PDA

View Full Version : Out of nowhere - David Brat



EE_
12th June 2014, 03:13 AM
This guy came out of nowhere, knocked out a top puppet Jew and has upset a bunch of Jews in the process.
I watched an interview with the slimy little vermin Lloyd Blankfein and he's not happy at all that his pro-Wall Street, anti-white race Jew puppet Eric Cantor is gone.

More Facts About The Tea-Party's "Goliath-Slayer" David Brat
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/11/2014 18:18 -0400


Slowly but surely, more is being revealed about Eric Cantor's unknown until now (so unknown that his Wikipedia entry was only two sentences before Tuesday night) nemesis, the anti-big business, anti-Wall Street, anti establishment "Goliath-slayer" David Brat. In addition to our profile from this morning, here is the latest compilation of biographical factoids about the suddenly uber-famous tea party activist, who has written about the role of religion in economic growth. He is also a fan of the pro-capitalist novelist Ayn Rand. Here are some facts about Brat from Reuters.





ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS PROFESSOR WITH DIVINITY DEGREE

Brat, 49, is an economics professor at 1,300-student Randolph-Macon College outside Richmond, Virginia. He describes himself as a budget expert on his campaign website, saying he "presents a major problem for liberals who try to continue increased government spending by discrediting conservatives." In May, Brat reportedly missed planned meetings with national conservative leaders because he had to prepare for final exams. He graduated from Hope College in Michigan in 1986 with a degree in business administration, received a Master's in divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and a PhD in economics from American University.

FAN OF AYN RAND

Brat teaches a class on Rand's thinking underwritten by Rand admirer and former banking chief executive John Allison, who is promoting the class to counter what he sees as anti-capitalist thinking at U.S. institutions. The program, known as "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism," is intended to further the ideas Rand outlined in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged." Brat has reportedly said he is not a "Randian" but appreciates the case she makes for freedom and free markets.

ARGUED RELIGION PLAYS ROLE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES

Brat has in published work found fault with a 2001 paper by Ben Bernanke, who would later become chairman of the Federal Reserve, that said long-term growth was mostly determined by variables such as saving rates, population growth and levels of education. Brat said that Bernanke had overlooked the role of Protestantism, which he said created conditions conducive to strong economic performance.

OPPONENT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

In campaign ads, Brat accused the majority leader of "giving citizenship papers to illegal immigrants." The immigration issue helped Brat win endorsements from notable conservatives such as Ann Coulter, who called Cantor "amnesty-addled" in a column for right-wing news site Townhall.com. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham also campaigned for Brat in Virginia and slammed Cantor on immigration.

FACE-OFF AGAINST FELLOW FACULTY MEMBER

Brat's Democratic challenger in the November election will be Jack Trammell, a Randolph-Macon assistant professor and director of disability support services who has written books about the slave trade and his family's life on a small farm in rural Virginia.

WAS CRITICIZED BY CANTOR FOR BEING A LIBERAL

Cantor initially dismissed Brat as "a liberal economics professor" who was pretending to be a conservative. Cantor's attack was widely reported, bringing a bonanza of publicity to Brat.

* * *

Further on Brat from The Hill
Dave Brat, suddenly among the most famous House nominees in the country, has preached an economic policy message rooted in capitalism and Christ, fearing in his writings that a weak society could produce the next Hitler, or that one party could try to monopolize morality.

“If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people. If there are not nervous twitches in the pews when we preach, then we are not doing our jobs,” Brat wrote in a 13-page 2011 paper published in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. “If we all spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.”

“I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily,” he wrote.

Brat, a Randolph-Macon economics professor, stunned the political world on Tuesday night when he defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) in a Republican primary, a feat Brat described as a "miracle" on Fox News.

Now Brat, lauded by the Tea Party following his victory, is thrust into the national political spotlight, and his economic papers are being sifted through for clues about how he would govern.

"The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military. Do we trust institutions of the government to ensure justice?” Brat wrote in 2011. “Do you trust that power to the political Right? Do you trust it to the Left? If you answered 'no' to either question, you may have a major problem in the future.”

Brat received a doctorate in economics from American University and a master's divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.

He now faces Democratic challenger Jack Trammell, another professor at Randolph-Macon in Ashland, in the battle for Virginia's 7th District.

Brat's remarks on Fox News following his primary victory echoed another passage he wrote in the 2011 paper.

“God asked the people of Israel: Are you sure you want a king? That is a good question to ask at this time,” Brat wrote in 2011. “The church needs to regain its voice and offer up a coherent social vision of justice and rationality. Soon. The Bible and then Calvin is a good start. Rule of Law is in the middle. Capitalism will be in the final chapters.”

In the same paper, he framed the current political landscape as one where Republicans “enforce morality” and Democrats “coerce others” to fund social programs.

“Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality,” Brat wrote.

“The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise.”

Brat praised institutions as a force of economic good, particularly religious institutions, according to a 2004 paper he authored that was published in the Virginia Economic Journal.

“Institutions such as religion, democracy and government anti-diversion policies all significantly enhance a country's long-run economic performance,” Brat wrote in 2004. “The religion variable may be the strongest ex ante, exogenous institutional variable in the literature.”

Brat wrote that “a real test for liberal Christian types is whether they will reach out to capitalists.”

“If we are ever going to be transformers of culture, we need to get our story straight on capitalism and faith,” Brat wrote in 2011. "The two can go together and they had better go together, or we will not transform anything.”

Horn
12th June 2014, 07:56 AM
Spark of hope there.

What a brat!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YNAITd0gw

Cebu_4_2
12th June 2014, 08:23 AM
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?77795-Primary-Stunner-House-Majority-Leader-Eric-Cantor-Loses-to-Underdog-Tea-Party-Challe

Dachsie
12th June 2014, 08:33 AM
It is great that Cantor is toast.

But all this puffing up of the Tea Party/ libertarianism stuff lately, including overtime/ ad nauseum by Alex Jones and company, is not hopeful or good.

I do not vote anymore and I know how rigged all of that is.

One possibility that must be considered is that SOMEBODY way high on the food chain had a vendetta to carry out against Cantor so they, through their control of vote counting, disappeared poor ole Eric Cantor. So this may not be a big surprise or upset etc that it is being painted to be and the Zionist controllers can easily fake being vexed or upset. It may all be a game to keep us believe in voting and congress and parties and all that failed system.

I remember about 5 years or so ago (I'm terrible at estimating how long ago things took place) that a whole bunch of Tea Party candidates took several House of Represenatives seats in Congress. It was a real sweep and all the Tea Party / patriot / conservative / right winger / constitutionalists etc were ecstatic. They had drunk all the Kool Aid about all the major changes that those people were going to make in legislation etc. Well, I watched it very closely and I got detailed voting records on big major horrible bills and all those new Tea Party people in Congress voted the old bad way JUST LIKE all the Zionist-controlled other long-term Republican house members. They all totally just lied to get into office and then totally betrayed all the people who believed in them. The machines were either not rigged to get them in because the votes for them were just too too large and they could not have gotten away with it, or the twisted controllers, actually made sure these Tea Party guys got into office so they could slap us all in the face by showing how they immediately would just betray everybody.

I am conservative but I am not a member of any group or party and certainly not a Libertarian or a libertarian, free-market capitalist. I also am not a patriot or a constitutionalist in the usual sense of the terms. I think there were serious evil controllers who were around the time of the founding and the Revolution. I think that "government of the people, by the people, for the people' was perhaps a brilliant mind control lie on we the "true believers."

We no longer have the rule of law in the USA and having the rule of law is the thing that made the US great and a place where the individual had a chance of being treated justly in the legal system and the laws were made based on sound true principles.

All of that is gone now. The USA no longer has just courts, just judges, just lawyers, just laws, and the Constitution itself has been undermined almost out of existence.

(I won't post all the info about libertarianism as I have posted specifics about that here already as well as several other places. But all of the founders of that economic philosophy or system are to the best of my research ALL atheist Jews, going back well over a century to the present.)

USA was founded on Protestant / freemasonic / usurious ideology and those ideologies had in the decades before founding were what took over England. Rotheschid bankers taking over, Cromwell, Protestant reformation (revolution, letting Jews back into England after being banned for many decades etc... We "Americans" have to remember from whencest we cometh.

Horn
12th June 2014, 08:36 AM
You're hoping for a suddenly Seymour moment?

All's we need is a man eating plant now, to keep drama queens in business.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DD7VIKZnGA

Horn
12th June 2014, 08:53 AM
USA was founded on Protestant / freemasonic / usurious ideology and those ideologies had in the decades before founding were what took over England. Rotheschid bankers taking over, Cromwell, Protestant reformation (revolution, letting Jews back into England after being banned for many decades etc... We "Americans" have to remember from whencest we cometh.

Bounded upon sound principles of rule of law and free markets while preserving other boundaries, mainly by not crossing them with your own colonial agents.

The latter, what's always and forever been lacking in faith, principle, and applied philosophy.

And why the day can't be won.

Regardless a necessity.

old steel
12th June 2014, 09:08 AM
National Security Agency Brat has called for the National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency) to end bulk collection of phone records and has stated his support for statutory protections for e-mail privacy. He has argued that domestic intelligence activities have "spun out of control,"[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#cite_note-54) and that "the NSA’s indiscriminate collection of data on all Americans is a disturbing violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy."[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#cite_note-55)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#National_Security_Agency

Horn
12th June 2014, 09:35 AM
National Security Agency

Brat has called for the National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency) to end bulk collection of phone records and has stated his support for statutory protections for e-mail privacy. He has argued that domestic intelligence activities have "spun out of control,"[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#cite_note-54) and that "the NSA’s indiscriminate collection of data on all Americans is a disturbing violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy."[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#cite_note-55)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat#National_Security_Agency

Maybe he's our man who will end all copyright law?

Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?

from the not-even-close dept
Continuing our series of posts concerning the Republican Study Committee report (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml) on the problems of the copyright system and how to fix them (which it quickly retracted (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/that-was-fast-hollywood-already-browbeat-republicans-into-retracting-report-copyright-reform.shtml) under industry pressure), today we're going to explore the second "myth" that author Derek Khanna helped debunk: that "copyright is free market capitalism at work." We've already covered the first myth, about thepurpose (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121120/18240721105/fixing-copyright-purpose-copyright.shtml) of copyright, as well as responded to various responses (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23215021120/copyright-maximalists-attempt-to-downplay-significance-rsc-report-chanting-their-mantra-copyright-is-property.shtml) to the report by copyright maximalists.

That response feeds nicely into this post, because the whole argument that copyright is "free market capitalism" depends almost entirely on the key claim of maximalists: that copyright is property, full stop. However, as we noted in our response, copyright has both property-likeattributes and many non-property-like attributes. And it's when you look at the actual market that you have to recognize that those non-property-like attributes start to stand out. The only way you can argue that copyright is free market capitalism at work is to flat out ignore the ways in which copyright is unlike property.

To hopefully demonstrate this clearly, we'll start out with two examples of other "markets" that show that just because you set up a property right and create a market, that doesn't mean it's a free market. First up: air. Yes, that stuff we all breathe. It's clearly a valuable good. Extremely valuable. But... if we're to believe the maximalist view, because we don't directly pay for the air we breathe (even if we pay for it indirectly) it must be "valueless" or "worthless." So, clearly, the best way to deal with this is to set up a monopoly privilege in air -- such that you need to buy a "license" to breathe air that isn't yours.

Think of the massive industry that would be built up around this. It would really be a tremendously large industry, because people would be willing to pay every last penny to make sure that they had air to breathe. Talk about having inelastic demand! But, of course, the "problem" is that we have (mostly) abundant supply. Yet, putting monopoly rights on it would solve that problem right away, restricting supply through artificial monopolies, and allowing owners to charge. Boy, would that create a market! Of course, it would be complex, so perhaps we could "ease" things along by creating an Airrights Royalty Board to set some compulsory rates to make the whole market function "better." Think of how we could juice the economy there! Every single person needs air, so they would pay. Clearly, overnight, it would boost the economy.

Of course, this is silly. Everyone knows that it's silly, but as you listen to the arguments for copyright as being a free market, recognize that it's no different than the scenario above. The problem is basically a restating of Bastiat's broken window parable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window). The government can introduce artificial inefficiencies into the market, but that doesn't mean that it's part of a free market. A free market is one in which resources are being allocated more efficiently. But a market in which you have entities choosing to introduce inefficiencies on purpose to create new markets isn't a "free market" at all. It just creates an inefficient market that draws money to that market and away from more efficient purposes and allocation. You can, if you want, argue that this government / market interference is good for society or a particular group -- but you cannotargue that it's "free market capitalism" because it's not.

The second example is similar. It's the idea that Ed Felten came up with a few years back, known as the Pizzaright Principle (https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/pizzaright-principle/), which stated simply is:
Pizzaright – the exclusive right to sell pizza – is a new kind of intellectual property right. Pizzaright law, if adopted, would make it illegal to make or serve a pizza without a license from the pizzaright owner.

Creating a pizzaright would be terrible policy, of course. We’re much better off letting the market decide who can make and sell pizza.

The Pizzaright Principle says that if you make an argument for expanding copyright or creating new kinds of intellectual property rights, and if your argument serves equally well as an argument for pizzaright, then your argument is defective. It proves too much. Whatever your argument is, it had better rest on some difference between pizzaright and the exclusive right you want to create.
This is the same basic concept again. You can create new artificial markets by inserting property-like rights anywhere you want. But most people in other situations recognize that's not free market capitalism at all, but market distorting interference. So, as you listen to those who argue that copyright is free market capitalism, apply these tests. Does it apply equally to airrights and pizzarights? If so, the argument is defective. To date, I have yet to hear an argument for copyright being free market capitalism that doesn't equally apply to airrights or pizzarights.

Of course, there are other important ways in which copyrights are actually against the free market -- and, again, it's here where recognizing the key differences between copyright and scarce property come into play. As Rick Falkvinge recently reminded us, copyright is something thatactually limits property rights (http://torrentfreak.com/revisiting-the-purpose-of-the-copyright-monopoly-science-and-the-useful-arts-121202/) rather than creates new ones:
Which brings us to the third notable item: “the exclusive right”. This is what we would refer to colloquially as a “monopoly”. The copyright industry has been tenacious in trying to portray the copyright monopoly as “property”, when in reality,the exclusive rights created are limitations of property rights (it prohibits me from storing the bitpatterns of my choosing on my own hardware).
This is a key point that often gets lost in all of this. The only thing that copyright does is limit others' actual property rights. Now, again, this doesn't mean you can't make an argument that this limitation is valuable and important. But it's a simple fact that all the "exclusive right" copyright provides to someone is a way to try to stop people from actually exercising their own property rights over products they own.

In the end, it's fine to argue that copyright has important benefits and value -- but that's not the same thing as arguing that it's a part of free market capitalism. Because it's not.