going to go south when frickin’ Rahm Emanuel and Edwin Mah Lee got out in front of it. They represent America about as much as I represent PETA. I kept waiting for Mugatu from Zoolander to pop out and join them by slaughtering live chickens in a Foghorn Leghorn outfit while dancing to “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me” in front of some Chippendale boys. But, alas! It didn’t happen. Who can I sue?
If there’s one thing I know about Americans it’s that they love Chick-fil-A and free speech. I guess that would be two things. And Americans peacefully showing up in the hundreds of thousands last Wednesday to Chick-fil-A restaurants from sea to shining sea showed anyone with a lick of sense that Americans are not quite ready to bow and kiss the ring of a special interest group that wants to mitigate other people’s rights to freedom of expression just because they don’t kowtow to theirs.
Which brings me to this query: What’s up with this BS that we’ve got to agree with someone’s view of gay sex before we can buy or sell chicken sandwiches? When did that edict get passed? We’re damn close to making Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi look like the most rosy, easygoing consommé ladler around.
And finally, how come the gay activists got their national dander up over Chick-fil-A’s exec not being down with Brad and Chad getting engaged, yet I haven’t heard them say diddly squat about their intentions to stage a national “Kiss In” at any American mosque or give the hundreds of black pastors who vehemently oppose gay marriage the same crap they’ve been giving Chick-fil-A. What’s the matter? You’re not scared to take them on, are you? You’re not chicken, are you?
I think this past August 1st is a foretaste of what’s coming this November 6th. It’s all about freedom for all, baby, and you dudes don’t get it. But Americans do. And they showed up in droves and waited in hot lines for hours to demonstrate they will not be bullied.
Check out my latest video: “An Immoral, Lazy and Stupid Church Helps America's Enemies.”
Doug Giles
I have one word for that homo faux pas of trying to stifle a private company’s free speech, it’s: Ahahaha. Boy, you guys really read the pulse of the American people … Not.
Now, I will give the onerous gay activists this: Aside from the huge boom in ammo sales since Obama was elected, their boycott of Chick-fil-A actually spurred the first definitive economic stimulus of the Obama era. Muchas gracias.
Look, I knew this anti-free speech/chicken sandwich protest was going to go south when frickin’ Rahm Emanuel and Edwin Mah Lee got out in front of it. They represent America about as much as I represent PETA. I kept waiting for Mugatu from Zoolander to pop out and join them by slaughtering live chickens in a Foghorn Leghorn outfit while dancing to “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me” in front of some Chippendale boys. But, alas! It didn’t happen. Who can I sue?
If there’s one thing I know about Americans it’s that they love Chick-fil-A and free speech. I guess that would be two things. And Americans peacefully showing up in the hundreds of thousands last Wednesday to Chick-fil-A restaurants from sea to shining sea showed anyone with a lick of sense that Americans are not quite ready to bow and kiss the ring of a special interest group that wants to mitigate other people’s rights to freedom of expression just because they don’t kowtow to theirs.
Which brings me to this query: What’s up with this BS that we’ve got to agree with someone’s view of gay sex before we can buy or sell chicken sandwiches? When did that edict get passed? We’re damn close to making Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi look like the most rosy, easygoing consommé ladler around.
And finally, how come the gay activists got their national dander up over Chick-fil-A’s exec not being down with Brad and Chad getting engaged, yet I haven’t heard them say diddly squat about their intentions to stage a national “Kiss In” at any American mosque or give the hundreds of black pastors who vehemently oppose gay marriage the same crap they’ve been giving Chick-fil-A. What’s the matter? You’re not scared to take them on, are you? You’re not chicken, are you?
I think this past August 1st is a foretaste of what’s coming this November 6th. It’s all about freedom for all, baby, and you dudes don’t get it. But Americans do. And they showed up in droves and waited in hot lines for hours to demonstrate they will not be bullied.
Check out my latest video: “An Immoral, Lazy and Stupid Church Helps America's Enemies.”
Doug Giles
Labels:
Chick-Fil-A,
Doug Giles,
Free Enterprise,
Militant Homosexuals
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Matt Barber - Tick-Off a Liberal - Take a Boy Scout to Chick-fil-A
Forget about Bert and Ernie. I always thought Kermit the Frog was a little “light in the flippers,” if you know what I mean. Miss Piggy? Probably just cover (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more). And how about that perennial bachelor, Fozzie Bear? Wocka Wocka, indeed.Or not.
I don’t know.
Still, a recent move by The Jim Henson Company makes you wonder. In a distinctly knee-jerk, anti-family development, the Muppet mogul has severed promotional ties with Chick-fil-A – the booming fast-food chain and American Cinderella story. The multi-billion dollar company has stirred the ire of left-wing extremists in recent days.
Their crime? Failure to obey the nauseating, mind-numbing dictates of political correctness.
Dan Cathy – a devout Christian and CEO of the biblically based eatery – recently made a few innocuous public comments in support of legitimate marriage – sentiments the vast majority of morals-minded Americans happen to agree with. (I sent an email to Chick-fil-A corporate suggesting that, in reprisal, they add frog legs and ham hock to the menu. No reply thus far.)
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” said Cathy. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Or, at least we used to live in that country. No more. Not if we let the godless left have its way.
Cathy’s statement was all it took. The “progressive” establishment had a mouth-frothing, water-meets-Wicked-Witch-of-the-West meltdown. They’ve charged the battlefield with that characteristic slash-and-burn, seek-and-destroy style and grace we’ve come to expect.
“Boycott Chick-fil-A!” shrieked the ever-tolerant,
oh-so-enlightened sexual-anarchist troglodytes. “Bigots! Haters! Homophobes!” (You know; same pointless pap, different day.)Demanding a public apology from Cathy, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno pledged to prohibit Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square because – well – because he’s a communist.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he, too, would block Chick-fil-A from the “Cradle of Liberty.” (Want some crackers with that rich irony chowda, Tommy?)
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit.
Now, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but let me just say to these, um, gentlemen: Look here, you law-breaking, totalitarian, anti-American dolts. We have a thing in this country called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We will not sit idly by while you use this sacred document as potty paper for puppy.
You may have sworn-off chicken, but keep it up, tough guys, and freedom-loving America will force feed you a Sears Tower-sized helping of crow.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel civil-rights firm weighed in: “To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous,” he said. “Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle.”
“These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance.
“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists,” he continued. “They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.”
Who would’ve thought that a major flashpoint for our culture war would involve waffle fries – evidently laced with some illicit, highly addictive chemical agent – and equally mouth-watering chicken-and-pickle sandwiches?
No problem. Certain truth can whip dogmatic “progressive” propaganda anywhere, anytime.
That’s the thing about liberalism – about political correctness. It exists in the realm of fantasy. It’s a barrier to truth. “Progressivism” comprises a farcical assortment of pseudo-utopian ideals that reflect how postmodern leftists want things to be, rather than how things actually are.
They float the propagandist idiom “marriage equality” – choosing all the while to ignore objective “marriage reality.”
So-called “same-sex marriage”? A counterfeit. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Gay marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange.
It’s unavoidable. Marriage is, by definition, the joining of two complementary opposites – two “others.” Consider Christmas lights. When you string them together you necessarily “marry” the male end with the female end. It defies logic and physics to try and force a male-male or female-female connection. There can be no real connection. Sure, you can employ some artificial mechanism – say, superglue or duct tape – to create a mock connection, but the lights don’t work, and the duct tape eventually gives out. Not to mention that it’s aesthetically off-putting.
“Gay marriage” is mock marriage. It’s fantasy – a dead end. Even a child knows this intuitively and, in their heart-of-hearts, lefties and “gay” activists know it, too. That’s why they respond so violently when people snicker at it or, as in the case of Dan Cathy, even respectfully acknowledge that it’s not grounded in reality.
The wonderful thing about liberals is that they almost universally overplay their hand. They respond to “inconvenient truths” with hysterical, reactionary overreach. There’s been a magnificent backlash from their attacks on Chick-fil-A. They’ve picked a fight they cannot win.
Gov. Mike Huckabee, never afraid to speak his mind, has waded into the fracas. He’s organized a “buy-cott” – a “Chick-fil-A Appreciate Day” for Aug. 1, 2012.
On that day, marriage-reality supporters – anyone who loves freedom and family values, really – are encouraged to patronize Chick-fil-A. I’ll be taking my family.
A list of venerable luminaries, including the Rev. Billy Graham, have joined the event. Millions are expected to participate.
In the wake of the Penn State scandal surrounding Jerry Sandusky’s homosexual assault on dozens of young boys, the Boy Scouts of America moved to protect children by re-affirming its prohibition against scoutmasters who live a homosexual lifestyle. Although they didn’t expressly indicate that Penn State influenced their decision, there can be little doubt it did.
As with the Chick-fil-A debacle, libs lost their collective noodle. Apparently the only thing they hate more than Chick-fil-A is a “morally straight” 12-year-old who strives for integrity and merit.
So here’s my proposal: Don’t let a bunch of uber-obnoxious, loud-mouthed liberal pansies intimidate you. They’re nothing but a wet paper tiger. On Wednesday, Aug. 1, have your kids wear their Boy Scout uniforms to Chick-fil-A. Scoutmasters, bring ‘em all.
There’s still time to reverse America’s spiral down the moral toilet bowl of history. On Aug. 1, even if you don’t eat fast food, buy Chick-fil-A anyway. Then give it to some homeless guy and claim it as a tax deduction.
That’ll really make ‘em squirm.
Matt Barber
Monday, July 30, 2012
Austin Hill - Athletes Yes, Business Owners No
Why is it okay to be a successful athlete, but not a successful business owner?
It’s been nearly two weeks since President Obama delivered his now famous “Roanoke rant,” wherein he noted to entrepreneurs that, among other things, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Apparently the president’s spiteand vitriol for business owners isn’t playing so well with voters. By the middle of last week, the Obama campaign was doing damage control with a new video advertisement explaining that the President had just been “taken out of context,” and he actually loves business owners.
But watch the “full context” of the Roanoke speech, and it becomes even clearer that the President was once again speaking the language of collectivist economics. While assuming the absolute worst about the motives of business owners, President Obama was again suggesting that wealth creation and material success are neither to be attributed to, nor enjoyed by individuals – only the collective masses can take credit for such successes, and we should all collectively share in the blessings of one-another’s wealth.
Call it socialism, call it Marxism, call it what you like. The president has made it clear throughout his professional life that he loathes the economic success of individual companies and business owners (unless, of course, such business owners are donating to his campaign), and regards their financial achievements as ill-gotten gain.
But would you ever expect the President of the United States – even President Barack Obama – to apply this kind of thinking to athletes? And after the U.S. Olympic Athletes return home from London, will the President invite them to the White House and lecture them on how “somebody else made it happen?”
It’s unlikely that President Obama would treat the Olympic competitors with the disdain that he shows to business owners. And if his recent treatment of a certain women’s college basketball team is any indication, then the U.S. Olympic athletes may be in for a real treat.
Two days after his “you didn’t do that” speech about business owners, the Baylor University women’s basketball team was welcomed to the White House for some time with President Obama. Speaking before the media, with the “Lady Bears of Baylor” standing on a platform behind him, the President recognized the achievements of the coaching staff, and then stated that “If there’s one thing to describe this team…it was dominant. Last season, the Lady Bears scored more points than any team in women’s college basketball history…”
Never did the President suggest that being “dominant” was problematic for the basketball team members. Likewise the President didn’t suggest that being the scoring leader was a selfish or greedy type of pursuit, or that the points were accrued by some sort of corrupt means. The President made it clear that the Lady Bears were number one, and they deserved to be recognized as such.
And might there have been some government-sponsored underpinning to the ladies’ success that the President could have noted? No doubt some of the Lady Bears are attending Baylor University with scholarship funds, some of which are probably generated from private donors and others provided by government agencies.
Yet President Obama didn’t single-out any financial aid recipients and tell them “you didn’t get here on your own,” nor did he bother to remind the players that they didn’t build the courts that they play on. Instead, President Obama chose not to malign the basketball players and coaches at all, but rather gave them high praise for their success.
In America we recognized the value of challenge – not just on the court or playing field, but in business as well. When everyone plays by the same rules, competition can develop human character, produce great products and services – and put lots of points on the scoreboard.
After the London games, our U.S. Olympic Athletes will likely get the “Lady Bear” treatment at the White House. But it is a disgrace that the President of the United States can’t understand the virtues of market competition, the way he understands the benefits of sports.
Austin Hill
It’s been nearly two weeks since President Obama delivered his now famous “Roanoke rant,” wherein he noted to entrepreneurs that, among other things, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Apparently the president’s spiteand vitriol for business owners isn’t playing so well with voters. By the middle of last week, the Obama campaign was doing damage control with a new video advertisement explaining that the President had just been “taken out of context,” and he actually loves business owners.
But watch the “full context” of the Roanoke speech, and it becomes even clearer that the President was once again speaking the language of collectivist economics. While assuming the absolute worst about the motives of business owners, President Obama was again suggesting that wealth creation and material success are neither to be attributed to, nor enjoyed by individuals – only the collective masses can take credit for such successes, and we should all collectively share in the blessings of one-another’s wealth.
Call it socialism, call it Marxism, call it what you like. The president has made it clear throughout his professional life that he loathes the economic success of individual companies and business owners (unless, of course, such business owners are donating to his campaign), and regards their financial achievements as ill-gotten gain.
But would you ever expect the President of the United States – even President Barack Obama – to apply this kind of thinking to athletes? And after the U.S. Olympic Athletes return home from London, will the President invite them to the White House and lecture them on how “somebody else made it happen?”
It’s unlikely that President Obama would treat the Olympic competitors with the disdain that he shows to business owners. And if his recent treatment of a certain women’s college basketball team is any indication, then the U.S. Olympic athletes may be in for a real treat.
Two days after his “you didn’t do that” speech about business owners, the Baylor University women’s basketball team was welcomed to the White House for some time with President Obama. Speaking before the media, with the “Lady Bears of Baylor” standing on a platform behind him, the President recognized the achievements of the coaching staff, and then stated that “If there’s one thing to describe this team…it was dominant. Last season, the Lady Bears scored more points than any team in women’s college basketball history…”
Never did the President suggest that being “dominant” was problematic for the basketball team members. Likewise the President didn’t suggest that being the scoring leader was a selfish or greedy type of pursuit, or that the points were accrued by some sort of corrupt means. The President made it clear that the Lady Bears were number one, and they deserved to be recognized as such.
And might there have been some government-sponsored underpinning to the ladies’ success that the President could have noted? No doubt some of the Lady Bears are attending Baylor University with scholarship funds, some of which are probably generated from private donors and others provided by government agencies.
Yet President Obama didn’t single-out any financial aid recipients and tell them “you didn’t get here on your own,” nor did he bother to remind the players that they didn’t build the courts that they play on. Instead, President Obama chose not to malign the basketball players and coaches at all, but rather gave them high praise for their success.
In America we recognized the value of challenge – not just on the court or playing field, but in business as well. When everyone plays by the same rules, competition can develop human character, produce great products and services – and put lots of points on the scoreboard.
After the London games, our U.S. Olympic Athletes will likely get the “Lady Bear” treatment at the White House. But it is a disgrace that the President of the United States can’t understand the virtues of market competition, the way he understands the benefits of sports.
Austin Hill
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Prager University - The Welfare State and the Selfish Society
Does capitalism and the free market make you selfish? Dennis Prager, best selling author and nationally syndicated talk show host, answers this question and challenges what for many has become conventional wisdom.Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Prager University - Arthur Brooks - Free Markets and Happiness
The words "happiness" and "free enterprise" don't usually appear in the same sentence. Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, explains why they should.Monday, July 23, 2012
Barack Obama You Didn't Build That Business - New Film - The Conservatives
Class Warfare is what it's all about and this soon to be released film takes on the President's rhetoric with specific factual examples. Steve Doocy sits down with Director, Stephen Bannon, and Author Peter Schweizer as they discuss the film and how it explores the job creation process and the Government's role in business.According to President Barack Obama, entrepreneurs and small business owners cannot take credit for their inventions or business success because their accomplishments were only made possible by the government's investments in infrastructure.
Mr. Obama not only missed Business 101, but has made no attempt to understand the first thing about how business and freedom work together to create a synergy that government can never hope to emulate.
I guess Franklin and Edison were inspired to discover and harness electricity by all of those telephone poles installed by the government that were going unused.
And how could Ford have created the Model T in 1908, if it were not for the Interstate Highway System? (Interstate Highway Act of 1956)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

