The “Stolen” Money of Fannie and Freddie Kindled Wall Street Fire

The following was written a year ago and it was a reply to some commentators of  the blog Open Salon.

By Con George-Kotzabasis

McGarrett’s strong medicine is for strong stomachs. But it’s most unlikely that the weak stomachs (read: of nipple-fed intellectuals) of the left will be able to digest it. His impartiality is irreproachable, as it ‘hits’ both lenders and borrowers with the Nemesis of the principles of the free market, a la Ludwig von Mises.

Paul J. O’Rourke

The free market is the best tested guide to long-term prosperity in an imperfectly made world. Even if it’s politically manipulated it still delivers the goods in comparison to a command dirigiste economy. Therefore one cannot equate the two. And even when it falls sick it recovers more by its own strength than by the intervention of the state “doctor”, even if paradoxically he presents himself in the form of the liberal Hayek as you argue in your interesting piece on your blog. But certainly, as you correctly point out,  the free market if it’s impeded by the “panaceas” of government intervention has the “freedom to do harm.” But whom does it harm other than the economically imprudent and those that cannot ‘Guard that solvency,’ to quote you?

To your contention that ‘This overly free mixture of political and market manipulation literally stole your property,’ I would add that this property was bought with “stolen” money provided by those two magnificent, replete with fairness and justice, liberal “constructions” of Fannie and Freddie.

Islamists Cannot be Pacified by Olive Branches but only by Fire of War

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Your quote states the obvious. Of course one does not fight terrorism only with police methods but the question is out of all the methods which are the most effective by which one can defeat the jihadists. And while your paragraph in your previous post that mentions “predators” and all the other ‘hard things’ that one has perforce to do against the jihadists is full of strategic clarity, by reverting back to your old argument of three years ago that the present terrorists are similar to the anarchist terrorists of the past and can be interdicted by ‘police’ methods, you unconsciously downgrade the seriousness of your ‘hard things’ position.

Moreover, you are locked in the fallacy of a rational person who premises his actions that his enemies that ‘round’ him up are also rational and if he shows by his actions, in our case America, that he is not against Arabs and Muslims this will bring a definitive change in the attitudes of the jihadists. This is a ‘straightjacket’ delusion that has lost all contact with reality. Islamic fanaticism will not be influenced, soothed, abated, or defeated by moral examples or olive branches but only in the field of battle and that is why a military deployment against it is a prerequisite. In short, it’s just another but more effective method in defeating the jihadists in a shorter span of time.