Saturday, March 10, 2012

Punishing Success

“Whatever your holistic plan (socialism or fascism) is, there are some people who will never fit in. This includes those who do not share your vision of a better world and never will. They will have to be neutralized somehow." – Lester Hunt (parenthesis mine) (1)

The above statement exposes an ominous state of affairs as we move closer to a more domineering government. Mr. Hunt, in criticizing totalitarianism, is also criticizing the progressive movement that is somewhat hindered from achieving its goals by the U. S. Constitution. Like typical totalitarians, they would prefer not to be hampered by limited powers.

Yet, as totalitarianism advances, and as the constitution is chipped away, the left’s methods for dealing with dissent move slowly from propaganda and historical revisionism toward more drastic methods such as imprisonment and summary execution. It does not matter the society, once a government attains full power, it must do what it thinks it must do. The Germans during the Nazi period were considered to be among the most intelligent and educated of societies, yet they descended into barbarism and a lust for murder.(2) There is every reason to expect that our leaders will descend to these depths. Given their ideological fervor and the belief that they are right, one should expect that they will deal with dissent in much the same way as the Nazis and Soviets did. Especially when you consider some of the worrisome things they have done such as asking citizens to report their neighbors to the White House.

We have not arrived at summary executions yet. However, the left’s strategy for neutralizing opposition deserves scrutiny. The President’s minions are doing everything possible to help him stay in power. A recent article called “The Self-Made Man is a Right Wing Myth” by Tim McGowan of the Philadelphia Progressive Examiner is an example of how progressives use ridicule to manipulate dissent.

“Let a Democrat say we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the population and his call will be met with howls of protest from the Right saying that is punishing success. They portray taxes as Socialist wealth redistribution, an onerous and unfair burden, and confiscation. They then defer to a story of the self-made man a la John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as the model of how they succeeded and no one gave them anything and the poor deserve to be poor because they are lazy losers. We are the winners by dint of our superior ability.”(3)

This caricature of what the “Right Wing” would say to a call for more taxes is itself a myth. There is little evidence that today’s wealthiest 1% are working “a la John Galt”, the brilliant fictional character who stood firm against collectivism by going on strike. Unfortunately, most of today’s self-made men are not intransigent defenders of their own rights. In fact, most of them agree with the idea that men should sacrifice for the sake of the “common good”. Regarding their superior ability, they might point to a good education, gained through a private college, most often paid for by working part-time jobs and surviving lots of sleepless nights. They became successful by unrelenting hard work, clear thinking and dedication to a purpose but they are also cowed by statements like those made by McGowan. In fact, they tend to blame themselves for the failures of others. We didn’t train them to do their jobs properly or we failed to inspire the spirit of accomplishment in them, they think.

Yet, the point of making a caricature out of successful people is to denigrate anyone who would complain about the President’s massive debt. Additionally, the left wants to “head off” any of the stronger arguments about the value of the individual in society. They accomplish this by defining their enemies as something they are not so that they can easily dispose of their arguments. They’d prefer to preemptively ridicule any statements that men might make against the advance of statism. The government realizes that those who truly understand individualism, capitalism and property rights must be neutralized; and the easiest way to do that is to ridicule them before they raise their heads to complain.

Mr. McGowan continues:

“Many a millionaire will laugh and explain to you that the self-made man is pure fantasy and is largely based in someone's ego, arrogance, insecurity and ignorance, as well as just plain old fashioned fiction cooked up by frauds like Grover Norquist to give justification to an essentially selfish, greedy, and destructive economics that benefits virtually no one but 1% of America's population.”

This paragraph provides us with a clue to the essence of the argument against capitalism and self-interest. Contrary to Mr. McGowan’s denials, his statements are indeed intended to punish success by means of several anti-concepts such as “arrogant, insecure and ignorant” that he uses to describe successful people. The purpose here is to turn positive traits into negatives. The positive traits that actually describe most successful people are “work hard, dedicated, desirous of a better life and studiously intelligent”. But these traits, the correct ones, don’t serve the purpose of the looters. So self-made men must be diminished and punished while their true motives are ignored.

I consider name calling of the self-made man to be undignified, mean and hypocritical. But the key issue here is the tactic of ignoring the positive traits of successful people which sometimes results in a feeling of invisibility and worthlessness within the self-made man. It is the same tactic once used against slaves who were supposed to consider themselves useless to the "master" unless they strove to please him in every way.

The true value of those individuals among us who bring us our computers, our communications systems, our iPhones, our electricity and our Ford automobiles, not to mention thousands of other products and services, should be appreciated not ignored. Not only is it illogical for Mr. McGowan to play these "mind games" with today’s self-made men, but he barely strives for accuracy. He assumes that everyone knows what these words mean and that everyone agrees they are justified. I think it is time to challenge the left about its punishment of success.

For instance, why is it evil for a person to seek his own self-interest (to be an egoist) but good for a person to be poor? If the egoist is trading value for value in pursuit of his self-interest, why is that evil? The same goes for such concepts as “selfish” and “greedy”. What do these terms mean in actual practice? Is the act of being honest in one’s dealings, making good products and services and trading those products for reasonable compensation greedy?

To answer these questions, we must understand that in order for the left to continue looting American society, it must eliminate the possibility of self-made men. It wants them to continue to be productive, but it does not want them to think they are vital in any way. Further, in order for the Obama administration to establish the framework for slavery, it must destroy the idea of inalienable rights. The best way to do this is to denigrate those who would benefit most from the protection of individual rights, those people willing to work the hardest for success. If such people can be “educated” to consider themselves as unimportant then what the government takes from them is also of little value.

Notice that progressives love to praise themselves as being dedicated to helping people. They give themselves awards for helping the downtrodden, the poor, the ignorant and the sick, all the while ignoring the fact that they do these things with the money created by the self-made man. They take credit for supposedly helping millions of people when they have not spent a single dollar of their own money. They glorify themselves, write books about their lives, erect statues of themselves and name buildings after themselves while ignoring the real accomplishments and success of the very people who make their massive government programs possible. For progressives, the real achievement is that they took somebody else's money.

Yet, the short-term “pragmatic” goal of progressives like Tim McGowan is to neutralize the opposition from Tea Party types who want to defend their rights, property and incomes from government expropriation. The Tea Party represents a factor that the left had not expected and, because of this, they have been set back, slowed in their progress toward the entitlement state. The Tea Party must be marginalized. This explains the use of such terms as "John Galt" and "self-made men" in Mr. McGowan's article. These are terms straight out of Ayn Rand's writings and the left is running scared to stop her influence.

Of course, progressives don’t call what they are doing “looting” or “slavery”. They prefer to say that we live in a grand collective where all men, as long as they work hard for others, can create a fair society. They rhapsodize about a “social contract” where some are asked to do more because, according to them, society has given them so much. We receive a “social safety net”, great schools, health and human services and so much more from society. They praise the state for providing us with streets and highways in order for businessmen to transport their products. For progressives, this means that each humble contribution from the individual is a gift from each to all. If such a sacrifice is not willingly given, then the unwilling must be “neutralized”. Those who disagree with giving their “fair share” and playing by “fair rules” must be shamed for harming society.

Progressives ignore the fact that government does not ask, it commands; and any government that commands does not have to worry about whether citizens approve. For instance, many government workers, because they don’t have to compete for their jobs, are arrogant, rude and sometimes “ignorant”. Money taken from the private sector will most often be squandered and wasted, and few people will be held accountable for these losses. Those wonderful roads are often full of potholes, the schools teach children the party line and other agencies of government do more to squash trade than increase it. Massive government debt has meant fewer jobs, higher prices, less disposable income, less saving and more poverty. Who pays for the losses? Why the greedy self-made man, of course.

But Mr. McGowan springs another more vicious trick on the self-made man. It goes like this: He is not really self-made. According to this view, the so-called self-made man is created by society. Each of us is a product of our environment. If a person achieves riches, those riches are provided by those who purchase from him. We are a collective where all value comes, not from the individual, but from the group that reared and nurtured us.

According to this view, society has first call on anything the individual makes. There are no rights except those that society decides to create. And if society requires that the individual give up something for the sake of the whole, it is completely right to make the demand. Everything the individual receives is a gift from society and everything he makes originated in society. The group is everything, the individual is nothing.

This view, of course, is collectivism, the idea that the collective is more important than the individual. Its political expression is democracy and its final destination is dictatorship. Collectivism is advocated by people who view society as god. Their ancestors philosophically are Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant and Dewey to name a few. The goal of these philosophers was to ensure that individuals stay firmly below society in importance. The result is that the individual never discovers that he has rights. If he accepts the notion that everything should be shared equally, regardless of individual effort, then he cannot question the government’s effort to re-distribute income.

Collectivism creates a gross ignorance of several important facts. First it ignores the individual’s role in his own survival. In order to survive, an individual must think and act correctly. How he thinks is his choice. In order to think, he must develop knowledge that is usable and he must make a choice to use that knowledge. This leads to the recognition that the most important thing about the individual is that he survives by means of reason. Thinking, using reason, is a singular act chosen by each individual, not by society for the individual. Because collectivism ignores these facts, it creates a gross prejudice against the individual and builds a society around exploitation, control and violation of rights. The many gross violations of individual rights create a society of incompetence and poverty.

From an economic perspective, collectivism destroys the results of the human mind by outlawing capital accumulation, savings. Since collectivism expropriates savings, individuals do not have the ability to create abundance. The result is that people stay at the level of mere subsistence. This is why collectivist societies always fail: they must exploit individuals and this very exploitation destroys progress. Once collectivists see their ideas failing, instead of desisting, they blame individuals who are “cheating” and not giving their fair share. These individuals are the most talented in society because they produce more than those who have already been beaten down. The result is more anti-individualism to fight the anti-individualism that created the decline in the first place. This explains the Obama administration’s policies perfectly.

We can continue with this line of thinking until we descend further into absurdity. We see that absurdity around us every day, especially in the writings of men like Mr. McGowan. What most people miss is that collectivism creates the very poverty that progressives blame on self-made men. In our society, higher taxes on the rich, costly and unnecessary regulations, executive decrees, deficit spending and inflation, as well as the health care bill, are collectivist ideas that have negative impact on the lives of people. They make it more difficult for people to survive and then they blame people for deliberately sabotaging their efforts. This leads to oppressive behavior on the part of government.

In order to understand the basis of Mr. McGowan’s arguments, we must understand the way collectivism and democracy work. Progressives have long been advocates of collectivism and democracy for the simple reason that politically, these ideas enable them to gin up votes and outrage for collective action. That collective action must always require sacrifice for the sake of the collective. Once that action is decided upon, the next logical step is bloody death, slavery, ostracism or expropriation of wealth. Collectivism and democracy are not about love of mankind; they are about gangsterism and theft.

In contrast, a republican society would not allow people to vote away the rights and property of other citizens. In a republic, people could vote for politicians but they could not vote for the elimination of individual rights. Such a system protects the individual because it recognizes that the only way to have a peaceful, cooperative society is to ban force in human relationships. Individuals, free to secure their survival without the threat of expropriation, enslavement or democratic vote, have only cooperation and reason as their means to success. People keep their possessions out of right not out of dispensation from an authority; and this makes possible capital accumulation, investment, improving products and infrastructure not to mention reason and mutual trade to mutual benefit. Property becomes the hallmark of success.

To illustrate the importance of the principle of individual rights, ask yourself what would happen if men could not keep their earnings? This would mean that they could not accumulate capital for investment in grand schemes such as a power grid that covered large areas of the country. The result would be people living without electricity. You would also not have large automotive companies which would mean people could not travel for work or pleasure. They would not have telephones, computers, television sets, even food. Without capital accumulation, even if these items were invented, each would require so much human energy to produce that prices would be too high for the average person. Only those with political power and lots of other peoples’ money could afford them.

Democracy represents the most corrupt use of force possible in society. Throughout history, democracy has devolved into gangsterism and protection rackets. For progressives, it is the means to an end which is totalitarian control. Once people begin voting away the rights of individuals, democracy becomes tyrannical government. All one gang has to do is claim to be the defender of the downtrodden and it can get away with anything including murder of its opponents. All they have to do is create an emergency, rig a vote and then take over. And today, the re-distributive “democracy” of Barack Obama is stealing money on an unprecedented scale. If you wonder what the outcome of this re-distribution will be, read the previous paragraph again.

In contrast, our original republican system of government prohibited the government from violating individual rights. The founders of our nation foresaw all of the corrupt ways of doing government, especially the flaws of monarchy and Greek-style democracy. They found a way to eliminate the corruption of these systems through such devices as limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances and the Bill of Rights. They declared that man was free to pursue happiness (which means he could accumulate capital) and their system put up roadblocks against money expropriation.

Since the advent of progressivism (the Wilson years), gangsters have been working to undermine the Constitution and individual rights. Their work is almost complete.

We've virtually lost sight of the genius of republican government and of how many problems it solved for civilization. We are moving headlong into democracy, gangsterism and tyranny for lack of that knowledge. President Obama is the organizer and leader of that gangster movement.

Contrary to Mr. McGowan’s words, collectivist government is not the source of the great benefits of society. Those benefits come from those among us who have the ability to think clearly and act. They come from men of genius who bring us the new, the unheard of, the unanticipated and the brilliant. They also come from efficient businesses that make life-enhancing products, distribute them and collect the revenues. Only liberty can create this success; not government interference in the affairs of men, not collective thinking, not sacrifice. Success cannot happen without human energy, dedication, long hours of work and the desire to make it happen, all of which come from an individual decision, not from society. This fuzzy idea that the greatest men of capitalist achievement owe their success to society is poppy cock. Where was such individual achievement before the capitalist era that liberated human intelligence?

To prove my point, I challenge government to take the laziest welfare drunk from the dregs of society and turn him into a millionaire without giving him a handout. Come on, if successful people owe their success to society, then who is going to be the first liberal to start creating millionaires? This argument that millionaires are not self-made is nothing more than an excuse for robbery. We are turning into a nation of cannibals.

But Mr. McGowan did not write what he did in a vacuum. This kind of charge against self-made people is very common. It happens thousands of times a day in our country. Punishment of success is deemed proper by many people. In fact, some people take such criticisms of self-made men as morally unanswerable. Why?

Why are people like Mr. McGowan allowed to get away with their hatred of success? Why do people give his criticisms such credence? Why do so many men accept ridicule for the mere act of trying to live? I think the reason is that throughout the centuries men have been brainwashed to blame themselves whenever something goes wrong. It seems to be a natural tendency to accept blame for things over which men have no control.

Add to this the influence of many philosophic systems that start with the premise that man is imperfect. This view is derived from ancient myths in which men did not heed the demands of the gods. In response, the gods punished men for their apparent arrogance and demanded that men pay retribution in the form of sacrifice. Early men were taught that they had done something dis-respectful to the gods and deserved the fire, earthquake and other storms that were dispensed. Since then men have accepted the idea that they deserve to be punished even for their success. The result was centuries of societies barely capable of supporting themselves because of stultifying ritual, tradition and much sacrificing.

Once religion won out over reason in ancient Greece, there was no historical standard bearer for reason. Religion began a steady growth and men began to look inward to solve their problems, to pray, to humble themselves, to blindly accept blame for presumed vanity, arrogance and selfishness. Those rational men that were still left became silent, and in order to stay alive they submitted to the cruelties and insults of religious leaders and kings. Monarchy became the tyranny of the period and anyone who challenged the king and/or god was certain to die, be tortured on the rack or ridiculed in front of the entire community. Men knew they had better keep their heads down lest they lose them for the sake of heaven’s wrath. The result was the Dark Ages when seeking knowledge was a sin and disease and hunger were common.

I think it is accurate to say that these influences have been given an inferiority complex of sorts. They creates a tendency among men to blame themselves whenever other people are said to be suffering. They are taught that greed is evil merely because they want to acquire assets. They are taught that they have excessive pride merely because they want to do well. They are taught that their success takes away from the success of others and they do not question the veracity of these teachings.

Psychologists will tell us that the best way to cure neurosis is for the individual to connect with his past, to go back to those situations where his thinking went wrong, relive the negative experiences and correct the flawed thinking. Yet, most psychologists don’t know how to help people bring out their rational and more assertive possibilities. They countenance men to "be yourself", spontaneous and whimsical. They tell men adjust to social forces and try to get along, unaware that they are not curing anyone; they are not addressing the dominant philosophical teachings that cause men to be troubled.

What these people have missed throughout the centuries is that man, by his nature, is an autonomous being with the capacity to understand, to reason and to decide for himself. Man can be successful in nature and in society; but it is important that society not punish his success. It must protect the rights of men to succeed and enjoy life.

This idea of protecting individual rights became possible for the first time during the Enlightenment when men realized that life could be an adventure, that the individual could determine his own course and that independence from authority was the key to successful cognition. At this point in history, men began to “self-create”, to educate themselves and to develop the personal character traits that enabled them to explore, to invent and to produce. These new character traits brought about the rise of men who understood how important freedom was to living successfully.

Contrary to what Mr. McGowan might say, these men made a difference. The Founders were men of action and of independent thought. By setting the intellectual foundations of America in freedom and man’s free will, they made possible the success of other men such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and many more who invented huge enterprises run by new principles of efficiency that benefited men tremendously. The whole character of the society was poised to liberate even more men, to increase their independence, their mobility, their intelligence and their vision of the future. At first, government did not regulate this; it merely protected men against criminals and politicians.

It is often said that in the American system, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is said to be a flaw in the system that makes it exploitive and unfair. The opposite is true. Consider that in America a man could invest his capital to create huge industries that benefited millions of people. Let’s say a given individual creates a grid for the production and transportation of electricity over broad areas. This grid made possible immeasurable improvements in the lives of his customers. What did he get for his investment? His customers gave him mere pennies in return for comfort, more productive living and the lighting and heating of their homes. Who became rich in this scheme? The real benefit went to the customers.

Contrary to Mr. McGowan’s cynicism, individuals do matter and they do make a difference. Any success they create is theirs to appreciate and enjoy. And the more they create the more credit they earn, the more honored they are and the more appreciated they should be. Men seeking to “actualize” their own potential, once they have done the thinking, the hard work, the long hours and the building of great enterprises, are important and vital to the futures of all men. They make it possible for other men to actualize their potential. Not only should they be appreciated, but they should appreciate themselves, obtain a great sense of pride in their accomplishments, and they should learn to defend and protect what is theirs. They should know that they deserve their success.

Statements such as those of Mr. McGowan are based upon hatred of man and a desire to enslave those whose production is necessary for the advance of the slave state. As for myself, I see man’s purpose to be the ultimate enjoyment of life and I admire men who seek to “make” themselves. I want to be like them rather than envious of them.

To counter Mr. McGowan, I suggest that egoism is not evil. Arrogance is often the proper response to people like Mr. McGowan who mindlessly criticize what they don’t understand. Insecurity and ignorance characterize the critics of self-made men; they are not characteristics of self-made men. Selfishness is not evil but the normal character trait for any human being whose purpose is to survive. Greed is a meaningless concept based upon a negative view of success and accomplishment. And destructive economics is actually the province of progressiveds who would denigrate men’s characters and steal their wealth.

But the real problem is more than just an inferiority complex imposed upon the vast majority of men. The real problem that creates men like Mr. McGowan is the philosophy of altruism. He would not be able to get away with his cruelty without the dominance of a philosophy that demands sacrifice. Only altruism combines a pretended love of mankind with the expression of hate for the successful. Only altruism can demand that successful men pay ransom to those who are not responsible for their success. Only altruism justifies murderous hatred and makes the mere desire to live into a crime.

The fact that men like McGowan (and their readers) accept altruism is why they get away with ridiculing and insulting independent Americans. Altruism gives them a mandate to pretend to be morally superior. Someone should expose their illogical assumption. Where would they be if someone pulled the altruism rug out from under them and exposed altruism for the barbaric and murderous idea that it is? More than likely, they’d be on the streets begging for a handout.

Without altruism and its acceptance the self-made man would be free to create a magnificent future based in freedom and pride.


(2) See The Ominious Parallels by Dr. Leonard Peikoff


Thursday, March 1, 2012

The President's Gimmick - Conclusion

Does the President know that altruism is the means for destroying individual rights? Does he know it destroys the human mind? Does he know it destroys success? Does he know it destroys prosperity? Does he know it requires scapegoats and that it destroys those scapegoats? Does he know it has left killing fields full of millions of skeletons for decade upon decade? Does he know it has never created an affluent society? Does he know it destroys his vaunted American optimism? How could he not know?

But then, shouldn’t you, the voter, also know it? As an American who must decide about your nation’s future, why haven’t enough of you resisted the President’s call to sacrifice? Why haven’t you realized that the President’s gimmick, his call for a morality of sacrifice, is a call for the destruction of America?

The truth is you have always been told that sacrifice for others is good. Like the generations of many past dictatorships, you stand mute when someone proclaims that you haven’t worked hard enough for the people. Haven’t you been taught that it is your duty to sacrifice for others? Haven’t you heard repeatedly that capitalists are greedy, money grubbers, thieves and charlatans? The President is only telling you everything you “know” from your upbringing. Where’s your willingness to sacrifice for the noble cause of the President’s political base? Why aren’t you part of that political base? How can you disagree? What kind of person are you to think that greedy materialistic avarice can possibly be superior to pure, godly, sacrifice for your fellow man? What kind of monster are you to disagree with the President? How could you possibly defend the rich?

Needless to say, I ask these last questions with my tongue in cheek. But it is true, that if an idea is moral, there is no reason to be inconsistent; in fact, it is immoral not to live your moral code. If altruism is moral, what are you doing living for yourself, feeding yourself and caring about those you love? How could you be so selfish? Why don’t you jump onto the first sacrificial pyre that you come upon?

Let’s not be so quick to give it all up. It is true that once you identify a proper morality, there is no reason to act against it. But we must ask the question; is altruism really a good morality? Is it even possible to be consistently good under such a system? How can a “good” morality require that man die in order to be moral? I submit that altruism is immoral and the President’s insistence on building a society based upon sacrifice is also immoral.

The dominance of altruism in our society is due to the dominance of both religious and empiricist philosophers such as Hume, Kant, Comte and other secularists who infused their systems with the morality of altruism. Religion created the religious conservatives while the secularists created the progressives. Both groups believe that man should sacrifice, one to God and the poor, the other to the state and the poor.

Most politicians today tie their political positions to altruism and, as pragmatists, they see the proclamation of strong religious belief as essential to political success. President Obama is no exception. In fact, he recently gave a speech where he tried to attach his political advocacy of altruism in government to his Christian faith. Gone are the days when a Presidential candidate would proclaim that his religious beliefs would never touch his respect for the Constitution (Kennedy). Today both Democrats and Conservatives eagerly proclaim that their religious beliefs animate and inform their political decisions.

The President said:

“But in my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others.”

Here the President betrays what many people have thought of his economic policies; that they are not based in provable facts and reality, but upon “faith”. He relies on ideas that he cannot support by reason and logic. We are now being led by a man with his eyes firmly closed to reality. Why hasn’t the President studied how men survive in society? Why hasn’t he tried to define the fundamental facts that would cause men to prosper in society? What is his theory of man and how does it relate to the concepts of individual rights? What are rights and how are they derived from reality?

These questions are being ignored by the President because he seems to think that prosperity comes out of a vacuum; that men work hard because it is their duty; that men think high thoughts and derive broad abstractions merely by wishing. He seems not to understand the role of reason in society and the importance of objective law. He believes that society is successful only because of the manipulations of moral authorities who steer men toward “social justice” through sacrifice. The President’s example of a moral authority appears to be the coercive technocrat such as a Czar.

Yet, the President talks about his values and how important they are to him. He continues:

“We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel -- the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action -- sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

This is no different today for millions of Americans, and it’s certainly not for me.”

When the President says, “We can’t leave our values at the door”, he means that he is obliged to impose his values on you regardless of what you think or even whether his values violate your values. It is a dangerous position to hold in a diverse society. Yet, the President’s values, he claims, “are the glue that has held our nation together for centuries.” This is an effort, because of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’, to define those values for the rest of society and to ensure that there is no opposition to them. What makes his statement even more problematic is the assertion that this “moral glue” is the sole reason that has “allowed us to become somewhat more a perfect union.” This “social glue” to which he refers is a very un-American idea called “collectivism”.

Yet, the President’s statement that these reformers created an “almost” perfect union seems to represent a complaint of sorts. This reminds us of the statement once made by the President in a radio interview in which he declared that the framers of the Constitution somehow failed to provide for re-distribution in the Constitution. Needless to say, this view represents a serious departure from the very intent of the Constitution. The framers did not intend to provide for re-distribution; they omitted such a concept because they held that it was not the proper role of government to re-distribute anything.

Apparently, the President thinks re-distribution is “sound policy”. The reformers he mentions did what their faith demanded; and even more importantly, their faith dictated “bold action”. The President is telling us that his very own “bold action” is dictated by God and morality. He must advance re-distribution, his “sound policy”, because, in essence, God demands it and he is a good Christian.

That this idea violates the essence of limited government seems to be overlooked by this “Constitutional Scholar”. In fact, it is prohibited by the Constitution for the President to make any law concerning religion. For him to impose his religious demands for sacrifice violates the Bill of Rights. The Founders specifically prohibited the government from violating the rights of citizens, even if that violation is called for by God.

In fact, the Founders did not consider it to be “sound policy” or “good politics” to buy votes by means of doling out the citizen’s money to political friends and allies. The idea of re-distribution is a wedge that introduces division and chaos into society. But the President feels compelled to impose his views regardless of indifference or resistance because God demands it. How “good” of him.

“I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion. And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they’ll call on the phone or they’ll send me a email, and we’ll pray together, and they’ll pray for me and my family, and for our country.

But I don’t stop there. I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try -- imperfectly, but I must try -- to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -– from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

The President has no problem being the person who decides what will be required. His faith tells him that the burden of ensuring that seniors are taken care of and that families can pay their bills falls on those to whom much is given. But here’s where faith is not enough and simple mathematics should take over. There aren’t enough productive people to ensure that seniors are given their retirements; that the poor have homes, educations, health care, child care, contraception, unemployment checks. But these facts don’t matter; what matters is sacrifice, not because it is practical, but because God demands it. There can never be too much sacrificing.

There is something even more wrong and disconnected in the President’s words. In his “reality”, “shared responsibility” is not evenly shared. George Soros and General Electric have less responsibility to share than you. Unions now virtually own car companies and private investors have been cut out of their investments in those car companies. The President is not with those investors. It seems they must share their responsibility but the unions must not.

The enormous deficits were caused by the President, not George Bush. And the fact that families cannot pay their bills is due to the President’s Quantitative easing that is causing monetary inflation and rising prices. The President has brought forward stimulus plans that haven’t stimulated and Green Energy investments that have produced little green energy; all with the sacrifice of trillions of dollars.

Merriam-Webster defines schizophrenia as “a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as delusions), perception (as hallucinations)....” I am not a psychiatrist but I think it is a good question to ask whether the President is connected to his environment (reality). For him to base his actions on ideas that have no foundation in reality is a real problem for those of us who must deal with reality. And certainly, not to care about the well-being of those Americans who must pay for the massive deficits through taxes and rising prices (the tax of inflation) must certainly amount to a “disorder of feeling” especially when you consider the numerous golf games, vacations, and some of the lavish parties at the White House.

The President thinks his faith should determine his actions; yet his actions create the opposite of what he envisions – they are creating more poverty not abundance; the world is not made a better place and the President disregards the consequences of his policies and their impact on the lives of real living human beings. If this is not a “disorder of feeling” and a lack of “contact with the environment”, I don’t know what is. Certainly, many people on the left have talked about “pulling together”. It is a high value for them especially if people actually do it. They smile at their own brilliance, oblivious to the fact that the left has been waiting for centuries for these ideas to actually work. They will be waiting tomorrow as well; and tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

As a youngster, I lived through the 1950s, I remember one of the strongest arguments against communism. Americans of that age learned that communism was founded on the Marxist injunction “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. This injunction was viewed by most Americans of the 50s as totally impractical. It was this very idea that made the Soviet Union into a failed society. Americans knew that this Marxist idea did not work and they typically branded communism as evil and impractical. Today, the President thinks that sacrifice (re-distribution) is a magic formula for abundance and prosperity, that spreading the wealth creates new customers for the economy, completely oblivious to the fact that this very idea caused dictatorships to collapse in virtually every case. If this is not a lack of “contact with the environment”, I don’t know what is.

Yet, the President is right in one respect; if you believe in altruism, you must impose it politically. You must see its establishment as more important than individual rights. You must understand that altruists should ignore the pleas for freedom by those who are supposed to sacrifice. Given the definition of morality fostered by both the President and the Republicans, the President is being more consistent. After all, sacrifice for others is considered to be “moral” and the moral is the good. It is an “either/or” issue. The Republicans have always wanted a government based on Judeo/Christian principles and this is what the President has given them. Were they consistent with their own altruistic beliefs, they would agree with the President and attempt to bring society in line with the “good”.

This is why Republicans lose elections. They are not a true opposition movement. They hold the same basic false premise (altruism) as the Democrats. Either the Republicans are going to have to take the opposite position and foster individual rights or they should join the Democratic Party.

The real dilemma for Republicans is that their middling advocacy of altruism does not represent the philosophy upon which this nation was founded. People like Glenn Beck and others play into the hands of the progressives when they agree that “sacrifice” is our fundamental philosophy. The President, when he says that sacrifice is our core value, knows that the Republicans cannot disagree with him.

Over the next few months you’ll be bombarded by the call to sacrifice and you'll be told over and over that altruism/sacrifice is a core American value. You’ll be asked to sever your contact with reality and to sanction the President’s policies that he prays about every day. You’ll feel so guilty for trying to survive that you’ll wonder how you ever got into a position in life where you are in favor of greed, theft, racism, torture, inhumanity and downright murderous evil. How could you vote against a man who is trying to do so much good, who is trying to help so many people? How could you vote for a Republican who is the epitome of avarice and greed, the defender of capitalism, the crony of fat cats and who’d rather give a tax cut to a rich person than a government program to a baby starving in the cold streets? What kind of person are you?

Oh, you’re a Republican.

You’ll have to agree that the President honors real American values when he tells you:

“Well, I’m here to say they (the Republicans) are wrong. I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.” (parenthesis mine)

The President here is reminding you that good ethics is sacrificial ethics. He will repeat those words above incessantly about “a fair shot”, “a fair share”, and playing by “the same rules” so many times because focus groups have told his pollsters that they work, they ring true.

Who would be against getting a fair shot? What is a fair shot? In the President’s mind a fair shot is a chance to be given the money necessary for a college education, food stamps, unemployment assistance, rent assistance, contraception, child care assistance and health care. All of these things can help the poor stand equally in the competitive race to succeed in society. They will be provided by those who are not giving their “fair share”.

Paying a fair share means that more will be demanded of those who have higher productive ability. Playing by the same rules means those people with productive capacity should be regulated by government so they don’t exploit those people without productive capacity. In many cases, this means that some products, (such as oil) will not be available. If you notice the contradiction between a fair share and playing by the same rules, it is not the President’s fault that you’re a selfish monster.

Of course, I don’t think you’re a selfish monster. But we must ask the question: is sacrifice for the collective really an American value? No. It is an evil idea that destroys values and forces men into slavery.

The President has no problem with you working hard, being self-sufficient, even a genius, as long as you, the producer, are subjected to social justice. If you accept the lie that you really didn’t accomplish your success on your own; that you were made successful by those who are not successful, that others sacrificed to give you roads to carry your products over, then you understand what it means to be part of a "social contract". Work hard, yes, but give some to others. Get a fair shot, but don’t take more than those who haven’t had a fair shot. Play by the same rules but don’t take advantage of your higher success; make sure that others don’t suffer from your success; give part of your product to others. This is the anti-self-sufficiency philosophy known as social justice. This is from each according to his ability to each according to his need. This is the “fairness” of President Obama and, for many decades, Republicans have always said, “me too.”

The Tea Party movement came into existence because of the President’s policies. The Tea Party protesters saw that individuals in the middle class were not getting a fair shot. They realized that while their work was providing the goods, their money was being stolen by means of the Community Reinvestment Act, high oil prices, TARP, massive “stimulus” packages that stimulated nothing, massive deficits and inflation. Their IRAs and 401Ks were being raided, their money was being devalued. Where was their fair share? And where are their same rules? And, how can a nation possibly succeed when it vilifies the “good” people who make money and pours that money down the throats of the non-productive? The President thinks these people should “work together” under his leadership while their money goes down the drain for the sake of Solyndra, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, the unions and sundry other looters who think they are too big to fail and that you are too small to complain.

How could you complain? How could you side with the evil rich who made it without government? How could you be in favor of starvation?

The truth is that altruism is based on a false and evil moral philosophy. Social justice is reverse-justice, just as every statement made by progressives is a reverse truth, a lie. It is a violation of the principle of equality before the law, not only because it violates individual rights, not only because it represents slavery, but because it treats some people differently, it loots and exploits people with ambition and a desire to succeed.

Altruism destroys the principle that a person has a right to the pursuit of happiness. The President is wrong when he declares that altruism is foundational in society, when he declares that “togetherness” is how we became a great nation. Altruism institutionalizes collectivism, the premise that groups are paramount in society and that one group, the poor, has a claim on the production of another group, the so-called rich. This principle is false, evil and un-civilized; it is the essence of plunder and theft.

I’ve mentioned in another post that altruism is a destructive bomb bigger than the atomic bomb. We are having that bomb dropped on our heads every day with every act and every utterance of the President. Over the next few months, you’ll have enough of it. And you’ll have to ask yourself if the President is playing some cruel trick on you, trying to disarm you against the theft of your property and rights.

Will you realize that you are a sacrificial victim? Will you join those who have been corralled into concentration camps, incinerators and mass graves by past statist regimes? Or will you be the first generation of revolutionaries who realizes that sacrifice does not build great societies but instead makes dead societies? Will you realize that the message to be broadcast thousands of times with billions of dollars in advertising, has been massaged, perfected and refined, but is nothing more than the ancient call to die for the sake of others, to put yourself upon the altar and to let them tear out your heart for the sake of the collective? Will you realize that self-sacrifice leads to your death? Will you realize that self-sacrifice promises a glorified future that has never come about?

Our Founders realized some very important principles. First, they realized that monarchy was dictatorship/tyranny. They realized that men are never happy in such a system because they are constantly being put upon by government to sacrifice their work for the glory of the king or government. They realized that these forms of government had always wreaked havoc on people, had killed them, ruled them, stolen from them and educated them to be servile slaves. They realized that the only principle that liberated people was the idea that the individual had a right to his happiness; he had a right to keep what he produced and he had a right to deal with men without the imposition of force by government. It was a revolutionary idea. But it made possible happiness for any citizen who was willing to work for his own survival. Keeping your money meant you could enjoy your life, have leisure and relaxation…without guilt and without the need to feed the world.

Today, the President wants you to forget that “the pursuit of happiness” means that you can keep what is yours and live without guilt. He also wants you to forget that working without payment is slavery, the most evil idea in history. Why does he want you to forget? Like King George before him, he wants to loot your production for the sake of his friends and he wants you to be the fool who allows it out of a phony moral sentiment.

Are you so weak and servile that you don’t see what is happening in front of your eyes? Do you not see the corruption, the lies, the cynical use of altruism to manipulate you? Do you not see that there is no compromise possible with a man who uses lies against you? Do you not see that the charges of “selfishness” and greed are nothing more than rhetoric designed to impose guilt upon you so that the President and his friends can take your last dime?

The President’s hope is that you have no ammunition against the call to sacrifice. He hopes that if he talks in glowing phases about the “value” of helping others, that you’ll forget that you have a right to enjoy life. The President is using all the ideas you’ve been taught against you; and he hopes that you don’t have the courage and the moral certainty to say just one word. He’ll keep pushing altruism. He’ll use all the money given to him by George Soros, the unions, the crony capitalists and the sundry rich people who favor communism and fascism and he’ll spend it on giving you the message of altruism.

What is that word that he hopes you won’t say? It is the word “Why?” Why should you owe your work to others? Why should you work while others do not? Why should your sacrifice mean that you suffer while others benefit? Why should your money be spent without your approval? Why should you pursue happiness and learn that no happiness is possible? Why don’t you have a right to your property? Why is it good to receive from others but greedy to receive from yourself?

Now it is up to you. Will the President’s message win the next election for him or will you stand up to proudly proclaim that the sacrificing must stop?