As Americans we have an important, life or death, moral choice to make over the next few months. No one should shirk it, not you, not me, not our children; especially not politicians and other influential people. Are we to be a nation that enables morality through freedom or that suffers immorality through dictatorship?
A lot of people are demanding that President Obama should become a dictator. Some are insisting that he just take over. They would not be offended if he simply ruled by edict. To them this would be the right thing to do…because this is the only way to advance his agenda without political criticism and opposition.
I say we are already there and these shills for dictatorship have nothing to complain about.
March, 2009 – In an unprecedented move, President Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner - when our new President turned his attention to ‘solving’ the pending bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler. This interference into the hiring and firing practices of a private corporation represented the beginning of an ominous trend where the President calls his own shots.
May, 2009 – The Obama administration assigned complete authority to a “Task Force” made up of Obama administration officials and Wall Street veterans to restructure General Motors and Chrysler overstepping existing bankruptcy laws and Congressional oversight.
May, 2009 – The Obama administration, in negating the contracts between Chrysler Corporation and private investors, who should have received their investments back in full, set a precedent that threatens to invalidate any legal contract at any time purely on the basis that the President deems it necessary.
September, 2009 – The Obama Justice Department decided to dismiss a case filed against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation. The apparent, though not stated reason for the dismissal is that the Obama Justice Department believes that civil rights cases cannot be brought against the historical victims of racism. That intimidation did take place at the polling place, that election laws were violated, indicates disrespect by the administration for equal protection under the law.
December, 2009 - The Obama Treasury Department removed the $400 billion financial cap on the money it will provide to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac afloat, sidestepping Congressional oversight authority and further punishing the tax payer for a problem created by the government through the Community Reinvestment Act.
June 2010 – President Obama informs the American public that “Tomorrow I will meet with the Chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of this company’s recklessness.” Though we still don’t know what caused the explosion at the BP drilling station, even Fox News journalist Bill O’Reilly ranted on his television show that the President should do whatever he needed to make BP pay for the mess in the Gulf. He openly stated that the government should use whatever force it needed in order to accomplish this. It did not bother O'Reilly that the demand by President Obama violates the laws and judicial processes already in place to deal with issues of this type. Even after 234 years of freedom in this country, it now becomes proper, because Bill O'Reilly says so, to engage in open extortion of money from a private company.
June 2010 – President Obama declares a drilling moratorium on Gulf of Mexico deep water drilling operations for at least six months. To accomplish this, he used a forged document, and when the administration was asked what legal authority it had for the moratorium, administration lawyers brought up the "authority" of the President in an emergency. Yet, there was no law that gave the President the authority for the moratorium.
Each of these moves by the Obama administration, with the exception of the decision not to pursue the case against the Black Panthers was presumably the result of an emergency. Yet, each of these actions was “unconstitutional”. There was no legal basis for making them. But more importantly, each of them had a set of shills in the media and in Congress that declared the President's action necessary; because, presumably, people would suffer if the President did not act immediately.
None of these people cared to consider that there was something dreadfully wrong with their advocacy of dictatorship: they had forgotten the principles that they relied upon, principles such as freedom of speech, that almost every dictator in history has sought to eliminate. They were calling for dictatorship in the very nation built as a bulwark against arbitrary power and abusive government. For the sake of a short-term benefit to a few people, many of whom were corrupt and responsible for their own situation, they would advocate for the President's violating the Constitution that protected the rights and freedoms of all citizens. And they fell for the biggest shell game of all; the scam of government creating a crisis and then declaring itself the solver of the crisis. Where is the questioning here?
The Constitution gives the President the power to enforce laws passed by Congress. It does not give him the power to make laws, create regulations or otherwise legislate about the actions of private citizens or corporations. This is because of the separation of powers built into our Constitution.
These acts, and many others taken by the President, represent a power that few men in history have held. Those who have obtained this power are members of an elite group known as dictators. Their names include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez and many others known for the devastation they wrought.
In “My Ignorant Fascism Rant”, I wrote:
“The rationale for the takeover of private activity was first propagated by some ancient Greeks. The Greeks held that democracy was ineffective during war and that a strong central control was necessary to get a city through an emergency of this kind. This required the establishment of a “tyrant” (who controlled everything) and the suspension of all freedoms until the war had been won. At that point, the city could once again reestablish democratic rule. This is the genesis of our modern day “tyrannies”.
Yet, even some of the Greeks wondered why people wanted to return to democracy when the “tyranny” had been so efficient. Couldn’t a tyranny work during peacetime? In fact, Plato’s recommended “Republic” was a tyranny of the philosophers where the most intelligent men controlled and planned all elements of society in order to advance a common and greater good. Plato’s ideas were forged out of the anger and despair he felt over seeing his beloved mentor and teacher Socrates drink the hemlock at the behest of “the people” who voted that he should die. Plato’s work has served as a blueprint for dictatorships ever since it was written so many centuries ago.”
In America, our revolution sought to eliminate dictatorial power by means of the separation of powers. The Founders sought to ensure that arbitrary power could not develop. They knew that such power by the King of England had necessitated the revolution, and they concluded that a government which governs less is the best government. All private decisions, even responses to emergencies, were to be made by free people without Federal government involvement.
The rule of law makes a civil, peaceful society possible. It facilitates trade, reason, free speech, safety and uniform rights. It declares that all men are equal before the law and strives to make it impossible for men of power to use the law for their sole benefit. The rule of law requires that laws be made by the people through an open legislative process. The principle starts with a Constitution that enumerates individual rights and prohibits government from violating those rights, and through the separation of powers, it makes sure that only the duly chosen representatives of the people can make laws, and, equally important, it requires that every member of government swear to uphold the Constitution.
The practices of our President in denying due legal process to the citizens of our nation are an affront to civil society and freedom. They are an affront to the intent of the Constitution. Are we to be a society where a single person has the authority to make all decisions, or one where the laws are passed through a legislative process controlled by the people? Are we to be a nation of laws or a nation of men?
It is clear that President Obama’s answer to this last question is that he has the wisdom and the authority to decide for us. It is clear that he wants to be a dictator. It is clear that, like all dictators in the past, he is not competent to rule our nation.
For instance, our financial crisis was caused by government’s effort to re-distribute income through the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to make bad home mortgages. This violation of property rights got so out of hand that it brought some of our financial institutions down. A private solution would have involved the bankruptcy of those institutions only. After a short period of time, an economic adjustment would have worked its way through the economy with little damage to the people whose investment funds were not involved. As it was, the government and President Obama, forced an additional re-distribution of money from investors and tax payers, prolonging the recovery and putting everyone’s future on the line. This is arbitrary power that collectivized the problem and made sure that everyone suffered, even those people who had nothing to do with creating the problem.
When President Obama declared that all debts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-government institutions that are responsible for the “meltdown”, would be covered by government, he made another unilateral decision that further enslaved the tax payers and their children. This is arbitrary power, exerted to “solve” a problem created by government, that harmed everyone except the contributors to the President’s political campaigns, the very culprits responsible for the meltdown. This is immoral, illegal and purely dictatorial.
Without a well-constituted legal system, nothing is illegal. We must understand why this is important. You may say that President Obama is merely trying to solve emergencies and that we should just get together for the good of all. But the important issue is that the President’s actions have the (possibly) unintended consequence of totally destroying our legal system; and this will destroy our society. This will make the dishonest person equal to the honest and release the dishonest to prey upon society. This includes not only the rich criminals who use campaign contributions to create massive money laundering schemes, but also the hardened street criminals who will be released to do the bidding of the government that wants their “services”.
This brings us to the Black Panthers, the unions and community agitators. With the President's coddling of criminal elements in our society, his unwillingness to prosecute these elements will give these power-hungry people the opportunity to use physical violence, riots, shakedowns and extortion; in other words, to create more emergencies for the government to “solve”. When we get to a point of no return, there will be nothing we can do except protect ourselves and hope to survive. We will be as animals not knowing what tomorrow will bring; our choice will be between survival by violence or death by violence.
Is this what we want? Or do we have the foresight of our Founding Fathers who sought to ensure that individual rights and the rule of law were preserved?
You may think that this will never happen. I hope I am wrong. But unless we start defending our freedoms against the assaults being made by President Obama against the rule of law, this very negative outcome of violence and revolution is highly possible. There are people who are ready for this situation and who know exactly what they will do when this period arrives. The result can only be concentration camps and slave labor.
“A society of laws and not of men” is a critical principle for our nation. It makes it possible for us to be moral men and women. It is the basis for our individual rights that make up everthing that happens in our lives, everything we think, say, own and create; the destruction of just one of those principles means the destruction of our entire society. Anyone who does not know this, or who routinely ignores it, is no friend of our nation – whether he knows it or not.
The idea of avoiding the courts to resolve legal issues is a hallmark of dictatorship. When a President routinely declares everything an emergency and then makes laws on the fly, it destroys the voluntary relationships in society, turns everything into a question of what the government will do next, and destroys people who have done nothing to deserve destruction (such as Gulf-area oil company employees). Dictatorship destroys everything in its wake.
We have to realize that the danger of full dictatorship will become even more palpable when the President begins naming judges who will refuse to challenge him in his abuses of power; or when he nominates Supreme Court Justices who will harangue other Justices into voting to support the President’s abuses – under the extra-legal justification of using “temporary” powers to deal with an emergency. The truth is that those arbitrary powers will not be temporary and the fight to restore a proper respect for law will be very difficult once the government gets control of all institutions.
We have an important choice to make in November, and we should make this choice with our eyes wide open. This may be the last election we have as a free people if we don't make the right decisions. Are we going to shill for dictatorship and allow the President to continue increasing government power or are we going to stop this madness and insist that the President follow the law?
Impeachment should not be out of the question.
Showing posts with label dictatorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dictatorship. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Ocean
If the world releases swelling bombs,
if the world succumbs to whining qualms
about how man should live.
If our nation turns to stone
and rules the freedoms we have sown.
If a Hitler walks the land
and says, "I am peaceful man."
If these things of which I say
come about some cloudy day,
I will have to go,
and shrug my shoulders on my way.
And I'm sure the things I write
will be buried by the trite
who think they know what's best for man,
who think they have the power and
whose heads you'll find among the sand
of an ocean full of lies.
copyright 2010 by Robert Villegas, Jr.
if the world succumbs to whining qualms
about how man should live.
If our nation turns to stone
and rules the freedoms we have sown.
If a Hitler walks the land
and says, "I am peaceful man."
If these things of which I say
come about some cloudy day,
I will have to go,
and shrug my shoulders on my way.
And I'm sure the things I write
will be buried by the trite
who think they know what's best for man,
who think they have the power and
whose heads you'll find among the sand
of an ocean full of lies.
copyright 2010 by Robert Villegas, Jr.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Cause of War
This is a revised and expanded version of a previous post entitled "The 'Inevitable' Victory of Socialism".
There has never been a time for us living today when war was not a constant threat. Today we may be ending one war while we are in the throes of another in Afghanistan that may take years to win. I’m not sure that our President has the desire or the resolve needed to win this war. I'm thinking, if you don't know what to do, Mr. President, let's bring them home so we can prepare for the defensive war ahead.
The cause of these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) is not the United States but dictatorship. In Iraq, we had a dictatorship that openly sought to weaken the USA. Saddam supported terrorists and financed attacks against Israel. He lied to the world and started several wars in his region. He was taken out by the freest country in the world. Yet, we were wrong, says the left, when we sought to depose Saddam.
In Afghanistan, we are fighting a brutal gang known as the Taliban; a group that gave refuge to Al Queda and Osama bin Ladin. The Taliban refused to help the United States bring these terrorists to justice so they were removed by the militaries of freer nations. This is a just war, we are told by the left (today), because we are trying to kill bin Ladin. Today, the Taliban continue their fight as they vie to restore their brutal domination over the country. Killing bin Ladin doesn't seem to be on the table.
It is difficult for us to recognize the most common cause of war. My view is that wars are started by authoritarian governments over weaker or freer countries. And since most of these governments are at constant war with capitalism, you can be sure that they are not friends of individual rights. This means they have an incentive to denigrate and “go after” other countries rich in natural resources. As Ludwig von Mises puts it:
“Durable peace is only possible under perfect capitalism, hitherto never and nowhere completely tried or achieved. In such a Jeffersonian world of unhampered market economy the scope of government activities is limited to the protection of the lives, health, and property of individuals against violent or fraudulent aggression. The laws, the administration, and the courts treat natives and foreigners alike. No international conflicts can arise: there are no economic causes of war.”[1]
Yet, the representatives of authoritarian governments gain credibility when they posture as defenders of peace while criticizing the United States as a warlike nation. It is a common scam that has been run by countless dictators from the Soviets to the Taliban. It is based on the Marxist lie that capitalism is about stealing the labor and resources of people in order to make the “evil” profit. Yet, as Mises explains, there has never been a fully capitalist system; any examples that they denigrate are mixed economies (or worse) where the governments have driven the the country into poverty through massive interventions; governments very much like those advocated by the critics of capitalism. Their scam is to blame the United States for being a war monger which justifies their making war against the United States without having to actually declare war.
The question is: why were most of the wars of the last two centuries started by dictatorships or authoritarian governments? The best way to understand this is by analyzing the types of governments that start wars.
For instance, why would a country that has open trade with the world want to go to war? As long as free markets prevail there is every incentive for peace. And as Mises points out, free market governments are limited to protecting the lives and properties of all citizens. By design, they have a respect for freedom and free peoples; likewise for the citizens of other countries. Free people want to make profits so they can live well. They are creative and “life-serving” by nature because they know that they must provide benefits and improvements to people in the form of products and services. They can’t make a profit if their customers and suppliers are dead or in chains.
On the other hand, a government that keeps a cold hand on the activities of its citizens, that wants to muscle in on the profits of businesses, will find every reason to restrict free trade and dishonor other countries. One such type of government is called an oligarchy where rich families use the government to control major industries and restrict free competition. This is called “muscling in” on markets and is not a hallmark of capitalism but of dictatorships. These governments covet other resource-rich territories because they want to monopolize those resources and charge prices above the level of the free market. If they can corner the markets for such resources as oil, minerals, diamonds, etc., they can charge exorbitant prices and make millions. They instigate wars so they can add these countries to their control. Such oligarchs divide the country into two factions: 1) their friends and 2) the impoverished and neglected masses who have no choice but to buy their necessities from them. Within their countries, they fight a constant war against the citizens; and outside their countries, they fight wars against other country’s citizens...in the name of peace.
What about our policies? How will they impact our future actions regarding other nations? For instance, our government has violated the terms of NAFTA for the sake of union drivers. It has raised certain tariffs as a way of "protecting" American workers and, most worrisome of all, it has created massive budget deficits that threaten to weaken the dollar around the world. This move has brought about the threat of higher prices due to the Fed's increasing of the money supply (inflation). This massive expansion, that takes money right out of the pockets of productive citizens, is intended to enable the government to takeover large banks and manufacturing firms, create non-productive jobs, strengthen control over the people through Health Care and Cap and Trade as well as make other political payoffs to unions and political cronies. Of course, we mustn't forget another big killer of trade which is the expansion of union memberships advocated by President Obama and SEIU among others. This policy will most assuredly result in lower product quality, higher product prices and loss of productive jobs. All of these moves will create an oligarchy in our country made up of people like George Soros, friends of Barack Obama, other leftists and companies that either willingly participate in "muscling in" or are forced to participate out of fear of Obama's pitchforks. The result will be impoverished masses (you and I) and very possibly a warlike nation with diminishing economic power?
Understanding the cause of wars today is difficult because of the influence of Marxism. This philosophy seeks to mask the desire for plunder among many countries by claiming to fight for the supposed “victims” of capitalism. Using doublespeak and the Big Lie, they convince people that capitalist production is theft. American college professors are routinely teaching college students from around the world that wars are caused by capitalism and specifically by America. Routinely, they tell us that capitalist countries have a penchant for captured markets and resource theft. It is typical of the left to accuse the opposition of doing the very things the left is doing.
How do they get away with teaching these lies? Early Marxists created the perfect scam to convince people that there was indeed something evil about capitalism. It is called the dialectical process or dialectical materialism which was a mystical assertion that capitalism was the thesis that was being replaced by the antithesis which is socialism. A historical struggle was falsely postulated and by selective analysis, the Marxists claimed to “prove” that capitalism was doomed to destruction at the hands of the “workers of the world.” This idea of an inevitable historical process that would cause the replacement of capitalism by socialism was not to be doubted, they told us, and, they claim, there is no reason to fight it; instead we should hurry the process along. This is how progressives today convince people that they have no choice about the coming socialism. Educate the people about the inevitability of socialism and you destroy opposition to it.
In fact, the "change" that Obama promises, according to this theory, is the road to the next step of the dialectical process. Change is the new term that will usher in the socialist antithesis to capitalism.
Over the last several decades, however, something seems to have gone wrong with the dialectical process. For some reason, socialism has not yet replaced capitalism. History has stopped being inevitable. Since the big war, Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse and others have been frustrated that the dialectical process did not work as they had thought. To explain this failure, they assert that "reactionary" forces, strengthened by the economic power of the capitalist countries, have tempted the masses away from communism. Their diabolical method of temptation was to give the people products and services that improved their lives...created by mass production and mass marketing (This is why the Marxists (environmentalists and others) are always trying to stop industrial progress and why they hate Madison Avenue). Further, they claim, the capitalist military industrial complex has built massive weapons that have kept the socialist axis at bay. In their view, only something as evil and powerful as capitalism could thwart the efforts of the “good” people (murderous dictators) seeking to stop the dastardly exploitation of the workers.
For the Marxists, the reason that socialism could not advance was the power of capitalism; which is strange since they had thought it would collapse of its own weight. This new circumstance of a powerful, diabolical capitalism has precipitated their efforts to cause it to collapse by stressing it with socialist programs, false charges of Imperialism, reduced military expenditures, violent street protests, bombings and ginned up scandals. Today, the anti-capitalists have captured the universities, distributed to themselves huge grants from the government treasury and perfected the scam of shaking down business organizations by threatening their self-interest. Those businesses who understand the “opportunity” created by the Marxists are the new oligarchs trying to “muscle in” through their fake government/business partnerships. They forget that Marxist theory has doomed them to destruction along with capitalism.
I think it is curious that the Obama administration never discusses dialectical materialism or even Marx or Hegel, yet it is operating on the basis of Marxism. Implicit in everything they do is the idea that socialism is the next form of government for us...while they tell us that it is not really socialism. These guys came out of Columbia University, for God's sake. What else do you expect?
The problem for the Marxists is that the dialectical process, because it is a false idea accepted without proof of any kind, will still not create a successful socialist state...it will do what it has always done...create an oligarchic dictatorship, economic decline and slavery. It will bring us back to barbarism by destroying the only bulwarks against dictatorship: individual rights and limited government. It will also require wars, as a matter of political survival for the leftists. Every dictatorship must have enemies...but our enemies won't be other dictatorships; they will be the former allies that take a more capitalist road.
There is a spark of hope on the horizon. The Tea Parties may save America because we have the power to stop the advance of socialism...we can make the leftists stop all the spending that would collapse our economy. We can say “No” because our production makes possible the purse from which they rob us of our freedom and dignity. We must insist that they create no more entitlement programs, no more social engineering programs, no more ACORN, SEIU, Americorps, no more lies and hate. The Tea Party protesters are the only people who know that our choices going forward are either socialism or freedom. There is no middle way...not any more.
The best way to stop wars is to re-establish the Constitution and reject Marxism and oligarchy in all their forms.
[1] Ludwig von Mises, “Omnipotent Government” Libertarian Press page 284
There has never been a time for us living today when war was not a constant threat. Today we may be ending one war while we are in the throes of another in Afghanistan that may take years to win. I’m not sure that our President has the desire or the resolve needed to win this war. I'm thinking, if you don't know what to do, Mr. President, let's bring them home so we can prepare for the defensive war ahead.
The cause of these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) is not the United States but dictatorship. In Iraq, we had a dictatorship that openly sought to weaken the USA. Saddam supported terrorists and financed attacks against Israel. He lied to the world and started several wars in his region. He was taken out by the freest country in the world. Yet, we were wrong, says the left, when we sought to depose Saddam.
In Afghanistan, we are fighting a brutal gang known as the Taliban; a group that gave refuge to Al Queda and Osama bin Ladin. The Taliban refused to help the United States bring these terrorists to justice so they were removed by the militaries of freer nations. This is a just war, we are told by the left (today), because we are trying to kill bin Ladin. Today, the Taliban continue their fight as they vie to restore their brutal domination over the country. Killing bin Ladin doesn't seem to be on the table.
It is difficult for us to recognize the most common cause of war. My view is that wars are started by authoritarian governments over weaker or freer countries. And since most of these governments are at constant war with capitalism, you can be sure that they are not friends of individual rights. This means they have an incentive to denigrate and “go after” other countries rich in natural resources. As Ludwig von Mises puts it:
“Durable peace is only possible under perfect capitalism, hitherto never and nowhere completely tried or achieved. In such a Jeffersonian world of unhampered market economy the scope of government activities is limited to the protection of the lives, health, and property of individuals against violent or fraudulent aggression. The laws, the administration, and the courts treat natives and foreigners alike. No international conflicts can arise: there are no economic causes of war.”[1]
Yet, the representatives of authoritarian governments gain credibility when they posture as defenders of peace while criticizing the United States as a warlike nation. It is a common scam that has been run by countless dictators from the Soviets to the Taliban. It is based on the Marxist lie that capitalism is about stealing the labor and resources of people in order to make the “evil” profit. Yet, as Mises explains, there has never been a fully capitalist system; any examples that they denigrate are mixed economies (or worse) where the governments have driven the the country into poverty through massive interventions; governments very much like those advocated by the critics of capitalism. Their scam is to blame the United States for being a war monger which justifies their making war against the United States without having to actually declare war.
The question is: why were most of the wars of the last two centuries started by dictatorships or authoritarian governments? The best way to understand this is by analyzing the types of governments that start wars.
For instance, why would a country that has open trade with the world want to go to war? As long as free markets prevail there is every incentive for peace. And as Mises points out, free market governments are limited to protecting the lives and properties of all citizens. By design, they have a respect for freedom and free peoples; likewise for the citizens of other countries. Free people want to make profits so they can live well. They are creative and “life-serving” by nature because they know that they must provide benefits and improvements to people in the form of products and services. They can’t make a profit if their customers and suppliers are dead or in chains.
On the other hand, a government that keeps a cold hand on the activities of its citizens, that wants to muscle in on the profits of businesses, will find every reason to restrict free trade and dishonor other countries. One such type of government is called an oligarchy where rich families use the government to control major industries and restrict free competition. This is called “muscling in” on markets and is not a hallmark of capitalism but of dictatorships. These governments covet other resource-rich territories because they want to monopolize those resources and charge prices above the level of the free market. If they can corner the markets for such resources as oil, minerals, diamonds, etc., they can charge exorbitant prices and make millions. They instigate wars so they can add these countries to their control. Such oligarchs divide the country into two factions: 1) their friends and 2) the impoverished and neglected masses who have no choice but to buy their necessities from them. Within their countries, they fight a constant war against the citizens; and outside their countries, they fight wars against other country’s citizens...in the name of peace.
What about our policies? How will they impact our future actions regarding other nations? For instance, our government has violated the terms of NAFTA for the sake of union drivers. It has raised certain tariffs as a way of "protecting" American workers and, most worrisome of all, it has created massive budget deficits that threaten to weaken the dollar around the world. This move has brought about the threat of higher prices due to the Fed's increasing of the money supply (inflation). This massive expansion, that takes money right out of the pockets of productive citizens, is intended to enable the government to takeover large banks and manufacturing firms, create non-productive jobs, strengthen control over the people through Health Care and Cap and Trade as well as make other political payoffs to unions and political cronies. Of course, we mustn't forget another big killer of trade which is the expansion of union memberships advocated by President Obama and SEIU among others. This policy will most assuredly result in lower product quality, higher product prices and loss of productive jobs. All of these moves will create an oligarchy in our country made up of people like George Soros, friends of Barack Obama, other leftists and companies that either willingly participate in "muscling in" or are forced to participate out of fear of Obama's pitchforks. The result will be impoverished masses (you and I) and very possibly a warlike nation with diminishing economic power?
Understanding the cause of wars today is difficult because of the influence of Marxism. This philosophy seeks to mask the desire for plunder among many countries by claiming to fight for the supposed “victims” of capitalism. Using doublespeak and the Big Lie, they convince people that capitalist production is theft. American college professors are routinely teaching college students from around the world that wars are caused by capitalism and specifically by America. Routinely, they tell us that capitalist countries have a penchant for captured markets and resource theft. It is typical of the left to accuse the opposition of doing the very things the left is doing.
How do they get away with teaching these lies? Early Marxists created the perfect scam to convince people that there was indeed something evil about capitalism. It is called the dialectical process or dialectical materialism which was a mystical assertion that capitalism was the thesis that was being replaced by the antithesis which is socialism. A historical struggle was falsely postulated and by selective analysis, the Marxists claimed to “prove” that capitalism was doomed to destruction at the hands of the “workers of the world.” This idea of an inevitable historical process that would cause the replacement of capitalism by socialism was not to be doubted, they told us, and, they claim, there is no reason to fight it; instead we should hurry the process along. This is how progressives today convince people that they have no choice about the coming socialism. Educate the people about the inevitability of socialism and you destroy opposition to it.
In fact, the "change" that Obama promises, according to this theory, is the road to the next step of the dialectical process. Change is the new term that will usher in the socialist antithesis to capitalism.
Over the last several decades, however, something seems to have gone wrong with the dialectical process. For some reason, socialism has not yet replaced capitalism. History has stopped being inevitable. Since the big war, Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse and others have been frustrated that the dialectical process did not work as they had thought. To explain this failure, they assert that "reactionary" forces, strengthened by the economic power of the capitalist countries, have tempted the masses away from communism. Their diabolical method of temptation was to give the people products and services that improved their lives...created by mass production and mass marketing (This is why the Marxists (environmentalists and others) are always trying to stop industrial progress and why they hate Madison Avenue). Further, they claim, the capitalist military industrial complex has built massive weapons that have kept the socialist axis at bay. In their view, only something as evil and powerful as capitalism could thwart the efforts of the “good” people (murderous dictators) seeking to stop the dastardly exploitation of the workers.
For the Marxists, the reason that socialism could not advance was the power of capitalism; which is strange since they had thought it would collapse of its own weight. This new circumstance of a powerful, diabolical capitalism has precipitated their efforts to cause it to collapse by stressing it with socialist programs, false charges of Imperialism, reduced military expenditures, violent street protests, bombings and ginned up scandals. Today, the anti-capitalists have captured the universities, distributed to themselves huge grants from the government treasury and perfected the scam of shaking down business organizations by threatening their self-interest. Those businesses who understand the “opportunity” created by the Marxists are the new oligarchs trying to “muscle in” through their fake government/business partnerships. They forget that Marxist theory has doomed them to destruction along with capitalism.
I think it is curious that the Obama administration never discusses dialectical materialism or even Marx or Hegel, yet it is operating on the basis of Marxism. Implicit in everything they do is the idea that socialism is the next form of government for us...while they tell us that it is not really socialism. These guys came out of Columbia University, for God's sake. What else do you expect?
The problem for the Marxists is that the dialectical process, because it is a false idea accepted without proof of any kind, will still not create a successful socialist state...it will do what it has always done...create an oligarchic dictatorship, economic decline and slavery. It will bring us back to barbarism by destroying the only bulwarks against dictatorship: individual rights and limited government. It will also require wars, as a matter of political survival for the leftists. Every dictatorship must have enemies...but our enemies won't be other dictatorships; they will be the former allies that take a more capitalist road.
There is a spark of hope on the horizon. The Tea Parties may save America because we have the power to stop the advance of socialism...we can make the leftists stop all the spending that would collapse our economy. We can say “No” because our production makes possible the purse from which they rob us of our freedom and dignity. We must insist that they create no more entitlement programs, no more social engineering programs, no more ACORN, SEIU, Americorps, no more lies and hate. The Tea Party protesters are the only people who know that our choices going forward are either socialism or freedom. There is no middle way...not any more.
The best way to stop wars is to re-establish the Constitution and reject Marxism and oligarchy in all their forms.
[1] Ludwig von Mises, “Omnipotent Government” Libertarian Press page 284
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Selling Slavery
What is the difference between a person volunteering for community service and the government asking you to engage in community service?
You have to wonder if a multi-million dollar public relations campaign promoting government-managed community service is nothing short of the government demanding community service?
What is the appeal of community service? And more importantly why is the government of Barack Obama trying to sell the idea? What is his motive? Certainly, some of my friends will say that he’s just trying to make a better America. I would respond that we should not be so gullible as to automatically believe the most powerful agency of force in the land. The government is backed up by guns and anything it does, no matter how benign it seems, must be questioned and, indeed, must be opposed as a matter of principle. The government is supposed to protect us against criminals and itself; it is not supposed to collect us into groups working toward a so-called benign goal.
To illustrate the dangers of government supported community service, we must look at history. Images of an army of smiling volunteers working for the sake of the collective hearken back to another day. These romanticized images were used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Communist Chinese to glorify “the people” who were creating a "proud" collective utopia. Not only did they build things and clean up the countryside but they also burned down shops and beat up Jews.
I know, I must be crazy…but I beg to differ. As Ayn Rand has said, (to paraphrase) whenever you see someone demanding sacrifice you can be sure someone is collecting the sacrifices. In my view, when they try to sell community service, the Obama administration seeks to establish the intellectual foundation for slavery. They want men to think like slaves; they want men to obey. They even want men to give up their pursuits for a better life, pleasure, leisure and relaxation and, instead, spend their time thinking about some innocuous idea called "community". This turns men away from their need to work for their own well being and it destroys their sense of self-esteem and pride, diverting pride, not toward their individual accomplishments, but toward how much they can sacrifice for the sake of somebody else's children, someone else's home, someone else's meals or the planet's little fish or polar bears. Couched under the Madison Avenue sales pitches that tout the value of neighbor helping neighbor is a different kind of pitch; it is the pitch of selling servitude. They are leading people into a maze full of hidden doors and deceptive dead ends; a maze where everything is an illusion and every word means its opposite.
I know I'll be accused of being cruel, but, frankly, it is not your job to ensure that the entire world is a better place. Nor should you be forced to give up your standard of living at the point of a gun held by a policeman. Take care of your own little corner, make your own life better through hard work and education, and let everyone else take care of their little corner. If you can work together to accomplish something, great, but you should never be made to feel guilty for taking care of your own needs and desires. History has shown this approach works much better. On the other hand, here’s how community service works.
Collectivism
The basic premise of government funded community service is collectivism. The administration believes in the idea of collective action toward collective goals. This means that the people should work without pay, a demand that would be considered an insult to any rational being. The administration uses collectivism to sell men into working, not for pay, but as a duty.
Is it possible that the administration does not realize that collectivism is the opposite principle established by our Constitution? I think not. I think they understand fully that collectivism is not “the American way”. They want to sell us on the idea of transforming our society into one big collective where all citizens routinely contribute their energy to others…without pay.
Historically, collectivism has had a bloody past. All major dictatorships used collectivism to silence dissent and enlist support. They spread massive amounts of propaganda in order to sell the idea of collective sacrifice as the panacea to all of the nation’s problems. What were these societies? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Italy, World War II Japan and other smaller examples.
Many Americans think it is possible to have a benign collectivism where only good is done and everything is voluntary. They hope that finally, in America, we can have a “good” collectivism where people are dedicated to the common good and where everyone cooperates. What they miss is that collectivism is like a coin, two-sided, where one side holds good intentions and promised positive results while the other side holds the force that must be mustered in order to ensure that collectivism is accepted by all people. Who is that force intended for? You might be surprised to learn that every collective has the same enemies and it always seeks to enslave or destroy those enemies. The enemy is any individual or nation that functions according to the profit motive.
The Profit Motive
There are three basic reasons why the collectivist government doesn’t want you to make a profit. First, they want to skim the profits for themselves and give you poorly managed social services in return, two, they want to re-distribute those profits in order to buy votes until they can outlaw elections, and three, they want to destroy your ability to be self-sufficient. If you can earn only bare subsistence, you must depend on government, but more importantly, you have lost your pride.
A free person who is responsible for his own success does not need government. In order to survive well, he need only think and innovate. Outlaw the profit motive, tell a person that profit is evil, that it is theft, and you have destroyed the person’s ability to maintain his own sense of self-responsibility, self-importance and pride.
The basic justification for the idea that profits are evil is the Marxist proposition that the only value created in society is that created by the laborer who runs the machines. According to the labor theory of value, the capitalist is unnecessary and parasitical, even evil. Profits are therefore wasteful unless they are spent on the laborer. So if we take the profits away from the rich, we can create a “just” society.
The truth is that profit, and its corollary individual rights, represent one of the crucial intellectual advances in human history. When it was recognized during the Enlightenment that all men should be allowed to keep the results of their work, regardless of how large their profits, the floodgates to riches, scientific research, better products and higher standards of living were opened for all citizens to enjoy (including the laborer). While the laborer was earning a profit of his own, the Marxists would claim that profit in the hands of the capitalist was stolen from the laborer. When the laborer began to enjoy leisure and the products he was producing, as a purchaser of those products, the progressives were telling him that the lavish lifestyles of a few rich people were a cruel travesty that must be met with progressive taxation.
The Marxists failed to recognize that profits and property rights were the reason for the success of capitalism, preferring instead to give the credit for that success to machines. The result was that socialism, in its drive to destroy profits, also destroyed the opportunity for people to use their minds to create better machines, products and lives. Machines did not invent themselves; the human mind invented them; and their higher productivity was not the outcome of an inexorable law of nature; they were the result of human choices. Once profits were outlawed under socialism, the only men who made profits were government cronies. The laborers were not enriched at all but were instead thrown into poverty, exploitation and unemployment.
Exploitation
Only a person with no possibility of improving his condition can be exploited. Socialism exploits people by forcing them to live collectively and to see themselves, not as individuals, but as cogs in a wheel. The propaganda of socialism tells them that their sacrifice today will make the lives of their children and grandchildren easier…but not their own lives. The socialist worker learns to resent the fact that he has not elevated his own living conditions. In fact, the more willing he is to work hard, the more is demanded of him. He learns to reduce his effort and works with less diligence and energy. The message from the government (that he recognizes as a cynical lie) is that things are getting better. This lie is an attack on his sense of reality; yet it is a message that he must repeat or else he will lose his job; it is a message he must believe or else.
Truth
Any honest commentator about history will tell you that collectivism and socialism do not work. They are an affront to practical action and they produce the opposite of what they promise. This is because the ideology that supports them is false, based on lies and/or unrealistic expectations. Socialism cannot create affluence because it punishes human incentive and operates by means of the gun. The failures of socialism are recorded history.
You can take it as a rule of thumb that when a progressive or socialist makes a statement, the opposite is true almost every time. They are forced to support the fallacies of socialism because they never question the veracity of Marxist tenets. And since they have gotten power only through agitation and lies (about capitalism), once they gain power, they must keep lying. They cannot suddenly discover the truth that capitalism is actually good. Every statement made by the socialist must therefore be true in reverse.
When a socialist promises to create more jobs by spending the money earned by productive citizens, he must invent words to make it appear that jobs are being created. He is talking in reverse.
A good example of this can be found in the Stimulus Bill fostered by President Obama. The President brags about 30,000 new or saved jobs while ignoring the fact that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. He also ignores the millions of jobs he’s destroyed. He is thinking in reverse.
The Stimulus Bill stimulates job losses not job creation. Thinking in reverse again. This destroys the value of money (through inflation), the value of hard work (through dependency) and the value of sound financial judgment (through unnecessary shovel ready projects). As producers begin to complain about the unfairness of government checks for the “poor”, the President can only accuse them of being selfish. Yet, all they are trying to do is survive. Again, thinking in reverse. At that point, his next enemies are those who understand and speak the truth.
Speech
Before the socialist clamps down on free speech, he will try to get as much willing support as possible. He will continue the lie that collective sacrifice is the solution to our problems and that those who refuse to sacrifice are the problem. Only when everyone joins the collective call to duty can we succeed in having a successful society, he says. Again, he’s thinking in reverse. If someone is critical of the movement, then that person must somehow be removed as an obstacle. Free speech is the enemy of collective action.
Censorship and fear have been used in virtually every socialist society in history, in some cases, with bloody consequences. Those who refuse to accept the government’s lies must be ridiculed. They must be made to feel guilty for not going along with the master plan. They must be isolated and silenced because they are questioning the motives and policies of the leadership.
From where does free speech originate? It comes from the thinking mind, from the person who is not afraid to look at reality and tell the truth about what it observes. When the right of people to speak freely is allowed, it is more difficult for fraudulent ideas to proliferate. Whenever a government feels that it must silence dissent then the truth cannot win and only destruction will follow.
Those who criticize the government are attacked for trying to harm the people. We see this today in the government’s attacks against medical insurance companies, energy companies, Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce. These organizations are being blamed for not assisting the government's collectivist schemes. You can be sure that when the government criticizes private citizens and private organizations, it has become (or intends to become) a dictatorship. The sooner we understand this, the sooner will we be able to join forces to stop it.
The Mind
At every turn, whenever the progressives try to implement their collectivist political agendas, their main enemy is the mind. This is because the mind is necessary for moral action. It is necessary in order to create profits, run businesses, make political decisions, judge government and speak out against injustice.
But there is a more sinister element to the coercive actions of government that indicate how much of a prison our nation is becoming. And this gets back to their attacks against profits. Every dictatorship in modern times has been at war with capitalism. We can find this when we read about how the Soviets disenfranchised, stole from and even murdered people who were considered to have been part of the bourgeoisie. The Communist Chinese had their Red Guards who murdered businesspeople and destroyed shops and businesses. And few today even discuss the fact that the hatred of the Jews by the Nazis included the charge of profiteering.
Today, the Obama administration accuses Fox News of criticizing it in order to make profits. It says the same about Talk Radio, the insurance companies, the oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, you’d think that profits are the only reason anyone would oppose the policies of President Obama. Let's hope so.
Closing the Door on the Prison Cell
You may think “it can’t happen here.” You may think we are too civilized to descend into savagery; but weren't the Germans once considered to be among the most civilized people on the planet? Go to Dachau, as I have done, to see what they did in the name of the collective.
The basic tactic of the Alinsky radicals in the administration is to close the door on the prison cell of any person who disagrees with them. Today, it may not be an actual cell, perhaps just a prison cell in the mind. How will they do it? By means of two Orwellian concepts which, once accepted, will result in the destruction of capitalism and your rights: social justice and democracy.
You may think that these two concepts are good. Of course, society should foster social justice, if you mean by social justice that all men are created equal before the law. That is why we have courts, laws, lawyers and even a Constitution that lays down the basic principles upon which our society is based. We have established rules for court proceedings that allow all parties in legal disputes to present evidence that can be dispassionately considered by an impartial judge. The whole purpose of this form of social justice is to ensure fairness. Indeed, our legal system has been considered to be one of the most just in history.
The radicals, however, play a word game with the concept of “social justice”, a sort of bait and switch. When they tell you they believe in social justice, they have something entirely different in mind. For them, social justice must ensure that all profits go to “the people”; no one should be allowed to be rich; all incomes should be shared equally regardless of effort. In other words, no person should be allowed to make more money than his neighbors. This is called "social justice" but is it? Could it really be rationalized injustice?
Every dictatorship has had a citizen army whose purpose was to impose “social justice.” Whenever the government thinks it can do whatever it wants “for” the people, you can bet someone will be forced to give something up, his property or his life. Whenever a nation decides that the “common good” requires re-distribution of income, you will know it has reached the end of civilized behavior.
The other bait and switch used by progressives, the other method of imprisoning the people, is the concept of democracy. Our government is a republic, not a democracy. It is a system of checks and balances designed to prevent dictatorial powers from taking over the country. There is a democratic vote in republican government; but such voting extends only to those who will represent us in the limited functions of government; such votes do not confer unlimited rule on anyone.
A republic limits the government to protecting people from criminals and government power. A full democracy, on the other hand, would use the “power” of the people to impose coercive demands. Whenever you hear people like Hugo Chavez or his defenders in the administration claim they are advancing “democracy”, you can be sure they are advancing, not limited democratic processes, but unlimited tyrannical rule. They claim it is what the people want, and, once again, they claim to be establishing “social justice.”
Whenever you hear the Obama administration make these and similar reverse arguments, you can be sure they are not seeking to make things better. Their effort to sell you on collective action through so-called voluntary citizen armies is a form of “selective service” recruitment, a form of military draft. All they have to do is claim there aren't enough volunteers and you have the foundation for a uniformed citizen police force empowered by government to make you sacrifice. Don't you wonder what your service number will be? I still remember mine. How could I forget?
If they succeed in selling you on slavery, you will have earned it.
You have to wonder if a multi-million dollar public relations campaign promoting government-managed community service is nothing short of the government demanding community service?
What is the appeal of community service? And more importantly why is the government of Barack Obama trying to sell the idea? What is his motive? Certainly, some of my friends will say that he’s just trying to make a better America. I would respond that we should not be so gullible as to automatically believe the most powerful agency of force in the land. The government is backed up by guns and anything it does, no matter how benign it seems, must be questioned and, indeed, must be opposed as a matter of principle. The government is supposed to protect us against criminals and itself; it is not supposed to collect us into groups working toward a so-called benign goal.
To illustrate the dangers of government supported community service, we must look at history. Images of an army of smiling volunteers working for the sake of the collective hearken back to another day. These romanticized images were used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Communist Chinese to glorify “the people” who were creating a "proud" collective utopia. Not only did they build things and clean up the countryside but they also burned down shops and beat up Jews.
I know, I must be crazy…but I beg to differ. As Ayn Rand has said, (to paraphrase) whenever you see someone demanding sacrifice you can be sure someone is collecting the sacrifices. In my view, when they try to sell community service, the Obama administration seeks to establish the intellectual foundation for slavery. They want men to think like slaves; they want men to obey. They even want men to give up their pursuits for a better life, pleasure, leisure and relaxation and, instead, spend their time thinking about some innocuous idea called "community". This turns men away from their need to work for their own well being and it destroys their sense of self-esteem and pride, diverting pride, not toward their individual accomplishments, but toward how much they can sacrifice for the sake of somebody else's children, someone else's home, someone else's meals or the planet's little fish or polar bears. Couched under the Madison Avenue sales pitches that tout the value of neighbor helping neighbor is a different kind of pitch; it is the pitch of selling servitude. They are leading people into a maze full of hidden doors and deceptive dead ends; a maze where everything is an illusion and every word means its opposite.
I know I'll be accused of being cruel, but, frankly, it is not your job to ensure that the entire world is a better place. Nor should you be forced to give up your standard of living at the point of a gun held by a policeman. Take care of your own little corner, make your own life better through hard work and education, and let everyone else take care of their little corner. If you can work together to accomplish something, great, but you should never be made to feel guilty for taking care of your own needs and desires. History has shown this approach works much better. On the other hand, here’s how community service works.
Collectivism
The basic premise of government funded community service is collectivism. The administration believes in the idea of collective action toward collective goals. This means that the people should work without pay, a demand that would be considered an insult to any rational being. The administration uses collectivism to sell men into working, not for pay, but as a duty.
Is it possible that the administration does not realize that collectivism is the opposite principle established by our Constitution? I think not. I think they understand fully that collectivism is not “the American way”. They want to sell us on the idea of transforming our society into one big collective where all citizens routinely contribute their energy to others…without pay.
Historically, collectivism has had a bloody past. All major dictatorships used collectivism to silence dissent and enlist support. They spread massive amounts of propaganda in order to sell the idea of collective sacrifice as the panacea to all of the nation’s problems. What were these societies? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Italy, World War II Japan and other smaller examples.
Many Americans think it is possible to have a benign collectivism where only good is done and everything is voluntary. They hope that finally, in America, we can have a “good” collectivism where people are dedicated to the common good and where everyone cooperates. What they miss is that collectivism is like a coin, two-sided, where one side holds good intentions and promised positive results while the other side holds the force that must be mustered in order to ensure that collectivism is accepted by all people. Who is that force intended for? You might be surprised to learn that every collective has the same enemies and it always seeks to enslave or destroy those enemies. The enemy is any individual or nation that functions according to the profit motive.
The Profit Motive
There are three basic reasons why the collectivist government doesn’t want you to make a profit. First, they want to skim the profits for themselves and give you poorly managed social services in return, two, they want to re-distribute those profits in order to buy votes until they can outlaw elections, and three, they want to destroy your ability to be self-sufficient. If you can earn only bare subsistence, you must depend on government, but more importantly, you have lost your pride.
A free person who is responsible for his own success does not need government. In order to survive well, he need only think and innovate. Outlaw the profit motive, tell a person that profit is evil, that it is theft, and you have destroyed the person’s ability to maintain his own sense of self-responsibility, self-importance and pride.
The basic justification for the idea that profits are evil is the Marxist proposition that the only value created in society is that created by the laborer who runs the machines. According to the labor theory of value, the capitalist is unnecessary and parasitical, even evil. Profits are therefore wasteful unless they are spent on the laborer. So if we take the profits away from the rich, we can create a “just” society.
The truth is that profit, and its corollary individual rights, represent one of the crucial intellectual advances in human history. When it was recognized during the Enlightenment that all men should be allowed to keep the results of their work, regardless of how large their profits, the floodgates to riches, scientific research, better products and higher standards of living were opened for all citizens to enjoy (including the laborer). While the laborer was earning a profit of his own, the Marxists would claim that profit in the hands of the capitalist was stolen from the laborer. When the laborer began to enjoy leisure and the products he was producing, as a purchaser of those products, the progressives were telling him that the lavish lifestyles of a few rich people were a cruel travesty that must be met with progressive taxation.
The Marxists failed to recognize that profits and property rights were the reason for the success of capitalism, preferring instead to give the credit for that success to machines. The result was that socialism, in its drive to destroy profits, also destroyed the opportunity for people to use their minds to create better machines, products and lives. Machines did not invent themselves; the human mind invented them; and their higher productivity was not the outcome of an inexorable law of nature; they were the result of human choices. Once profits were outlawed under socialism, the only men who made profits were government cronies. The laborers were not enriched at all but were instead thrown into poverty, exploitation and unemployment.
Exploitation
Only a person with no possibility of improving his condition can be exploited. Socialism exploits people by forcing them to live collectively and to see themselves, not as individuals, but as cogs in a wheel. The propaganda of socialism tells them that their sacrifice today will make the lives of their children and grandchildren easier…but not their own lives. The socialist worker learns to resent the fact that he has not elevated his own living conditions. In fact, the more willing he is to work hard, the more is demanded of him. He learns to reduce his effort and works with less diligence and energy. The message from the government (that he recognizes as a cynical lie) is that things are getting better. This lie is an attack on his sense of reality; yet it is a message that he must repeat or else he will lose his job; it is a message he must believe or else.
Truth
Any honest commentator about history will tell you that collectivism and socialism do not work. They are an affront to practical action and they produce the opposite of what they promise. This is because the ideology that supports them is false, based on lies and/or unrealistic expectations. Socialism cannot create affluence because it punishes human incentive and operates by means of the gun. The failures of socialism are recorded history.
You can take it as a rule of thumb that when a progressive or socialist makes a statement, the opposite is true almost every time. They are forced to support the fallacies of socialism because they never question the veracity of Marxist tenets. And since they have gotten power only through agitation and lies (about capitalism), once they gain power, they must keep lying. They cannot suddenly discover the truth that capitalism is actually good. Every statement made by the socialist must therefore be true in reverse.
When a socialist promises to create more jobs by spending the money earned by productive citizens, he must invent words to make it appear that jobs are being created. He is talking in reverse.
A good example of this can be found in the Stimulus Bill fostered by President Obama. The President brags about 30,000 new or saved jobs while ignoring the fact that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. He also ignores the millions of jobs he’s destroyed. He is thinking in reverse.
The Stimulus Bill stimulates job losses not job creation. Thinking in reverse again. This destroys the value of money (through inflation), the value of hard work (through dependency) and the value of sound financial judgment (through unnecessary shovel ready projects). As producers begin to complain about the unfairness of government checks for the “poor”, the President can only accuse them of being selfish. Yet, all they are trying to do is survive. Again, thinking in reverse. At that point, his next enemies are those who understand and speak the truth.
Speech
Before the socialist clamps down on free speech, he will try to get as much willing support as possible. He will continue the lie that collective sacrifice is the solution to our problems and that those who refuse to sacrifice are the problem. Only when everyone joins the collective call to duty can we succeed in having a successful society, he says. Again, he’s thinking in reverse. If someone is critical of the movement, then that person must somehow be removed as an obstacle. Free speech is the enemy of collective action.
Censorship and fear have been used in virtually every socialist society in history, in some cases, with bloody consequences. Those who refuse to accept the government’s lies must be ridiculed. They must be made to feel guilty for not going along with the master plan. They must be isolated and silenced because they are questioning the motives and policies of the leadership.
From where does free speech originate? It comes from the thinking mind, from the person who is not afraid to look at reality and tell the truth about what it observes. When the right of people to speak freely is allowed, it is more difficult for fraudulent ideas to proliferate. Whenever a government feels that it must silence dissent then the truth cannot win and only destruction will follow.
Those who criticize the government are attacked for trying to harm the people. We see this today in the government’s attacks against medical insurance companies, energy companies, Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce. These organizations are being blamed for not assisting the government's collectivist schemes. You can be sure that when the government criticizes private citizens and private organizations, it has become (or intends to become) a dictatorship. The sooner we understand this, the sooner will we be able to join forces to stop it.
The Mind
At every turn, whenever the progressives try to implement their collectivist political agendas, their main enemy is the mind. This is because the mind is necessary for moral action. It is necessary in order to create profits, run businesses, make political decisions, judge government and speak out against injustice.
But there is a more sinister element to the coercive actions of government that indicate how much of a prison our nation is becoming. And this gets back to their attacks against profits. Every dictatorship in modern times has been at war with capitalism. We can find this when we read about how the Soviets disenfranchised, stole from and even murdered people who were considered to have been part of the bourgeoisie. The Communist Chinese had their Red Guards who murdered businesspeople and destroyed shops and businesses. And few today even discuss the fact that the hatred of the Jews by the Nazis included the charge of profiteering.
Today, the Obama administration accuses Fox News of criticizing it in order to make profits. It says the same about Talk Radio, the insurance companies, the oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, you’d think that profits are the only reason anyone would oppose the policies of President Obama. Let's hope so.
Closing the Door on the Prison Cell
You may think “it can’t happen here.” You may think we are too civilized to descend into savagery; but weren't the Germans once considered to be among the most civilized people on the planet? Go to Dachau, as I have done, to see what they did in the name of the collective.
The basic tactic of the Alinsky radicals in the administration is to close the door on the prison cell of any person who disagrees with them. Today, it may not be an actual cell, perhaps just a prison cell in the mind. How will they do it? By means of two Orwellian concepts which, once accepted, will result in the destruction of capitalism and your rights: social justice and democracy.
You may think that these two concepts are good. Of course, society should foster social justice, if you mean by social justice that all men are created equal before the law. That is why we have courts, laws, lawyers and even a Constitution that lays down the basic principles upon which our society is based. We have established rules for court proceedings that allow all parties in legal disputes to present evidence that can be dispassionately considered by an impartial judge. The whole purpose of this form of social justice is to ensure fairness. Indeed, our legal system has been considered to be one of the most just in history.
The radicals, however, play a word game with the concept of “social justice”, a sort of bait and switch. When they tell you they believe in social justice, they have something entirely different in mind. For them, social justice must ensure that all profits go to “the people”; no one should be allowed to be rich; all incomes should be shared equally regardless of effort. In other words, no person should be allowed to make more money than his neighbors. This is called "social justice" but is it? Could it really be rationalized injustice?
Every dictatorship has had a citizen army whose purpose was to impose “social justice.” Whenever the government thinks it can do whatever it wants “for” the people, you can bet someone will be forced to give something up, his property or his life. Whenever a nation decides that the “common good” requires re-distribution of income, you will know it has reached the end of civilized behavior.
The other bait and switch used by progressives, the other method of imprisoning the people, is the concept of democracy. Our government is a republic, not a democracy. It is a system of checks and balances designed to prevent dictatorial powers from taking over the country. There is a democratic vote in republican government; but such voting extends only to those who will represent us in the limited functions of government; such votes do not confer unlimited rule on anyone.
A republic limits the government to protecting people from criminals and government power. A full democracy, on the other hand, would use the “power” of the people to impose coercive demands. Whenever you hear people like Hugo Chavez or his defenders in the administration claim they are advancing “democracy”, you can be sure they are advancing, not limited democratic processes, but unlimited tyrannical rule. They claim it is what the people want, and, once again, they claim to be establishing “social justice.”
Whenever you hear the Obama administration make these and similar reverse arguments, you can be sure they are not seeking to make things better. Their effort to sell you on collective action through so-called voluntary citizen armies is a form of “selective service” recruitment, a form of military draft. All they have to do is claim there aren't enough volunteers and you have the foundation for a uniformed citizen police force empowered by government to make you sacrifice. Don't you wonder what your service number will be? I still remember mine. How could I forget?
If they succeed in selling you on slavery, you will have earned it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
ABC and ObamaCare
One thing about the truth; someone has to tell it. Otherwise, the lie wins the day, and destruction ensues.
Had Barack Obama told us explicitly during his election campaign that he was going to turn the government toward fascism, the election might have had another outcome. Yet it is fascism to which he is turning. Exposing a disdain for straight talk while pretending to be talking straight, Mr. Obama would never have been elected if he told us that his intention was to expropriate huge industries and turn them into departments of the government. He was able to accomplish this political coup through the aid of a media that did not want to translate the candidate’s vague poetic allusions and romantic promises into their true meaning.
I don’t know about the content of ABC’s Special program on HealthCare tonight. I do not plan to watch. The reason is because I’m already convinced that President Obama is lying when says he does not intend to take over our country's medical industry. And I'm certain that such a takeover is a bad thing for the country. All I need to know is that government involvement in the private economy is not going to produce promised benefits. It never has done so in the past. All it accomplishes is the destruction of individual rights and the elimination of our economic choices. On this issue, it will produce the opposite of health. You can read about it in my blog post below entitled “Health Care Slavery.”
Every dictatorship needs willing appeasers in order accomplish its goals. Yet, it was once held that a free press and media were necessary for the preservation of freedom. The media was supposed to be a bulwark against the growth of tyranny and statism. By exposing corruption and lies, by telling the truth, the media was supposed to ensure that the public could make informed decisions. This is not the case today.
Today, the media has become a propagandist for the government seeking to advance the goals of President Obama as he pursues the fastest destruction of the private economy in history. We are watching a political coup engaged by radical elements intent on destroying our freedoms and turning us into slaves. These radical elements think they can merely smile, ask for blind trust and tell the same worn out lies they have told for decades. They cynically tell us that their intentions are good, that they only want to help people, that their methods are pure and that we should all go along as dutiful participants in building a new age of utopian dreams; a beautiful society that never comes. These are the same lies told by communists, fascists, trade unionists, progressives and liberals since the beginning of the last century. Few in the media are proclaiming that behind the smiles and lies are rotted vampires who want to suck the blood from our veins, demagogues who want to steal our wealth and force us to build legislative monuments that glorify their powerlust.
Any media network that thinks it can save itself by attaching its message to a popular leader has abrogated the right to be called a free institution. When the government takes full control, as this government appears intent on doing, such a network is counting on being left standing; the only network not shut down by the government. As an agent of the government, ABC has become a proponent of lies and deception. It will never be able to regain its freedom speech; it is useless for the people
We should boycott ABC and starve the company of its lifeblood; advertising dollars and viewers.
Had Barack Obama told us explicitly during his election campaign that he was going to turn the government toward fascism, the election might have had another outcome. Yet it is fascism to which he is turning. Exposing a disdain for straight talk while pretending to be talking straight, Mr. Obama would never have been elected if he told us that his intention was to expropriate huge industries and turn them into departments of the government. He was able to accomplish this political coup through the aid of a media that did not want to translate the candidate’s vague poetic allusions and romantic promises into their true meaning.
I don’t know about the content of ABC’s Special program on HealthCare tonight. I do not plan to watch. The reason is because I’m already convinced that President Obama is lying when says he does not intend to take over our country's medical industry. And I'm certain that such a takeover is a bad thing for the country. All I need to know is that government involvement in the private economy is not going to produce promised benefits. It never has done so in the past. All it accomplishes is the destruction of individual rights and the elimination of our economic choices. On this issue, it will produce the opposite of health. You can read about it in my blog post below entitled “Health Care Slavery.”
Every dictatorship needs willing appeasers in order accomplish its goals. Yet, it was once held that a free press and media were necessary for the preservation of freedom. The media was supposed to be a bulwark against the growth of tyranny and statism. By exposing corruption and lies, by telling the truth, the media was supposed to ensure that the public could make informed decisions. This is not the case today.
Today, the media has become a propagandist for the government seeking to advance the goals of President Obama as he pursues the fastest destruction of the private economy in history. We are watching a political coup engaged by radical elements intent on destroying our freedoms and turning us into slaves. These radical elements think they can merely smile, ask for blind trust and tell the same worn out lies they have told for decades. They cynically tell us that their intentions are good, that they only want to help people, that their methods are pure and that we should all go along as dutiful participants in building a new age of utopian dreams; a beautiful society that never comes. These are the same lies told by communists, fascists, trade unionists, progressives and liberals since the beginning of the last century. Few in the media are proclaiming that behind the smiles and lies are rotted vampires who want to suck the blood from our veins, demagogues who want to steal our wealth and force us to build legislative monuments that glorify their powerlust.
Any media network that thinks it can save itself by attaching its message to a popular leader has abrogated the right to be called a free institution. When the government takes full control, as this government appears intent on doing, such a network is counting on being left standing; the only network not shut down by the government. As an agent of the government, ABC has become a proponent of lies and deception. It will never be able to regain its freedom speech; it is useless for the people
We should boycott ABC and starve the company of its lifeblood; advertising dollars and viewers.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Peoples' Great Republic
I wrote this poem in the mid-1970s.
Was I prophetic?
The sky is still so blue here,
and the earth is still quite green.
That today could come from yesterday
no one could have then foreseen.
The sun should not be shining
upon any grassy scene.
There is nothing good to live for
since the ego quarantine.
The People's Great Republic
is but someone's pretty dream.
But it does not follow quite that way.
It is but a bad regime.
The people never sensed that
it was someone's wretched scheme
to bind all men to masters
and to steal their self-esteem.
The People's Great Republic
overruns with death's disease.
A man knows not and never knows
the men whom he must please.
And the whims of all his leaders
float like dust upon the breeze.
But the words of their commandments
are like roots of giant trees.
The People's Great Republic
is but gangster rule gone wild.
It is full of punks and pipers
and of Hitlers all self-styled.
And the people all know nothing.
But although they've been defiled,
they remember with affection
when their leader turned and smiled.
The People's Great Republic
is but mindlessness berserk.
While they tie each man to every man,
they make sure that he will work.
That no man should rise to greatness
is a massive statist quirk.
They give the loam to farming men
and the numbers to the clerk.
The People's Great Republic
keeps the power to its own.
It keeps men bound in silence
and no coup has ever grown.
And to rule with fear is their one way
that they stay upon their throne.
And to turn men on each other
makes the state into a stone.
Copyright 2009 Robert Villegas
Was I prophetic?
The sky is still so blue here,
and the earth is still quite green.
That today could come from yesterday
no one could have then foreseen.
The sun should not be shining
upon any grassy scene.
There is nothing good to live for
since the ego quarantine.
The People's Great Republic
is but someone's pretty dream.
But it does not follow quite that way.
It is but a bad regime.
The people never sensed that
it was someone's wretched scheme
to bind all men to masters
and to steal their self-esteem.
The People's Great Republic
overruns with death's disease.
A man knows not and never knows
the men whom he must please.
And the whims of all his leaders
float like dust upon the breeze.
But the words of their commandments
are like roots of giant trees.
The People's Great Republic
is but gangster rule gone wild.
It is full of punks and pipers
and of Hitlers all self-styled.
And the people all know nothing.
But although they've been defiled,
they remember with affection
when their leader turned and smiled.
The People's Great Republic
is but mindlessness berserk.
While they tie each man to every man,
they make sure that he will work.
That no man should rise to greatness
is a massive statist quirk.
They give the loam to farming men
and the numbers to the clerk.
The People's Great Republic
keeps the power to its own.
It keeps men bound in silence
and no coup has ever grown.
And to rule with fear is their one way
that they stay upon their throne.
And to turn men on each other
makes the state into a stone.
Copyright 2009 Robert Villegas
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Individual vs. the Collective
He stood one day upon a hill.
The crowd was standing very still.
He said something that startled them.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
The crowd, of course, then drew away.
Some asked with fear, “What did he say?
He said a word we do not know.
Quick, I think we’d better go.
He may be insane.
He may be insane.”
His structured face was very proud.
His eyes were blue without a cloud.
He looked around at mindless men.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
A scared, confused young man then came;
with eyes that held a hint of shame.
he reassured the startled throng.
“Please, now folks, let’s move along.
This man is insane.
This man is insane.”
The bloody soldiers came at once.
Their words were made of mindless grunts.
“We’ve found the hated enemy,
a man with his own sovereignty.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”
The man, of course, made his escape.
The soldiers stood around agape.
They looked off to the distance when
they heard it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
The scared, confused young man then said,
“That man has lost his bloody head.
Yes, he is full of many words.
They fly inside his head like birds.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”
He must have caught some mind’s disease.
We must prevent his mindless pleas.
If he meets many people then
those hateful words may ring again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
Copyright Robert Villegas 2009
The crowd was standing very still.
He said something that startled them.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
The crowd, of course, then drew away.
Some asked with fear, “What did he say?
He said a word we do not know.
Quick, I think we’d better go.
He may be insane.
He may be insane.”
His structured face was very proud.
His eyes were blue without a cloud.
He looked around at mindless men.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
A scared, confused young man then came;
with eyes that held a hint of shame.
he reassured the startled throng.
“Please, now folks, let’s move along.
This man is insane.
This man is insane.”
The bloody soldiers came at once.
Their words were made of mindless grunts.
“We’ve found the hated enemy,
a man with his own sovereignty.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”
The man, of course, made his escape.
The soldiers stood around agape.
They looked off to the distance when
they heard it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
The scared, confused young man then said,
“That man has lost his bloody head.
Yes, he is full of many words.
They fly inside his head like birds.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”
He must have caught some mind’s disease.
We must prevent his mindless pleas.
If he meets many people then
those hateful words may ring again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”
Copyright Robert Villegas 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Obama's Re-distribution - Part 1
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
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:
Posts (Atom)