New bear is the traditional bear

Putin’s address to parliament: healthy conservatism and robust defence

Nikita Sorokin | 14 December

In his annual state-of-the-nation address to the Federal Assembly earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin laid emphasis on social, economic and home policy problems. The Russian leader was especially emotional when discussing the moral health of society and Russia’s role in the modern-day world.

He delivered his address on Constitution Day, December 12th, when Russians marked 20 years since the adoption of the constitution. Putin said the constitutional provisions determining the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are unchangeable, even though some pinpoint changes may and should be made in other chapters of the constitution due to law-enforcement practice and the course of events.

The constitutional process also prompts the need for promoting political competition. Vladimir Putin is certain that new parties that will successfully emerge from local elections will soon challenge the political old-timers. According to the President, the State is interested in updating government agencies by appointing well-trained and responsible officials. Putin also pointed out the need for tightening public control of bureaucracy.  […/]

“The Russian President feels that many countries are revising moral standards and removing cultural differences and national traditions.”

Demands are made today that one and all not only recognize everyone’s fair right to the freedom of conscience, to political views and privacy, but that they also mandatorily recognize of equal value, however strange it may seem, good and evil, the notions that are opposite by their very meaning. We know that increasingly great numbers of people around the world share our stand on the protection of traditional values, the values of a traditional family, human life, including religious life, the values of humanism and world diversity. This is clearly a conservative stand. But in the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, the idea of conservatism is not that it prevents progress and upward movement, but that it prevents one from moving backwards and downwards, to chaotic darkness.

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_14/Putins-address-to-parliament-healthy-conservatism-and-robust-defence-3949/

Wait, did  Putin just cleverly appeal to Humanists, Orthodox,  the civil liberty crowd, progressives, Christians and conservative traditionalists on the same platform? I think he did.  Did he alienate a large constituency? I don’t think so.  And a nice side note to the bureaucracy-weary and Constitutionalists. Does the bear have something up his sleeve?
[Part #1 – more … later]

RightRing | Bullright

Same old socialism… different year

  

Sandy or Frankenstorm…. maybe a big storm but probably pales next to the one brewing in DC for Obama’s 2nd Occupation.

This election harckens back to Goldwater’s root ideas. The same mentality is in place with the left only on an even larger scale. Here was an article I had that was posted on Pepperhawk farm’s blog. It really is worth remembering how the left sees everything.

And it is interesting now, after the election, how the left defines what Obama’s reelection apparently means. He may have won but he doesn’t get to redefine and interpretate what it means to us. He outslicked a lot of people but behind it all they are still the same old stale Marxist ideas.

You know, the ones he really wouldn’t talk about. Instead he used words like “an economy built to last;  fair shot;  level playing field;  you didn’t build that; spread the wealth around.”
 
See article from earlier this year for some background

http://pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/who-is-right-tea-parties-or-occupiers-by-privatebullright-contributor/

The road to serfdom is paved with Obama’s golden tongue, built on old ideas that enslaved people for years — not on good intentions. And no, Obama “didn’t build that” either. He didn’t build anything; he’s just marketing old ideas. He’s perfecting that, as they project the “old ideas” mantra onto their opponents.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
While they will be talking about his win and what it means, what is lost is the truth.

I saw a new book. A Catholic who was involved with the left decades ago, and came through research in economics to see ties between theology and free markets, in the affects on people.

Defending the free market: the moral case for a free economy

by (Fr) Rev. Robert Sirico

From the book preview: (Laissez Faire Club)

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Democrats in Congress and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to President Obama and his allies, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society.
(link to find book )

Rarely are you ever going to hear anything positive about the economy or markets from the left. They do make the argument for control for those reasons. This makes the “moral” case for the free market.

But I noticed, as Goldwater showed decades ago, that it is curious how the left despises economics yet bases so much of its politics on economics. (class warfare et al) And seems to seethe with resentment toward economics through their politics.

I almost want to label it all “political economics” (politiconomics) after hearing what Goldwater and others have to say about it, and on my own observations. I don’t know the accuracy of that term but it works for me. They despise it as a threat when it holds so many of the answers to the problems they claim to be concerned about. Though in reality their objective is control. The problem is not economics or the markets, but their need to control it.If Sirico makes the moral case for free markets, then what is liberals’ case for control?

I think we certainly need to hear the “moral case” for anything right now.

It is the same old socialism just dressed a little different, with a different spokesman. The same socialism ideas that brought us Reagan and his “A Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, or A Time for Choosing. He carried the torch. Reagan talked about the Shining City, but these days the beacon is growing dimmer not brighter. (and its not for lack of green energy)

Hannity bites the bullet

Sean Hannity took on the frustration with the loss, sort of.
 

Watch the video at foxnews.com

The second option, anger: “we can yell at the American people for not being as conservative as we wish, and that we were right, and that they ought to be more conservative. Now that might be emotionally cathartic, it might make you feel good. You may feel morally superior to the masses…and it’ll make conservatism a minority movement for a long, long time. I think we as conservatives, we should reject that option as well.”

First of all, who voted for this guy? Who put him in office, and who reelected him? We should not blame them for voting this guy a second term? No, according to Hannity, don’t hold it against them because “that will make conservatism a minority movement for a long, long time”.

Lets have a reality check. If this inexperienced failure could not be defeated by any movement, then something is wrong. If his record was not grounds to throw him out in utter defeat by any challenger with a resume, something is rotten to the core. Don’t point fingers at voters who did it?

And since he could not be beaten, just based on his own record – or lack of one – then what good was the Republican Party or conservatism? Don’t blame people for what they did by voting for this thug. If I’m not mistaken, and the Party and conservatives could not beat a failure like Obama, then how useful will they be? They certainly didn’t accomplish the deed here.

And we should worry about offending Obama supporters and marginalizing conservatism? If the movement was any good, then come hell or high water it could not be marginalized no matter what. What is this, walk softly and carry a big carnation?