I was engaged in a political discussion with a young lady a few days ago and I made a big mistake. The discussion was about Barack Obama and I was explaining to her that I thought he had planned his moves toward the Presidency since his days at Columbia. I pointed out that his work through the years was done through a close involvement with a radical group from Columbia that later became known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Since this was a general conversation, I did not have sources and details at my disposal but I told her that the first organizers of the group originally had the goal of bringing down the American government by registering large numbers of people for welfare in New York; their goal was to bankrupt the government and cause a socialist revolution. [1]
I pointed out that later the leaders of this group moved to Arkansas and started what is now ACORN, the organization that fraudulently registered voters for Obama and was instrumental in creating the sub-prime crisis. I informed her that Obama had actually filed a law suit in the early ‘90s to get the government to lower lending standards at the behest of ACORN.
Then came the killer question from this young lady. She said, “Well, I’m sure that they did not foresee the sub-prime crisis while they worked in the early ‘90s and certainly they did not think their actions would bring down the economy. Is it possible they were just trying to help more people get homes?”
Was I wrong? Did I fall for the smears of the right and was Obama just merely someone seeking to help the poor? The first clue is in the question she asked: Is it really possible that they were just trying to help more people get homes? Many consider this goal to be a good one and few would be against it.
It is true that many people believe in redistribution because they genuinely want to help the poor or needy. Yet, this genuine hope to help the poor among the vast majority of citizens is the very reason that groups like ACORN gain undeserved trust and cause economic disasters. In my opinion most well-intentioned people have not thought carefully about the issue and don’t realize that they are being deceived by the notion that distribution of income actually does any good – for the economy or the poor. They are confusing desired intent with actual result. They think that if they approve of income redistribution, those politicians they vote for will accomplish the desired result – a fairer, more caring society. Yet, after decades and billions of social welfare dollars down the drain, there are more poor than ever in our society. Why is this so? What if income redistribution is actually harming the people whose resources are being used to obtain the intent – and harming the poor as well? What if they are violating the principle that makes a good civilization possible?
The principle of civilization holds that you cannot accomplish short-term results by sacrificing long-term social stability. A proper civilization can only be a value to an individual if there are no mechanisms for exploitation; if living in a civilization is an actual benefit for all individuals – in other words, the government protects the rights and property of all citizens equally. If any benefit for one individual requires coercion against another individual, then that act is improper and invalidates the civilization.
The appeal to pity is a method of deception used by re-distributors to engender concern about the plight of supposed victims. Certain low-income or no-income people are considered to be worthy of owning homes, even though they have earned low credit scores. They are considered to be victims of an economic system that demands they be good credit risks before they take out loans. This is supposedly the fault of a racist capitalist system; and the available statistics “prove” that this is true. It is irrelevant to the professional parasites at ACORN that these poor can not afford to pay for these homes. The lack of home ownership by the poor is a matter that needs to be fixed and the people who have put their savings into banks and mortgage companies are required to pay for the homes by means of high-risk adjustable rate mortgages that steal from their portfolios.
The problem for the idea of redistribution, and why it is evil, is that it demands sacrificial victims. The best must give up their earnings in order that the favored “victims” are able to survive. The lie in this scam is that the sacrifice is proper; worse is the idea that the sacrificial lamb should want to give up his/her life-blood to the collective. If the collective (represented by the government) demands it, who are they, mere individuals, to disagree?
Politicians have been propagandizing for centuries that self-sacrifice (redistribution) is a form of “caring” for others. By this scheme, it is a foregone conclusion that if a person "cares" for others, it means he is a good person as opposed to the person who dissents. Politicians, such as Obama in particular, are quick to declare that it is more important for the government to “care” about citizens rather than to defend and protect their rights and freedoms. He even considers that the Founding Fathers missed getting the Constitution right when they did not include a re-distribution power in the Constitition.
This view on Obama's part clearly expresses his view that a government is either "caring" (which means re-distributionist) or free (following the Constitution). This view clearly shows that Obama is an enemy of freedom. You can't have both individual rights and re-distribution in the same society. Eventually, individual rights will fall by the wayside.
The basic argument for sacrifice is that sacrifice is considered “good” by most people. This means that anything other than sacrifice is considered bad. For instance, when I question the imperative to sacrifice, in the opinion of most people, I am doing something bad. Forget that the economy has been destroyed and that there are now more unemployed and homeless suffering people as a result of the re-distributionist sub-prime crisis. Let me repeat this: the sub-prime crisis, as a redistribution scheme to benefit the poor, has created more unemployment and more poor people. Yet, my questioning it is an indication that I do not care for others.
The argument offered by Obama (the re-distributer) and ACORN (an organization engaged in voter fraud and bank extortion) is that this is the “will of the people”; but, properly, there should be no government authority to violate the rights of citizens – regardless of its desire to “care” for people. The idea of the government “caring” for people is the excuse that justifies tyranny.
To be continued
[1] “The Roots of ACORN
From a comprehensive and thoroughly researched piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review titled, Inside Obama's ACORN, we come to understand that ACORN has its roots in the anti-capitalist tenets of the 1960s radical left group the National Welfare Rights Organization. This groups' goal was to force a radical reconstruction of what they described as "America's unjust capitalist economy" by forcing the elimination of eligibility restrictions for those trying to attain inclusion on the welfare roles, thus creating an overloaded system, a crisis, so as to affect that reconstruction.
Over the years, ACORN morphed its mission into one that champions a diverse set of objectives, all with an overriding goal seated in the tenets of anti-capitalism and the destruction of the US economy. The group targets privately owned companies in their pursuit of unreasonably crafted municipal living wage laws that have literally driven said companies from the areas where jobs are needed. They continue their campaign to eliminate welfare role eligibility restrictions as they crusade to roll back welfare reform. And, in an area directly related to our subject, they actively employ coercive tactics to manipulate financial institutions into abandoning best business practice by affording low-interest loans to unqualified borrowers.” From http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810102189/culture-wars/obama-acorn-and-their-starring-role-in-the-mortgage-crisis.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I don't see that you made a mistake by stating your conclusion to the young lady. She asked the million dollar question - and that was the opportunity to state the reasons for your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHer question was about the motive of those who were fighting for unqualified people to own homes. The question is: "Was it Obama's motive to do good or to do bad?" Or perhaps it would be better to state it, "Was it Obama's motive to change the system regardless of the costs to anyone dependent on the institutional system of capitalism or was it Obama's motive to help people with obtaining a home?" Which is the purpose and which is the means to that purpose? (Actually I think it is more accurate to substitute the word IS for WAS in the above formulations.)
Before answering this question, I recommend a rereading of Ayn Rand's article "The Metaphysical versus the Manmade" which appears as Chapter 3 of her book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It". She goes to some length to discuss the issue of a man's character and how to treat that in one's self and in other people.
I happen to think it was his motive to tear down the American/capitalist system for several reasons. 1) He was born of a mother who was thoroughly into being a Marxist/socialist. She participated with these people in her college years and held and backed ideas that advocated the tearing down of the America's system of capitalism, i.e., the system of individual right, i.e., the political system based on the individual freedom of all men. Further her parents were sympathetic at minimum to these ideas and when Barack was a teenager in Hawaii, his grandmother came home one evening with the story that she had been confronted by a black man wanting a handout and the incident had scared her. Barack went into a blue funk and his grandfather directed him to 2) Frank Davis, a known communist who became his mentor. Am I to believe that an avowed communist never mentioned the ideas of Marxism/socialism or the values behind it for some number of years while Obama was in Hawaii, 1971-1979? 3) Further he states in his autobiography that when he went to college, he sought out the Marxist professors and students as his friends. There is no evidence of a break nor questioning of his ideas throughout his life. 4) His work in the only Alinksy-ideologically-sourced law firm in Chicago is further evidence of this. 5) And, his work in community organizing and later as an Illinois Senator and then US Senator attest further to being sourced by this ideology. So I don't think there is any evidence that he was sourced by any set of ideas other than Marxism/socialism.
Further, if he wanted to help the poor, America is a free country. He could have started a voluntary organization whose purpose was to enroll people who were interested in finding a way to accomplish this purpose. It would have been an authentic avenue for people who believe in such an idea to accomplish something. It would have entailed an education of the poor in what it takes and it may have supported them financially once they proved that they were thoroughly engaged in the activities and would be able to produce the value of their owning their own home.
Where is the evidence that he was ever concerned about housing for the poor before he saw it as a political opportunity for himself?
If you notice, Obama did none of this. Instead he sought to tear down the institutions and destroy the standards by which one measures whether one is ready and capable of owning a home.
A man forms his character by his choices and deeds. No one can change that except him and all anyone can do is judge a man's character and take the appropriate action. In the case of a destructive character such as Obama's, one must get himself out of Obama's way to the degree that he can. Further, given that Obama is involved in the usurpation of governmental powers, intimidating people with images of pitchforks, negating valid contracts and a myriad of other violations of individual rights, it is not incumbent on everyone to fight this man? He is, after all, the President who wields power over all of us with no apparent rational standard of justice and no intention of rationally persuading us to his position.
As further evidence of the evil of Barack Obama, I assert that he exhibits his purpose in nearly everything he does. He is extremely focused and dogmatic in his efforts.
Notice how he insisted on disrespecting the institutions and boundaries that we accord the Office of the President of the United States. Obama insisted on his own Seal while running for office and then another one while awaiting to be inaugurated. Further notice how he has to script everything he does. That scripting is evidence that he always has to say things in a way that keeps people from seeing his true intentions and how little he is able to come from an authentic, positive position in relation to all the people of this country. Also notice that his right hand man had the audacity to thumb his nose at Bush at the inauguration. Further notice how he is unable to stand for any of the people who were his mentors during his rise to the Presidency - such as Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers and even his grandmother at one point. This does not mean that he stopped their influence in his life. It means that he cannot allow us to see his real - and unacceptable to the American people - motive which is to destroy capitalism in the United States of America.
In his current trip to Europe, he bows and scrapes before the King of Saudi Arabia and gives the Queen of England no special respect in his greeting. Then he shakes hands on an international financial arrangement which gives away America's sovereignty over her own laws.
If this man be innocent, I have yet to see a shred of it. The human touches of Michelle's wardrobe and occasional stories about his children don't mean anything in terms of the grand scheme of things other than they are all part of a creation of his soothing emollient of deceit.
Steve, I appreciate the time you took to provide a very complete response. This post on Obama’s Re-Distribution was in two parts and much of what you commented upon was covered in Part 2 of the post. I was in the process of writing part 2 when I realized that the post had taken a different turn and there was no mistake.
ReplyDeleteIt can be said that I did not anticipate that she would defend re-distribution. In fact, I have made that assumption several times over the last few weeks. I consider Obama’s moves to be such gross violations of individual rights, not to mention, economically untenable, that I assume he has few supporters. This is not true; we are running headlong into a major crash because he has many supporters who do not realize the extent and breadth of the damage being done to our rights and our economic freedoms.
I did as you suggested and read again Rand’s article “The Metaphysical versus the Man-made”. In that article, she describes how an individual has the choice of mental attitude; either the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness. In short, Rand tells us, many people want to displace the primacy of existence with the attitude of the primacy of consciousness. The lesson is a good one because I think the choice to support re-distribution is essentially made from the desire to elevate the subjective/emotional mindset into a metaphysical fact where productive (reality-oriented) citizens are confronted with fanciful efforts to change the rules of economic life.
Obama wrongly seeks a fantasy world where somehow being unproductive can lead to economic prosperity. He thinks you can give people dollars and that will spur economic activity. What he ignores is that the people who work in our society do not think that way and never will. They know that you have to produce before you can sell and that means having investment capital (savings) in the hands of the people rather than the government. They know that Obama’s impossible utopia is being built on their backs and everything they have worked for is being looted.
This is why you are seeing the emergence of “Tea Parties” all over the country. These protesters know that re-distribution is something that will harm them and is alien to the foundations of capitalism and individual rights. Further, they know that the cause of our present crisis is not capitalism and freedom but government and over-regulation; the effort by government to re-distribute income through housing policy. Banks and mortgage companies were forced by government to give risky loans and Obama’s re-distribution policies are nothing more than the same poison that caused the crisis.
The arguments used by re-distribution advocates against hard working Americans is that anyone who disagrees with the government’s fanciful mindset; anyone who dissents from the government’s “caring” for people, is a greedy person who is out only for himself. These charges are intended to stop dissent cold. In the past, that might have worked; you could call a person selfish and immediately, they would clam up, feel guilty and stop challenging re-distribution.
Today is a new day. People are starting to realize that charges of “selfishness” and “greed” are weapons that do not apply to hard working people, many of whom are working to support families with children. Finally, the American worker is realizing that the professional parasites who have been let loose by Obama and his political allies are intent on taking over our government and looting their production. They have realized that self-interest is what makes this country great and it is not an evil idea; it is a good idea, a moral idea.
I was struck while re-reading Rand’s article that she made (though much more eloquently) the same point I made (in Part 2) about government picking winners and losers even though she wrote this article in 1973:
“Today, intelligence is neither recognized nor rewarded, but is being systematically extinguished in a growing flood of brazenly flaunted irrationality. As just one example of the extent to which today’s culture is dominated by the primacy of consciousness, observe the following: in politics, people hold a ruthless, absolutist, either-or attitude toward elections, they expect a man either to win or not and are concerned only with the winner, ignoring the loser altogether (even though, in some cases, the loser was right) – while in economics, in the realm of production, they evade the absolutism of reality, of the fact that man either produces or not, and destroy the winners in favor of the losers. To them, men’s decisions are an absolute; reality’s demands are not.”
We must stop this spending madness before it gets too far. We are now going into a deflationary stage where companies are seeking to unload their stores of unsold products while the government seeks to compensate by inflating the currency. People are seeing the writing on the wall and they will stop buying anything but bare essentials as they try to stretch their money as far as it will go. The result of this will be deflating prices and inflating currency. Eventually, this will wipe out margins for products made and force businesses to sell those products at higher prices (hyper-inflation) that no one will pay. Once the stores are gone, and the companies and jobs are gone, things will get very bad and we may get back to food lines and government boondoggles that will further steal production. If we can stop the spending, we may have a chance of working our way out of this and saving our futures.