"In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient."
Barack Obama ~ Interview with the Chicago Reader 1995
You are reading the words of a man, a man vying for the presidency of the United States of America and who does not have the faintest clue of what America stands for.
Barack Obama's call for sacrifice is the direct opposite of what America stands for, of why America has became a beacon of hope for the oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they can exist by right and not by permission of the government, the community or any collective. Obama's philosophy of duty, obligation and sacrifice that which he calls "change " differs little from that of countries like Iran or Venezuela.
To quote Ayn Rand, "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." That includes the free men and the shareholders of companies like Exxon Mobil or General Electric and of men like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
It was John Adams who once said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
Dick Durban's veiled threat to the oil companies that there is a limit to the amount of profit they can make should give an indication to all of what this "change" is that Obama speaks of. Today it will be the oil companies and then who will it be tomorrow...?
The right to liberty and freedom gives us the right to act on our own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at our heads, forcing us to part with our property for the collective good or to just simply exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others.
Transformed by the language of conflict and coercion, Obama's philosophy of "change" not unlike Marxism or Islamic totalitarianism has become an ideology of violence to be resisted uncompromisingly by those among us who value property above fraternity and liberty above equality.
Barack Obama ~ Interview with the Chicago Reader 1995
You are reading the words of a man, a man vying for the presidency of the United States of America and who does not have the faintest clue of what America stands for.
Barack Obama's call for sacrifice is the direct opposite of what America stands for, of why America has became a beacon of hope for the oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they can exist by right and not by permission of the government, the community or any collective. Obama's philosophy of duty, obligation and sacrifice that which he calls "change " differs little from that of countries like Iran or Venezuela.
To quote Ayn Rand, "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." That includes the free men and the shareholders of companies like Exxon Mobil or General Electric and of men like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
It was John Adams who once said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
Dick Durban's veiled threat to the oil companies that there is a limit to the amount of profit they can make should give an indication to all of what this "change" is that Obama speaks of. Today it will be the oil companies and then who will it be tomorrow...?
The right to liberty and freedom gives us the right to act on our own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at our heads, forcing us to part with our property for the collective good or to just simply exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others.
Transformed by the language of conflict and coercion, Obama's philosophy of "change" not unlike Marxism or Islamic totalitarianism has become an ideology of violence to be resisted uncompromisingly by those among us who value property above fraternity and liberty above equality.
Welcome back. I come here everyday hoping to hear from you.
ReplyDeleteThanks friend - always good to know someone is reading.
ReplyDeleteGood understanding of the "call to service" issue.
ReplyDeleteI think in 1995, the unemployment rate was 5.6% (pretty good). Yet, like most Democrats (liberals mostly) he goes on and on with how BAD things are in order to convince you that he is the right man to get things done. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteIllinois where he planned to run according to the article had a 20 year low for unemployment rate. Yet he says he wants to "create jobs" like it wasnt happening.
I had no idea the Gaffe machine had been fired up THAT long ago!
bestvater.spaces.live.com
Thank you for this fascinating post. You have articulated a position that is intriguing and compelling and I had to re-read it more than once to grasp its scope. It is a position that, in my opinion, is quite divorced from political and cultural reality. You have constructed what must be called a straw-man argument against Obama and against progressivism as it exists today.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so into the Objectivists but that was a really good quote from Rand. Free enterprise has clearly proven the supremacy of capitalism over communism. But does anyone dispute that? Does anyone dispute that our economy is propelled by entrepreneurship? I don't think we need to worry about encouraging people to seek fame and fortune for themselves. Most people are quite good at putting their needs before those of others -- that's human nature. And surely we've survived as a species because of that survival instinct. But we exist today not only as individuals but as communities and states and nations. Liberty and the common good are not each other's enemy; they are frequently intertwined. Because serving the needs of a community and organizing around common goals, as Obama talked about in 1990s Chicago, often serves our individual needs as well. If you have a real aversion to people helping out one another, that's your business, and perhaps it is revealing of your character and background. But I think most people (whether they're religious or not) see the importance of balancing personal gain with giving back, or of making some contribution to the "greater good." There's nothing un-American about this, and to imagine that it somehow threatens the foundations of liberty and the right to private property is almost frightening in its absurdity.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, by the way, have given most of their personal fortunes to charitable causes. I would assume from this that these exemplars of capitalistic achievement don't feel that their roles in society end with the hording of vast wealth.
Anyway, a call for sacrifice is not "the direct opposite of what America stands for." Haven't we been asked to sacrifice many times in our past? Like during the lean years of World War II? Doesn't a young person make a huge sacrifice for his or her country when they join the armed forces? JFK proposed we ask what we can do for our country because sometimes the quest for personal riches alone does not fill the ranks of the National Guard or produce good schoolteachers. And without the public sacrifice of thousands of dollars of your income taxes and mine, we wouldn't have the vast government coffers necessary to wage our current wars on "terror" or the possible future campaigns that I suspect you deem necessary to subdue the world's muslims.
(An interesting irony in the state of our current wars, however, is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has minted more than a few millionaires (and billionaires?) who have built truly impressive profit margins out of our tax money. Despite the huge national deficits, a number of well-connected entrepreneurs have discovered considerable abundance indeed. But not to go off on a tangent.)
If I missed a key thread that plausibly links Barack Obama's community organizing to the totalitarian dictatorships you wildly reference, please point it out.
I hope you respond and I do sincerely wish you the best.
Hey "S,"
ReplyDeletePretty sure the communities BO was talking about back then had an unemployment rate *well* below the state average. The mid to late nineties were a rocking time to be sure, but there are ugly places that don't get much of a trickle down from even the most booming economies.
It was at a 20 year low in HIS area and he says basically, "vote for me and I'll fix it".
ReplyDeleteChicago alone had such low unemployment in 1995 that it would be considered "fully" employed by even Democrat standards - with a peak @ 5.5% and a low of 4.7%
You cant count the crazies that migrate in and out of the area, nor would there be data on them anyway.
So, YES by standards older than I am, JOBS were not a big issue. Makes it easy to take credit later doesnt it?!
So you're basically saying that you know that unemployment was not an issue on the South Side of Chicago because of a figure for the city as a whole? And that the problems of poor, inner city neighborhoods are in Barack Obama's head?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been to South Side Chicago?
Other than having been to Chicago, I cant say that I've been to "south side". But that isnt important.
ReplyDeleteIF his motivation was to help a few neighborhoods, then his political ambitions were misplaced! He could have done something more targeted for them. Here we are many years later and what big changes do we have in "south side" jobs?
I mean, really... he moved to positions way more powerful than the ones needed to effect change in one section of Chicago!
If you contrast the rest of that article with what has happened since you can see some patterns emerge - Obama is a politician in every sense. Almost ironic to read what he said then and now... Im just glad he isnt good at it.
Wonderful blog you have here. I'm glad to see there are people willing to speak the truth. I'm frightened at what my country could become this November. I'm not too thrilled about McCain but I see it as a vote against Obama and you can bet I'll be there when the polls open.
ReplyDeleteGod help this country.
Not only is someone reading; someone in Amsterdam has been reading all night, with red-eartips, as they say in Holland when seeing a person totally immersed in a page-turner.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, for your detective work on BHO; the president of the USA is important to us all.
I very much hope the American people are too sensible to fall for this dangerous man, who totally plays in the hands of those who want to demolish the USA, and make the world into a great big amorphing meltingpot. They have no clue as to what they are wishing for.
Please be careful, by the way.
Reading the angry responses of the Obama-people I'm afraid a war may break out if their saviour will not be elected. I think there aren't many things the moonbats are not capable of.
Isn't John McCain's "Country First" also a call to sacrifice for a common ideal and the common good? Presumably a vote for McCain is also a "vote for servitude".
ReplyDeleteBut if "servitude" means taking care of each other to the benefit of all - self included - then why not?
Likening Obama to Chavez or the mullahs of Iran is simplistic fear-mongering that adds nothing to the debate. Does anyone with any maturity really believe that he is an Islamic terrorist trojan horse? A closet socialist with secret plans to nationalize industry (a proccess already underway courtesy of the bailout)? Or a power-mad cyrpto-fascist out to amass ever-greater power under the executive?
The qustion is: who will be the more effective president at this time in history?
Obama seems like a decent man, cool under pressure and with a firm grasp on the issues, who has run a highly disciplined and effective campaign. He's obviously a serious candidate worthy of serious consideration.
Americans should be setting rabid ideology and blinding emotions aside to think things through logically and dispassionately. You owe it to your vote.