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?

No comments:

Post a Comment