Let freedom ring 12

We found this text, extracted from a speech Mitt Romney is to make in Missouri today, at PowerLine, posted by John Hinderaker:

Along with the genius of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, is the equal genius of our economic system. Our Founding Fathers endeavored to create a moral and just society like no other in history, and out of that grew a moral and just economic system the likes of which the world had never seen. Our freedom, what it means to be an American, has been defined and sustained by the liberating power of the free enterprise system.

That same system has helped lift more people out of poverty across the globe than any government program or competing economic system. The success of America’s free enterprise system has been a bright beacon of freedom for the world. It has signaled to oppressed people to rise up against their oppressors, and given hope to the once hopeless. 

It is called the Free Enterprise System because we are both free to engage in enterprises and through those enterprises we ensure our freedom.

But sadly, it has become clear that this President simply doesn’t understand or appreciate these fundamental truths of our system. Over the last three and a half years, record numbers of Americans have lost their jobs or simply disappeared from the work force. Record numbers of Americans are living in poverty today – over 46 million of our fellow Americans are living below the poverty line. …

This is not just a failure of policy; it is a moral failure of tragic proportions. …

John Hinderaker comments:

Conservative economic policies don’t just create more wealth than socialism or liberalism, they are morally superior to socialism and liberalism. Let’s hope that today’s speech is just a small preview of what is to come from the Romney campaign.

Socialism creates no wealth at all. It’s a wealth and prosperity killer. Vide Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, France …

As to the morality of socialism, we often say that to take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who hasn’t is intensely immoral. And that is what socialist governments do.

Walter Williams writes at Townhall:

Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” …  Are today’s Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let’s think it through with a few questions.

Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She’s hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I’ve committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.

Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree — 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people.

The moral question is whether it’s right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong. 

Don’t get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. [And] as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.

Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress’ taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans — 46 percent — receive handouts from one or more federal programs …

Ayn Rand, in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” reminded us that “when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.”

Would a President Romney return America to virtue as well as to prosperity?

We know better than to hope that any government would shrink itself to the minimal size of the libertarian-conservative ideal. Or that entitlements such as Social Security will ever be entirely abolished.

But Romney respects the idea of individual liberty as the Founding Fathers did; and he knows that only the free enterprise system opens the way for every individual to become prosperous – by his own endeavors. So Romney would be likely to take steps to restore confidence in business, reduce the number of hampering regulations the Obama administration has imposed, encourage innovation, and generally reward self-reliance.

That would be a good start, and the expectation of it a good reason to support his bid for the presidency.

  • George

            Liz , I was unable to post a reply under your last post here.       Liz , actually you misunderstood my point as I illustrated .I know I’m going to be the outcast here because I’m coming from a different perspective. I clearly stated that I was NOT comparing the founders with nazis ( please re-read my previous post ) nor did I insinuate such but  I gave an example of how if per se a group of  individuals as such had placed your group ( if you were Jewish )  in a concentration camp how you would feel  or in my case on a plantation in chains ) and then later wrote documents that was only directed at supporting HIS  group , then therefore from MY angle  this does not deserve my respect in any form or fashion. 
                             No these individuals did not commit genocide and I never implied that they did but their attrocious actions toward members of my group was in itself inhumane, subjugative, oppressive, enslaving, and horrendous and despicable acts of behavior.  The idea or suggestion that I should overlook this just because a vast spanse of time has elapsed does not erase their inhumane acts while they preached one thing and practiced the very opposite.  I’m sure the commenters on here are going to agree with YOUR perspective  ( as witnessed from the checkmark-“Like”  after your post )   on this because they are not standing in my shoes from my position and are in line with your perception on this matter as expected and I am not surprised at  such. 
                              By the same token using your analogy , we cannot compare how women were denied the right to vote , etc.  with that of an ethnic group that was placed in chains , beaten with whips, worked sunup to sundown in forced bondage , murdered , tortured,raped and deprived  or every know human right imaginable for centuries  and then brush this off as no big deal because things later changed centuries thereafter .
                       I have acknowledged that our great society has indeed transcended into a society of freedom , justice and equality but the simple fact still remains that it DID NOT begin this way nor did these individuals who preached justice for all actually mean it truly for ALL.  These are true facts that cannot be denied. I have  spent most of my life in uniform defending our rights  and I am staunchly patriotic toward my great nation but to deny attrocious acts or excuse them away or to dismiss these horrific  actions  by these individuals  is in itself a disservice in itself.  I have files of racist quotes and acts from these individuals and they ( most) were indeed racist and I never play the race card as you have witnessed youself from my many posts whereby I support liberty and justice for all people.
                           You are saying —yes they did these things  but the situations  later changed for the better . Yes things did change for the better but the original plan was not indeed directed at freedom for EVERYONE although generations  later things did eventually evolved as such.  And no I am not dwelling or living in the past which I despise but simply pointing out true facts that some want to ignore or downplay or deny or just plain ” sweep under the rug” . I know I’m going to end up being the “blacksheep” ( no pun intended ) in this situation but facts are facts and that’s the reality of the matter.  If conservatism means defending or supporting these individuals knowing what they did , then perhaps I should re-evaluate my position as a conservative ( and I definately am no liberal as I stated before ). Even as conservatives we cannot embrace this “utopian” mentality that everything from a conservative angle is without fault . I will respect those who earned respect and these individuals from MY position or a morally  ethical position clearly do not deserve respect.  I’m not going to go back & forth on this matter and more and more I am constantly beginning to question   SOME tennants of conservatism itself in SOME perspectives that is.   I want to keep the dialogue as civil as possible on this matter but I must admit I’m beginning to become suspicious on some positions that I personally abhor. I’ll just leave it at that.   

    • Liz

      George, I see your point, and appreciate your being patient and explaining it further to me.  You’re right that we can’t ignore the fact that the things they did pertaining to slavery were despicable, even in their day.  I guess I just tend to look at the historical picture in terms of what preceded them (which was worse), and what followed them (which was better), and give them credit for this change for the better, when there really was alot more to it than that. 

  • George

                          I generally like the article very much , however there is one comment in the article that I respectfully take issue with and I will explain my position.  It is not my intent to be in any way confrontational or argumentative in any sense in this matter.  The comment is the statement —     ” But Romney respects the idea of individual liberty as the Founding Fathers did…”   Romney may feel this way but the original “FOUNDERS” did not put this in true practice while drafting documents to the contrary of their actual actions.                      
                     Those who were referred to as Founding Fathers  DID  NOT  respect the individual liberty of everyone .  Many of the so-called [ Founding Fathers ] were indeed overt racists and slave owners , and Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson forced black slave girls into sexual relationships ( read—raped them ).  Thomas Jefferson also fathered illegitamate children by his slaves – and particularly Sally Hemmings and he later tried to disown them. It is also historically reported that they were also anti-semites who wanted to make Jewish immigration illegal in this country. To a great degree Catholics were not welcome and even women ( including WHITE women ) were treated as chattel not having the same rights as men.
                         True , our great nation that I love dearly transcended into the land of the free for everyone but it certainly DID NOT start out this way and these are historical facts that cannot be denied.  I am a conservative and I intend to vote for Romney since it looks to be a decision between Obama and Romney and I certainly do not want another term of Obama.  Our nation will be ruined probably beyond repair if Obama gets re-elected. I truly liked the article but but from MY position , I felt compelled to comment in regards to certain people that I will NEVER revere and justifiably so.  If this doesn’t sit well with some , then so be it as I am speaking from a position of course that some may not understand or even care for that matter.  I agree with the commenters as well but I felt compelled to point out this  one singular position and I’m glad the posters were all mature and civil in their commentary. Thank you . 

    • Liz

      I understand your point, George, but I think judging 18th century people by 21st century standards is not really fair.  If you judge them by the standards of their own century, they were off the charts better than most of their contemporaries, and if it hadn’t been for them, we wouldn’t be where we are today, in the freest country in history.  200 years from now we will also be criticized for some of our shortcomings, but hopefully people will still appreciate the good that we did. 

      • George

                                           I agree with the idea of accepting the good that we have done and are doing but the fact that they lived in the 18th century doesn’t detract from the fact of what happened. Yes we are indeed today living in the most free   country and I am a stone hardcore patriot but I will NEVER revere anyone who did what these individuals did . Of course it’s easy for anyone from the other side of the ethnic fence to take this position but to be accused of not being fair for simply speaking the truth is in itself not fair.  
                                 My comment has absolutely nothing to do with fairness in GENERAL but specific individuals that did specific things . If I say I detest what the nazis did does NOT mean that I am attacking the German people in general or for that matter the nation of Germany. Of course not. I am in essence attacking a specific group of specific people and no stereotype is intended whatsoever. Do I sound extremely passionate and sensitive in this area ? I am indeed.  I understand your position clearly Liz .
                               For example ( I am not trying to compare the Founders with nazis ) but  if YOU were a Jewish person would you revere a former nazi who held your people in concentration camps and raped Jewish women and impregnated them and then expect everyone to honor such  individuals just because they later wrote a bunch of documents about freedom while practicing just the very opposite towards others than themselves ?   Of course not.   Why then would you expect others or rather in this specific case ME to do so ?  Think about it.  I knew when I brought this up it would be a “thorny” subject to bring up but my position has true validity . For anyone to think that I should honor or revere such individuals is a gross insult to me from my position. Unless one is in the “shoes” of the group in question then it’s hard to grasp the understanding of this matter because it isn’t personal or regarded as such.   It is a fact that the original intent was NOT for all to have equal rights ( only a select group )  but yes we did indeed transcend or evolve into the greatest nation that provided the best of freedom , industry and justice inspite of the various faults.  I’m only speaking about ONE specific thing and certain specific individuals and not   “painting everyone with the broad brush  per se “.
                              I do not revere them and I never will and I am very much pro-American and a staunch patriot to the ultimate degree. Yes I do take this very personal and justifiably so and it has absolutely nothing to do with being fair.  I have studied this at length until I became literally nauseated . Apparently on this specific issue Liz we simply agree to disagree.  I love what the constitution and bill of rights stand for . My point is that certain individuals who drafted such documents DID NOT mean it at that time for ALL.   It ended up in later times as such after much blood , guts and tears. Even though we may be conservative ,  we must not take this UTOPIAN position or mindset that EVERYTHING  within the conservative group is always right ( and I am certainly no liberal , that’s for sure ).    Every group has it’s drawbacks and many groups have advanced to higher  standards  and support for human rights but we must never be in denial of the originating reality and truth.  I love America and  I will die for my country if necessary but I will not be an apologist  for those who did indeed commit attrocious acts by their actual deeds while all along preaching  the very opposite themselves. If my speaking this truth makes me at odds with some then they or even you are perhaps looking at this obviously from a different lens or standing in a different set of shoes than myself and I’ll just leave it at that just to keep things peaceful and respectful.  

        • Liz

          I know what you’re saying and I can see your point of view, but I think the Nazis persecuting Jews are different from the founders owning slaves.  At the time of the founders, slavery was widely practiced.  I don’t have the reference but I think the founders did speak of ending it in theory, although they didn’t achieve it in practice. 
          The Nazis genocide of Jews was not the same thing.  Yes, Christians had historically hated Jews, which paved the way for the genocide, but to be anything similar to the founders would have been for the Nazis to continue being anti-semitic in practice while at least having the intentions of giving Jews equal rights, which would have paved the way for that equality actually happening in practice.  They did the opposite, by instead taking the hate further and turning it into genocide.
          Also, using your reasoning, I could also disrespect the founders because they didn’t believe in equal rights for women.  But I realize that as products of their times, they were not able to see things quite that way yet, in the same way they couldn’t see the slavery issue quite clearly yet.  But that still doesn’t mean, to me, that they don’t deserve my respect for what they DID accomplish.   

  • Andrew M

    Your link to the Walter Williams article is broken. You can copy and paste this code into your article:

    Walter Williams <a href=”http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/immoral-beyond-redemption/”>writes</a> at

    For the convenience of your readers, here is a link to the article. It might be worth noting that it was published at an earlier date here.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Williams is correct to assert how morals come before laws. No motivation in our modern parlance irritates me more than the inanity of “legislating morality”. The lights of freedom always dim after such legislation passes. Citizens who do not wildly and incessantly protest these decisions by speaking up and getting out the vote are guilty of the moral failure called complicity.

    Our nation’s foundation is not perfect, but it is certainly pristine. Liberals salivate at the prospect of dismissing the first moral legal document ever written. It will certainly require a lot of elbow grease to scrape off the slab of legislative barnacles calcified to our great Constitution. We have this in droves, so instead, liberals want to hit us where it hurts and kill our motivation.

    Staunch patriots have the compunction to fight this out until the end, knowing that liberals are like pufferfish: intimidating, but ultimately cowardly. Romney reminds us of the great history to which we are heirs so that all of us can go the extra mile to rest the burden of freedom on our shoulders.

    And we will do so.

    • Andrew M

       The autolinker disturbed my code. Let’s try that again…

      Walter Williams <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/immoral-beyond-redemption/">writes</a&gt; at

    • Andrew M

       I’ll get this eventually…

      Walter Williams <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/immoral-beyond-redemption/">writes</a> at

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks for informing us about the broken link, Andrew M. 

      We have fixed it now.

    • George

      Hi Andrew .  I love your comment—–        [   ” …. liberals are like pufferfish : intimidating , but ultimately cowardly ”  ].   That says it all for sure !

  • Liz

    Great post!  And great words by Romney, Williams, and Rand.
    Just reading Romney’s speech is like a breath of fresh air. I can feel a weight beginning to lift; see a light at the end of the tunnel. 
    I don’t care what kind of warts he has – if Romney will just walk even the minimum of his talk, he’ll be a hero in my book.