Contrasting Candidates

There is a huge contrast between the 2 Presidential candidates’ philosophical/political perspectives. More important is the contrast between the sources of knowledge about them that their followers appear to utilize. Most disturbing is the extreme bias in the mainstream media toward the Left and the gullibility and blind loyalty of its liberal followers. From TV to tweets, the latter seem to avoid any news sources that do not support Obama; that protects them from the truth about him. I ask them to read this 2-part article in an attempt to truly understand the ideology and policies they are supporting; to be objective and understand how their vote for Obama can destroy our economy and culture.  

First consider 3 types of people: Looters (L), Moochers (M) and Producers (P). Ls are those who use force to gain the unearned for themselves or others; they are primarily politicians.  

Ms expect the unearned but let government do the looting for them. They are both ‘have-nots’ who simply take what they can get, and ‘haves’ who vote for the Ls who can best meet their needs or the needs of others. They are egalitarian: they want everyone to be equal in terms of economic results. 

Ps act to create earned wealth and only expect the earned; they have the right to keep what they earn. They engage in free trade and expand the wealth pool to enable the economy to grow and provide jobs for others. They are thus the primary source of government revenue used to benefit the Ms. (And the M&Ls don’t think the Ps pay their “fair share”?) They believe in treating people equally - which does not mean making them equal. The M&Ls don’t seem to grasp the difference and that the result of their looting and mooching is fewer Ps and less to loot. 

The M&Ls are clearly immoral: their needs are not a moral claim on others and can only be attained via statist policies that force the Ps to support them without regard for the rights of others or for the negative economic impacts. This is essentially the Left (represented by Obama), and they are leading us to the ‘European state’ where even the threat of real austerity measures will cause riots in the streets. Is that really what they want?  

The Ps have a moral code that keeps them virtuous: rational, independent, honest, just, productive and proud. They depend on a capitalist system that supports all individuals’ freedom and rights, and enables each to achieve his goals to the best of his ability. This is what our Founding Fathers designed for this freest of all countries and it worked well until we started becoming a welfare state. The Ps’ are always willing to help the remaining have-nots via a basic safety net supported by charity and government where necessary. This is essentially the Right (represented by Romney) and their economic principles need to be applied as in our past. 

Enough of the vitriol, irrational talking points, lies and racist comments from the Left. Look no further than the VP debate for an example: Biden showed unacceptable disrespect for, and condescension toward, Ryan; and he clearly lied about ObamaCare (“death panels” and the mandate for contraceptives et al), not knowing of the Libyan embassy attack, and his votes on the Afghan and Iraq wars. Only after the personal attacks against Romney backfired did the Obama team drop their negative ads. 

Unlike Obama supporters, I will admit that Romney is not an ideal candidate. He is not enough of a true capitalist, is too pragmatic, and is too conservative (albeit not as radical as some) on social issues. That’s why I am an independent hoping for the Republican party to change certain views and become more principled. 

However, Obama is a radical idealist who is farthest from the ‘ideal’. What explains his Marxist philosophy with his class warfare, racism, egalitarianism and envy of the most successful, and what makes him most dangerous and evil, is his nihilism. He is, in essence, a destroyer of the good for being the good; and the good here is our country as defined by our founding documents. For the sake of the weak, he is willing to destroy the strong. 

He is destroying our economy with unsustainable debt and entitlements (driven by unearned need), business controls and regulations (driven by distaste for private markets), rule by executive order (unconstitutional and totalitarian), higher taxes, and the belief that government must stimulate the economy. The harmful results are obvious. Romney wants to free the private markets to stimulate the economy which will increase production, create jobs and reduce dependency on entitlements. 

Obama’s energy policy sacrifices oil, gas and coal industries to inefficient and impractical ‘green’ companies; it sacrifices a lucrative and job-enhancing Canadian pipeline to the Chinese; it controls energy use and raises energy prices. All this in the name of environmentalism (resting on the “global warming” myth) and egalitarianism. Romney wants to maximize energy production to enable us to become more energy independent, lower costs and reduce unemployment.  

ObamaCare is a significant contributor to our weak economy and is certain to destroy our health care system. It raises HC costs while lowering quality, prevents insurance companies from meeting real needs and lowering costs, controls and rations care, etc. As individuals and businesses are forced to drop existing policies, we will approach Obama’s shameful goal of a government-run, single-payer system. Romney wants to replace all that with sound reforms that will maintain high quality of care and lower costs. 

Obama has no real foreign policy. He appeases, empowers and subsidizes Muslims; he does not recognize our enemy, totalitarian Islam, even showing preference to Arab nations over Israel. He believes we are not exceptional; that we must be a less aggressive defender of “peace through strength.” We are a dangerously weaker nation as a result; e.g. the “Arab Spring” has created greater enemies with terrorist organizations taking control in the M.E. Romney believes that M.E. governments and their support of terrorism are not mere “bumps in the road” (see http://herit.ag/W4vbKd. See also http://bit.ly/Sec8tT for an objective evaluation of the recent M.E. attacks.) Obama is more dangerous to our country than is our enemy. Romney wants to utilize our strengths and uphold our individual rights in implementing a foreign policy focused on our protection from that enemy.

Evaluating Recent Middle East Violence

Totalitarian Islam countries are in civil war, with terrorist groups strongly asserting themselves. This has increased the intensity against Israel and the U.S. Prior to 9/11/12, Egyptian TV spread the news about a months-old video that was intended to show the destructive ideology of Islam; then Muslims invaded our embassy in Cairo. On 9/11, an attack on our Libyan embassy led to the death of our U.S. Ambassador and 3 other Americans. Muslim violence in over 30 countries preceded or followed that attack. 

Obama’s administration and his supported mainstream media condemned the video and claimed that it was the cause of the violence. Officials in the Egyptian embassy made a statement sympathizing with protesting Muslims; they essentially apologized for our values - for our free speech, as if Muslim religious freedom conflicts with, or trumps, our rights and has any moral standing in a culture that fails to recognize any rights. Our administration stood by the statement. Further, they pressured YouTube to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the video, and pressured Americans into restricting their speech. Whose side is he on? 

The problem here is Islamist acts of war, not American speech; and Obama, not the video. The film was merely a pretext for attack, certainly not the cause: all such “protests” and “demonstrations” in the M.E. have been (and will continue to be) terrorist-organized battles planned to destroy our values in any way possible. The Administration had advance knowledge of the Libyan attack and requests for enhanced security, but nothing was done to prevent it. The Libyan president said the attack there was clearly pre-planned and the timing was not coincidental. Yet Obama attempted to convince everyone that none of the above was true. At the U.N., a full 2 weeks after 9/11, he was still indirectly blaming the video for the violence. That should be no surprise since he has already evaded the truth in convincing most that we have no real enemy, we should not call terrorists “terrorists” and the “protestors” are merely in search of democracy. 

Why do liberals and their mainstream media continue to trust Obama? Why do they evade the truth? Why will they not even consider an opposing point of view? The answer is that they all share the same ideology. Those in the media are so influenced by said ideology that they report only what they see as fact through a liberal lens. Opinions become their facts. And liberal readers/viewers accept them as facts without thought. Where is their objectivity? Where are the independent thinkers? Where is their morality - all the way up to the White House? 

Romney properly criticized the Administration for supporting the Egyptian embassy statement and failing to defend our constitutional right of free speech. The administration and the media dishonestly chastised him for supposedly speaking too soon and inappropriately, and the media evaded Obama’s appalling ineptitude in response to the attacks. But it is Obama who has failed to recognize our enemy and the war for what they are, to stand up for our freedoms, to protect our embassies, and to tell the truth. Is it any wonder why Hillary was so naïve in asking the question “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?” “Helping ensure the attackers are brought to justice” and America being “committed to religious tolerance” does not even begin to address the real problem.  

Our administration does not understand that the religious fanatics have hijacked Islam and want our destruction, that their religious motives make their crimes more irrational and dangerous, and that we are thus truly at war with totalitarian Islam. They do not understand that appeasing religious terrorists is supporting anti-Americanism, which makes us weaker and leads to escalated terrorism. From his initial Cairo speech to the present, Obama’s pandering and apologizing to radical Islam has compromised our standing in the world. If he believes that blaming America - past or present - for the actions of terrorists relieves him of any responsibility for such actions, he is seriously mistaken. 

See http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/091312-625740-hillary-promised-egypt-shed-censor-islam-critics.htm for more explanation of the cause of M.E. violence and Obama’s failed policies.

Economic Equality

President Obama’s goal of Economic Equality (EE) reveals the true essence of his statist/Marxist ideology. Understand this and you will understand the motive behind all of his policies.

This country was founded on the principles of individualism and equal opportunity for all to achieve to the best of their ability. Obama rejects such principles in favor of EE: regardless of one’s efforts (or lack thereof) to succeed in life, he has an equal right to the goods and services available in the country; e.g. health care, education and a share of the income/wealth of those better off - thus significant redistribution of income. That is completely redefining “rights” and requires the immoral and unconstitutional use of force to achieve the desired ends.

The argument for EE rests on the following false assumptions:

1. That there actually is concerning inequality because the income of the rich has been rising relative to everyone else. But when defining “income” properly and fairly (e.g. adjusting for all government benefits and taxes) and using a proper measure of inequality (e.g. the commonly used Gini coefficient or consumption), the gap has not grown for at least 2 decades. 

2. That the wealth pie is constant. But with productivity, wealth continues to grow and the poor are beneficiaries, not victims.

3. That the wealthy segment is a stagnant group. However, a significant number of the rich continually move down the income ladder, and a significant number of the poor and middle class continually move up. 

4. That the wealthy’s income/wealth is earned/gained at the expense of the poor. This is only possible in a statist system. (See 8 below)  

5. That inequality is “unfair.” But “fair” cannot be determined by Obama or other politicians. It is certainly not fair that about 50% of us pay no federal taxes while the top 10% of earners pay about 75% (and the top 1% pay about 40%). To Obama, “fair” is government getting all it can from the rich. To me it is limiting government’s role to the protection of each person’s rights to his property and earnings. The latter enables creativity and productivity that produces a strong economy and increases the standard of living for all.  

6. That the wealthy’s share is beyond their need. But “need” is not a rational standard of value; e.g. it is immoral to steal from some to fill the needs of others.

7. That due to all above, one’s income/wealth belongs to government for its whimsical redistribution. But no one or government has a right to any property belonging to others. 

8. That such inequality is bad and is caused by capitalism. Under statism, force interferes with our rights and prevents individual opportunities. It condones cronyism and destroys an economy. Resulting inequality is indeed bad. But under capitalism, individual rights are upheld and trade among men is voluntary with mutual benefit. No force is imposed that creates a victim; freedom and productiveness are maximized, and resulting inequality is healthy and beneficial to all.

How can Obama possibly hold EE as an ideal goal? Karl Marx provides the answer. Marx’s philosophy presented what appeared to be a utopian view of the world: elimination of poverty, exploitation and class warfare; and yes, the achievement of EE. But he had to appeal to those motivated by envy – with hatred toward the “haves” and their values simply for “having”. His angry, Nihilist moralism became the source of statists’ greatest appeal.
 

He believed that capitalism was unjust because of inequality; that money is the root of all evil and replaces virtue with avarice; that the less you are, the more you have. “The enemy of being is having.” His goal was collectivism over individualism with redistribution of all profit and income. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” 

His philosophy represented a complete revolt against reality and objectivity, and was clearly responsible for the greatest violence (think Mau, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) and economic destruction in history.

Yet this is precisely Obama’s ideology. From his long association with Marxists to his involvement with community organizing groups to his acceptance of the radical-inspired Occupy WS to all of his policies intended to lead to EE, he has shown himself to be a Marxist/statist at a level far too serious for America. He has usurped the concept of “rights” and fully accepts the statist’s moral basis for rights: “needs” – which then become “wants” and “demands”. By accepting him with this ideology, we are destroying our values and our economy. 

One must realize that treating people equally is very different from making them equal; it is equality under the law vs. egalitarianism. "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers" (Freidrich Hayek). And the latter - with an entitlement culture trending toward EE - can only lead to further economic destruction.  

There is something wrong in our culture when a President can transform us from "ask not what your country can do for you…" to “ask what your country can do for you and it will deliver.” Or when those who believe in hard work and individual productivity are denounced and envied by those egalitarians who strive to bring us down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of those who don’t. Or when (as noted by Thomas Sowell) people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others are "compassionate."  

Understand that Marxism and egalitarianism are simply evil, and those who advocate them represent evil and must be so judged. This election is a referendum on all that is good about capitalism: protection of man’s rights and resulting freedom and economic prosperity. It is in everyone’s best interest to vote to preserve such good and eliminate such evil. President Obama must be defeated for the future stability of our country.

Freedom in Health Care

Someone recently asked: can you provide an argument why government should not provide free or subsidized health care? Yes: I can think of 3 such arguments.

1.  One does not have a right to HC. Rights are not entitlements to goods or services produced by others; nor can they be based on an irrational moral standard of “need.” They are prerogatives to freedom of action.

2.  Government does not have the right to force taxpayers to pay for it.

Government can only morally initiate force when protecting individual rights. Shame on Justice Kagan and others for saying that having the federal government fund free HC with an individual mandate to buy insurance is neither coercive nor immoral. Or for lying when saying that the mandate will lower HC costs. Or for arguing that it is moral to force insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions (and thus risk) in rating policies - a clear path to fully socialized medicine.

Our government should maintain a “separation of charity and state.” It has no moral or constitutional basis for forcing individuals to sacrifice their values for the sake of those who (in this case) either don’t want HC insurance or expect it unearned. We need to solve our HC problems as below and let the private market find the charitable answer for those who truly cannot afford insurance.

3.  There is a rational alternative means to solving our HC problems.

Obama presented a false alternative argument: we either implement ObamaCare (and contend with rationing and some decreased quality of care), or we cause national bankruptcy with escalating HC costs and let “granny die without insurance.” (The latter result is clearly a lie.)

We must first accept the fact that it is government that has caused (and will further cause with ObamaCare) the significant shortcomings in our HC system: high costs, reduced quality and accessibility. Then we must understand and accept the rational 3^rd choice: leave individuals in charge of their own health care; let free markets solve these concerns.

Thus, allow open competition for insurance coverage with flexibility of policy choices, deductibles and rates; purchase across State lines; and tax-deductible health savings accounts. Eliminate government and employer-dependent insurance, minimizing abusive use of HC services and concern for pre-existing conditions. Reform HC entitlements for efficiency and elimination of fraud; eliminate them long-term. Enact tort reform to stop junk lawsuits. Open markets for medicines and enable faster technological breakthroughs.

The obvious results would be lower costs, improved HC quality and accessibility, and - most importantly - greater freedom for individuals to handle their own HC issues and for HC professionals to more efficiently serve their patients.

The only reason for political opposition to such an option is that it a capitalistic, not a statist approach. It is not compatible with Obama’s immoral and unconstitutional economic equality and “fairness” agenda. It is compatible with freedom. Support rational reform and reject such statist controls of our economy.

Personal Liberty

The election result this year will depend on how much personal (individual) liberty people are willing to sacrifice and for what.

By “liberty”, we have to mean “freedom.” A basic premise of our Founding Fathers was man’s right to the freedom to live his life without interference from other individuals or government. There is one caveat: one’s actions must be limited by rationality and respect for the equal rights of others. And government’s proper role is to protect all of our rights by preventing all violations of rights. All voluntary actions among men that do not impose force on others are acceptable, and all forms of coercion are not.

Capitalism is the only political system that upholds individual rights - life, liberty and one’s pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, misrepresentations of “liberty” have been destroying them; e.g. by equating needs with rights. Economic freedom means freedom to act (or not), to rise (or fall); but not to economic equality. Why have we been accepting such destruction? In the name of what could that be acceptable?

Freedom and economic progress are highly correlated. Until the 20^th century, America truly upheld the principle of freedom, and thus became an exceptional country. But we have since been continually compromising that principle as we have abandoned reason and rationality in our actions. We have allowed the initiation of force to infiltrate our system in the name of “altruism.” Instead of supporting the moral principle that man has a right to his own life and liberty, too many of us have rationalized that we must sacrifice ourselves for others. Some use religion to justify that, and others use collectivism (the political expression of altruism). Both rely on emotions to compromise our liberty.

We must evaluate every government action (or proposal) by how well it defends all people’s right to liberty as explained above. Ditto for the Presidential candidates.

For example, Rick Santorum supports States banning birth control, a clear violation of rights. On the other hand, President Obama wanted a mandate for insurance-provided birth control, equally violating. And when Republicans argued for an exemption for religious organizations, Obama “compromised” by eliminating birth control products from the insurance policies for such organizations, and instead forced those insurance companies to independently offer the products to the organizations’ employees without cost. Does Obama really think that that resolved the issue, or that one immoral mandate is better than another?

What is more troubling is Obama’s argument that the health insurance mandate is compatible with free markets; or that it resolves the “free-rider” problem, as if replacing free emergency care with free health insurance increases freedom. And one shouldn’t forget his repudiation of our separation of powers as he intimidated the Supreme Court and said that their overturning the HC law would be an act of judicial activism.

By analyzing such issues pertaining to freedom, we can build a “freedom” platform against which we can judge the final Presidential candidates. What issues would you like to be included?

Our "Defining Moment"...

“Growing inequality” says Obama: really? He does not even know how to define “equality.” He ignores the Declaration of Independence and its use of such concepts as equal (“men are created equal”) and individual rights. Rather, he chooses to use statist principles to define how individuals should be considered economically equal; e.g. “fairness” as a subjective standard of value, a belief in self-sacrifice for the collective, and the collective being considered better than the sum of its parts (individuals). He falsely believes that “winners” - those who produce and succeed in life - win at the expense of non-winners; and, therefore, there should not be any real winners. Thus the attack on the “1%”. 

Our President continually defies our Constitution with such things as executive orders, appointments, and a health care insurance mandate; has a frightening foreign policy, appeasing our enemies in war and sacrificing our ally in Israel; and clearly wants to take us down the path toward statist Europe. And if you don’t think their statism is the cause of their current woes and long-term, relatively low productivity, just visit there awhile and see for yourself. 

While the entire Left has continually spouted their talking points about Obama’s greatness, I have attempted to show in principle why none of it is true. As I have previously noted, his “hope and change” is - and always was - meaningless and disingenuous. And his goal of economic equality for all is an un-American goal. For the sake of this country’s future success measured against our exceptional past, he must be defeated this year. 

Our “defining moments” should be defined by the true priority issues of the day. Economically, it is ‘government (controls/regulations) against the private sector’. Let the free markets work and the private sector will pull us out of our economic malaise and employment will fall dramatically.  

Politically, it is ‘crony-socialism and corruption’, beginning in, and enabled by, government. That violates individual rights, creates unfair advantages for special interests, increases government costs, and enables irrational policies in such areas as the environment, energy, immigration and education. 

Socially/morally, it is ‘failing to uphold individual rights while inappropriately defining “rights” ’. Politicians appear unable to rationally discuss and resolve issues such as abortion and gay marriage. 

In foreign policy, it is ‘the lack of a coherent policy’. We do have a serious enemy, but it is not every non-ally. We must not forget that U.S. foreign policy is only meant to protect Americans’ rights from foreign threats; our enemy needs to be better defined, limited and then defeated.  

Let’s have open debate on such “defining moments.” And let’s let that, not party politics and talking points, determine who should be our next President.

Recap and a New Year

After a year of this blog and anticipating heated election year debates, there are a couple “rules” to consider. First, it is appropriate to criticize politicians and government policies where they interfere with freedom and individual rights, but not simply because of party affiliation or mere disagreement. Second, we need to adhere to proper definitions in discussion; that can lead to greater agreement.

It is a fact that taxing the rich more will not even begin to solve our debt problems; but it will lead to a reduction in private jobs and harm the economy. If we have even begun to be lazy as Obama wants us to believe, it would only be because of attempts to redistribute the wealth and to punish our producers. Blame Obama’s statist policies (that discourage innovation and production) for the most prolonged economic downturn since FDR.

The Occupy WS gang did not materialize due to under-taxing the rich. A Marxist group organized it with the explicit goal to continue the fight for statism. Their call for “social justice” is merely a call for the use of force to obtain the unearned; that is injustice.

Government cannot create a net job gain. Government jobs are created at the expense of more efficient private jobs; the net is reduced productivity/jobs and economic harm. Thus, all of Obama’s “job creating” proposals are theoretical failures. He wants to “eat” private jobs and have them too.

Education is a critical factor in job opportunity: unemployment today for college graduates is as low as 1/3 the rate for the non-educated. It is government’s interference in education that causes increased college costs and student loans - thus reduced opportunities.

Carol evaluated opportunities for success in our culture in a recession context - exactly what I said we can’t do. In the broader context, opportunities are not worse than they used to be; expectations are simply greater. People want to eat their cake while expecting more of it left.

American exceptionalism is still real, not a “fashionable phrase” for Republicans. But growing statism is a sure way to destroy it and the individual opportunities it affords. Let’s hope that Americans will continue to believe that individual freedom is more important than forced egalitarianism, multiculturalism and the welfare state.

Remember “hope and change”? Perhaps now you can see that “hope” was ‘hope we don’t see Obama’s ideology and tactics to implement it’, and “change” was ‘implementation of statism’.

“The defining issue of our time” per Obama is growing inequality in the US.

He invoked Theodore Roosevelt’s “new nationalism” while asking for “fairness” for the American people. He argued that the Republican party is one of narrow self-interest with no consideration for working-class Americans, and that it says “we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.” He believes that “we are greater together than we are on our own”, and that we can’t have winners because everyone can’t be a winner. This is a good place to begin the new year.