Anti-Individual Forms of Government

Socialism: the denial of individual property rights; such rights are vested in society as a whole – in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by government. It can exist by force or by vote; the differences are superficial. It has never been, nor ever could be, successful; it can only lead to economic paralysis and/or collapse.  

Fascism retains the semblance of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal. 

Welfare Statism exists in much of the world, including the U.S. It is not socialism: private property is not socialized and is meant to be preserved. But it still seeks control of said property’s use and disposal. Thus, its fundamental characteristic is fascist. 

All of the above forms of government are Statist/collectivist that violate individual rights; the difference is a matter of degree. And Welfare States will always trend toward socialism. Using the U.S. as an example, we have gone from over-taxing the rich – without any regard for their contributions to the economy and individual wealth – to demonizing them to doing everything possible to achieve economic equality at their expense. This is accomplished, in part, by irrationally re-defining individual rights to include material goods and services. 

“Social Justice” proposals are collectivist in nature and are intended to replace the historical concept of justice which respects individual rights. Such proposals are attempting to minimize economic class distinctions and to control industries (e.g. with environmentalism and regulations) – characteristics of Socialism.  

Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister in 1979 and saved her country from Socialism. She said “Marxists get up early in the morning to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.” It is individual freedom and private enterprise that yields economic progress. But most of our Republican politicians fail to sufficiently defend freedom. That has to change if we are to stop going down the path toward Socialism. 

The regressive Left in this country are evil and dangerous as they attempt to fundamentally change our political system. Led by Bernie Sanders, their proposals include Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free college tuition and elimination of student debt, a $15 minimum wage, a housing guarantee for all, a national rent-control standard, and an aggressive wealth tax on the rich. These are all designed to create economic equality at the expense of those who have most succeeded in life – those who help support all others. They completely undermine individual rights, create class conflicts and appeal to those motivated by envy/hatred. They hold “needs” as a moral standard; and needs turn to “wants” turn to “demands” turn to “rights”.  

Bernie Sanders may call himself a “Democratic Socialist”; but as one writer put it, that is a “Communist’s lie”. He and other politicians of his ilk have supported the policies of multiple socialist/communist governments. He agrees with Karl Marx that Capitalism (as he misdefines it) must be destroyed; that the individual (who apparently can know no objective truth) must be compromised for the sake of the collective and the common good; that emotionalism must rule over reason. 

Does that not terrify you? Evidently, it does not terrify the majority of millennials. They can’t possibly understand the true meaning of Socialism. Let’s hope they gain that understanding before they vote in November. And It behooves Republicans to better accommodate them on social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, drug policies).

Trump vs. Clinton: A Contrast of Despicables

Short of dropping a presumptive nominee at a convention this summer, our nominees will be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Now drop your political bias for the moment and understand their flaws as outlined below. Then determine who deserves your support.

There is one contrast we need to keep in mind in evaluating all the rest. We can judge Clinton primarily by what she has already done in public office. We can judge Trump primarily by what he has said and only guess what he would do.

Economics

Economics is a complex science, and neither nominee (nor most people) understands its laws. This is partially due to the fact that one's morality significantly determines his economic views, and the morality of altruism (self-sacrifice) - which is incompatible with Capitalism - dominates our culture. Understanding such laws also requires critical thinking which our schools have long stopped teaching.

Neither nominee believes in a free market or individual freedom. That requires a system of capitalism where all trade is about "win-win".

Statism is a system of force, not freedom; trade is about "win-lose". And the winners are always the least productive among us who immorally gain at the forced expense of the most productive.

Trump is clearly not the Capitalist he might like us to think he is. He is too willing to sacrifice one party for the sake of another. He wants fair trade which cannot exist. He falsely blames China, Japan and Mexico for lost jobs, and wants to punish those countries with tariffs because of their currency manipulations and "unfair" trading practices. He also wants to punish corporations that outsource jobs to those and other countries. He is too nationalistic. He views trade as collectivistic - at the expense of individual rights. 

He accepts the false notion that economic equality is a moral goal. (Read the book "Equal Is Unfair" which proves the complete irrationality of that goal.) He accepts entitlements and increased taxes on the rich as means to achieve that goal. All of the above ignores the laws of economics; it is all compatible with Statism.

Clinton on the other hand is an explicit Statist. She more strongly and comprehensively favors government control of our economy. Economic equality is a top priority. She would expand on Obama's redistribution policies with higher taxes, selective business subsidies/controls/regulations, etc. - all ignoring the laws of economics and with disastrous effects. She has distaste for the private sector, and buys into Obama's notion that businesses "didn't build it."

However, she is not as nationalistic as Trump and would not likely create economic havoc with trade policies as is possible with Trump.

Clearly, both fail to understand the need for the separation of State and Economics. Government's power over corporations with controls, regulations and bad tax policies have been killing our economy, and they - to differing degrees - support that.

Health Care

Trump wants to overturn ObamaCare. Given the results of that legislation, that could be very good for all of us if done correctly. He is somewhat altruistic when it comes to subsidizing the poor.

Clinton is a strong promoter of universal HC and would push for increased government control.

Environment

Trump is a realist in this area: he promotes pollution control, improved water quality, etc. But he does not accept the radical global warmists' belief that man is causing harmful environmental conditions and does not accept their policies that could cripple our economy.

Clinton is a true environmentalist who would expand Obama's destructive and costly policies. Her view that global warming is "the defining challenge of our time" is truly scary.

Rights

Neither fully respects the rights of individuals. Neither understands what "right" means:

a moral principle defining a man's freedom of action in a social context. It applies only to actions, not to goods or services.

Trump is "conservative" on social issues, albeit not as bad as many of the candidates he defeated. He is anti-abortion (albeit allows for exceptions), even wanting to unconstitutionally punish those who perform them. He does not understand the primary right of the pregnant woman.

He disrespects property rights; he accepts government redistributing property via eminent domain. And his extensive cronyism illustrates his indifference to individual rights in general.

As a Statist, Clinton would be even more willing to violate rights for extensive income/wealth redistribution. She is at least partially anti-1st and 2nd Amendments. However, she does defends rights on social issues.

Another important issue here is the Supreme Court. Trump would appoint judges who would likely lean conservative and pro-Constitution. That could possibly lead to overturning Roe vs. Wade, but that is not likely. Clinton would obviously appoint judges who are more liberal and who would attempt to weaken our Constitution as in the recent past. That could lead to greater restricts on the use of guns, but serious challenges to the 2nd amendment are not likely.

Immigration

Trump is opposed to open immigration as this country once accepted. He has considered deportation of all illegals which would be both immoral and impossible.

He wants to build a wall - also wrong and unnecessary, and that could cause an unhealthy trade battle. And he certainly could not get Mexico to pay for it without illegal or immoral deals.

He wants to temporarily stop all Muslim immigration. Now that is a sound idea in a certain context: if we acknowledged that we are at war with Islam; that would legally enable us to deal appropriately with our enemies, some of whom would be unvetted immigrants from the Middle East. 

Clinton would likely go the opposite direction - immigration too open to the wrong people. If you believe that a wall and mass deportation are not likely events, then her policies would be more concerning.

Foreign Policy

Trump's latest proposed policies are mostly sound. He has the better sense of who our enemies are and how to deal with them. He holds, in essence, that too many Muslims take Islam too seriously (the Quran too literally) as opposed to merely distorting it (Clinton).

  

He does question the need for NATO, wants to decimate ISIS without any expressed idea how, and shows puzzling admiration for tyrants like Putin and Kim Jong-un.

Clinton, as Secretary of State, played an integral role in the complete failure of Obama's policies. She supported the Iraq war and then the dangerous departure from there. She claims to being concerned about women's rights but fails to truly recognize the violations of same in the Middle East. She contributed to the Benghazi attack; and supported the dangerous Iran deal, interference in Libya, the reset with Russia, the steady decimation of our military, ... need I go on? She shows no understanding of who our enemies are nor a willingness to destroy them.

Philosophy

Trump is a complete pragmatist - seemingly void of principles and any reasonable moral standard. He appeals to emotions over reason - expected from such a pragmatist.

Clinton holds the Statist ideology that is being taught in our Universities: the subjective over the objective, emotion over reason. Both are subjectivists and thus hold many irrational positions.

Critical thinking is lost in our culture, along with individual responsibility and the ability to evaluate and judge anything objectively. This has led to the acceptance of collectivism over the individual. E.g. Hillary's "it takes a village", Obama's community organizing and Trump's "America first". We the people need to start applying reason again and to reject this collectivist message.

Qualifications for President

Experience: knowledge of the law, familiarity with the military and foreign policy, a working knowledge of how our federal government operates.

Trump lacks all of that. He has denied that there is much difference between running a government and a private business. His views about bankruptcy in business help explain his irrational views about how to handle the country's debt. He appears ignorant of the separation of powers.

Clinton has all the experience, albeit to little avail.

Integrity: loyalty to one's convictions and values

Trump fails here - as a crony and a pragmatist.

Clinton also fails - even more despicably. Look no further than Benghazi, Email server and the Clinton Foundation.

Competence: ability to perform successfully or efficiently

Trump is certainly competent in some non-political areas. But is he capable of listening to more rational experts and changing views to compensate for his other weaknesses and political naivety?

Clinton has certainly demonstrated her failure here - no real successes in her political career.

Character

Unfortunately, this has not been a concerning issue in recent elections.

We now see the degradation in our culture with these two despicable characters. It comes down to each person's view of which despicable traits are more acceptable.

Trump is a crony and manipulator, often dishonest, and prone to making racist comments.

Clinton is the same plus having a huge appetite for power at all costs.

Her racism is near opposite of Trump's: directed toward whites vs. minorities, men vs. women.

Pro-American

Trump is somewhat more pro-American than Clinton. However, his isolationism and other non-Capitalist views are concerns. The only positive with Clinton is that she appears more pro-American than Obama.

Our history proves that America is an "exceptional" country. But Obama believes that America has never been exceptional, and his policies have been designed to ensure it won't be again. Clinton believes the same and would follow in his footsteps. Trump dislikes and misunderstands the term "exceptionalism", yet he wants us to be "great again."

In summary, we have lost our principles and values in judging and selecting political candidates. We now have two presumed nominees for President who are clearly unqualified for the office. Both are Statist, albeit to differing degrees. Trump doesn't know he is; Clinton does but won't acknowledge it. We have reached the point where a self-proclaimed Socialist (Sanders) in a once free society nearly beat Clinton in the primaries!

There was some hope that voters were properly rejecting the "establishment" or the politically "elite" candidates due to the harm they have done to our political system.  

But look at what constitutes the elite. In most fields (e.g. science, sports), there is an objective standard for defining them: the highest level of success. In politics, there is no such standard: they are generally those who have gamed the system to achieve power and control. It should be no surprise that the populace is finally rejecting them. However, it should be shocking that Clinton - clearly atop the power class - is still accepted, and that the worst of the alternatives - Sanders and Trump - are all that is left. The only true elites - those who think critically, have good ideas and thus good policies - have been ignored by the voters.

Trump supporters do not understand that simply being different from the established Republicans is not enough. They need to once again focus on Capitalist principles, e.g. freedom, and to find a leader who can implement them.

Clinton supporters do not understand the dangers of Statism and Marxism that has taken over the Democratic party and to some degree the entire country. They need to focus less on the use of government force over the individual, and to find a leader who can recognize such evil.

One can't rationally conclude that either truly deserves our support. How does one justify a vote for either a political unknown who is incoherent, unpredictable and immoral; or a political elite whose record is disastrous and who is evil?    

At this stage, I see Clinton and the Democratic party prevailing in the election.

But what changes would be significant enough to impact the outcome?

1. If the Republican party had the courage to dump Trump at the convention for a more acceptable candidate, then that could likely lead to victory.

2. Short of that, the party could force Trump to get serious, tone down his rhetoric, and work together on important issues in hopes of gaining significantly broader support. That would be a tall task.

Response to Obama’s SOTU Speech

It was estimated that only 10% of Americans saw the latest SOTU speech. Perhaps the remaining 90% should understand what President Obama said. 

To summarize: he grossly exaggerated the state of the economy, impacts of climate change, educational achievements, and supposed positive impacts of his statist policies; while grossly under-estimating the negative impacts of such policies, and - most importantly - the real threat of terrorism (as always). And his contradictions and denials of the facts were inexcusable. 

He said he doesn’t want politics to “get in the way” and have factions turn against each other; yet it is his own policies that have done just that. You can’t impose statism/Marxism in this country founded on principles of individual rights and freedom without expecting sharp divisions among the populace. Mr. President, we can’t agree with you just for the sake of satisfying your ego or your ideology. And your political posturing with suggested programs that can’t possibly get through Congress won’t do you or the country any good. 

And you can’t promise bi-partisan cooperation while you threaten multiple vetoes. Or brag about lowering the deficit (due only to the stopping of stimulus spending) when wanting higher spending and ignoring the debt. Or brag about low unemployment when the real unemployment rate remains relatively high. Or brag about our recovery dwarfing that of Europe and then strive to be more like Europe. 

While reported unemployment is down somewhat, that is merely due to private company growth, people dropping out of the job market (due much to the expanded welfare state), and the natural (albeit slow) recovery from the recession; and certainly not to government policies. 

Financial regulations, tax policies and selective corporate subsidies/bailouts are harming our economy, not helping as he suggested. His proposed tax increases are merely more attempts to redistribute income; and all such attempts at that have necessarily failed to boost our economy and work against individual success.  

He took credit for lower gas prices and energy independence, when - in fact - those results are due to private energy development despite his attempts to inhibit the same and raise fossil fuel costs; e.g. his irrational dismissal of the Keystone pipeline. 

He misstated facts about climate change; e.g. rising oceans (a long-term phenomenon having nothing to do with man) and 2014 being the hottest years on record. Mr. President, climate science is certainly not “closed”; and honest scientists have disproved all of your and other environmentalist claims re global warming. And don’t be so naïve to believe that China has truly committed to significantly cutting CO2 emissions. 

ObamaCare is significantly worsening our HC system and will be very harmful to our economy, not the opposite as he suggested. 

Instead of arguing for free trade that would be best for all, he asked for the power to impose trade restrictions as he sees fit. 

Education has been shown to work best in the private marketplace. Government has certainly not, and cannot, improve test scores or better prepare students for better paying jobs. It has, in fact, lowered standards and hurt student opportunities; and has contributed significantly to higher education costs. Creating special interests in education is like forced redistribution of wealth: it only creates class warfare and diminished economic progress. And free community college will only create the under-performing problems that we have seen at the high school level. 

He asked for the power to use force against ISIS, despite the fact that he has already single-handedly used force against them and others in multiple countries (albeit in the weakest fashion possible). And this after saying “America should move off a permanent war footing.” Furthermore, he continues to refuse to name our enemy - Islam, fails to fight terrorists and terrorist regimes in a way required to ever defeat them, and fails to support Israel in their lone fight against their terrorist neighbors. 

From his weak stances against Iran, Syria and others in the Middle East, to his pretense about successful negotiations with such countries, to his naïve belief that he has halted Iran’s nuclear program, to his release of dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo, to his failures in dealing with Russia, Obama has shown no clue about our international vulnerabilities or the ability to deal with them. 

Obama is reaching out to the far left which has been his true leaning all along. He is our most statist, anti-American President ever and we must all recognize the danger of electing another ideologically similar candidate for President. We are not a collectivist nation with a “common purpose” as Obama believes. We are a nation of individuals, each of whom should strive to be the best he can be, and government should leave him free to do so as our Founding Fathers intended.

Speak the Truth on Election Day

Since ObamaCare will be the defining issue in the November election, we need a method for determining the real mood of the public on that issue. 

Democrats believe this bill to be the savior of health care in the U.S. They have continually argued that it enables you to keep your prior health insurance plan if you so choose, you can keep your doctors, it will cover more than you likely had covered, your cost will drop and everyone will finally have insurance. 

Republicans believe this bill will destroy the quality of health care in the U.S. They note that none of Obama’s promises have held up; millions of people have had their policies cancelled, and - according to the CBO (official auditing arm of Congress) - close to 30M people will remain uninsured under ObamaCare; constant delays in implementing significant parts of the bill are indications of eventual failure; and significant increases in taxes will be required to cover net losses, especially after the failure of young people to cover the HC costs of older people. 

Who’s right? Well, the most objective way to determine that is at the polls. I appeal to voters in November to commit to telling the truth on this issue. 

1.    If you and or family/friends have seen your insurance cost drop this year (or even seen the increase from previous years drop) and the same will be true for next year; you did not have your existing insurance cancelled; you have enrolled in an exchange that has enabled you to keep your doctors and levels of coverage, and at a lower price; or combining all components of cost – policy price, annual deductible and increased taxes, you believe you will be better off under ObamaCare, then vote Democrat for Congressmen and Senators. 

2.    Otherwise, vote Republican. 

It’s that simple. Let both parties know how satisfied you really are with this bill.

Don’t simply vote party; vote your conscience on this issue.

What We Can Be Thankful For

During this holiday season, I again find myself most thankful for individual freedom and rights. Unfortunately, our political leaders have forgotten our past and have shown little respect for either.

Fortunately, there is an inkling of hope with the recent unraveling of ObamaCare. And I am not simply being political when I say that. Consider what there is to be thankful for in this case.

1. Virtually everything that the opposition said was bad about this legislation is being revealed as truth; e.g. government control of HC will breed corruption and cronyism, individuals will not necessarily be able to keep their previous insurance policies, costs will not be reduced, etc.

2. HC cannot be considered a right, and attempting to make it so for altruistic and egalitarian reasons is immoral. Also note that every problem ObamaCare was supposed to fix was caused by government controls, not free markets. The unraveling will hopefully lead to rational HC reforms. 

3. Everything that ObamaCare was intended to accomplish was with evil motives: redistribution of wealth, control of the economy, destruction of the middle class and small businesses, increased union power, etc. This could wake people up to the broader statist agenda.    

4. President Obama is being revealed as the liar and narcissist many have known him to be. He does not care if he violates the rights of doctors, patients, insurers and the lives of millions of Americans. His statist/Marxist ideology trumps all. Hopefully, enough people will realize that, Republicans will win the Senate next year and make it impossible for him to do further damage.

Understand that rights exist in order for man to be selfish (yes, that “evil” word of which each person is “guilty” whenever he acts in his best interest), not to be sacrificed: they sanction those actions that enable each individual to sustain his own live and achieve happiness. Let’s be thankful for those rights we still retain and work together to regain those we have lost.

Is there a "Common Good"?

Liberals/statists talk of having some responsibility to the “common good” (CG). Such talk suggests a lack of understanding and acceptance of moral principles. 

The objective approach to the principle of ‘the good’ is to evaluate facts of reality according to a rational standard of value; thus ‘good’ is that which is proper to one’s life from a rational, not emotional or unreal, perspective. The subjective approach considers only one’s feelings, desires or arbitrary needs. Which do you think is the proper method of evaluation? 

Where actions can be objectively evaluated, it is possible for rational individuals to agree to a CG. But since most people do not act rationally, it is meaningless to speak of any CG (or public interest). To impose a CG on individuals is to use force to give preference for the good of some at the expense of others - which is immoral and collectivist. Only by defining ‘good’ for individuals vs. the collective can rights be retained.  

In discussing our recent fiscal crises and federal debt, such reasoning has been lost on most politicians/liberals. Many people do not support higher taxes on the relatively wealthy to support the non-productive and looters in society; they do not support increased spending and the resulting higher debt in the deceptive name of ‘fairness’ and at great economic cost. Thus, re-distribution of income and unsustainable government debt/deficits are clearly not for the CG. It is hypocritical to expect the wealthy to be productive, buoy the economy and provide jobs for the poor and middle classes, while raising their taxes as if they don’t already pay much more than their ‘fair share’. 

Likewise, many do not see it in their best interest to remain defenseless against criminals; therefore gun control is not for the CG. It is hypocritical for politicians to pretend to support the 2^nd amendment as they attempt to restrict guns and ammunition; to expect armed security protection while asking the populace to publicly announce their gun ownership and to give up any guns.  

Many do not support environmentalists who simply want to shut down existing technology and hopelessly pursue inefficient and unnecessary ‘green’ energies at great cost to our economy; thus subjective favoritism toward ‘green’ companies is not for the CG. It is hypocritical to depend on successful oil and gas companies that efficiently provide energy with minimal effect on the environment, while fighting them through regulations/executive orders and subsidizing ‘green’ companies that cannot otherwise sustain themselves.  

Essentially, everything liberals push as being for the CG has hypocrisy written all over it. And hypocrisy results from the lack of moral principles. It reveals the fact that the hypocrites are acting contrary to their nature; they hold ideals they have to accept as their highest ambition despite being hateful and repulsive toward them. Consider, for example, how they must view America vis a vis the world: a country with exceptional virtues, wealth, success and power; yet they show distaste for the term “capitalism”, apologize for its virtues and demonstrate great hypocrisy and evasiveness in international affairs.  

Again I must note that Obama and his followers hold the wrong moral standard. They place the collective good over individual good, government force over support of individual rights. They are willing to sacrifice our happiness for the sake of the allusive CG. Don’t accept this.

State of the Union

If I was to address Obama’s SOTU speech, I would be nearly speechless. How does one respond to a fully statist/collectivist speech which contains many talking points but no real solutions to our financial woes? Redistribution of wealth, punishments for corporations and universities that don’t conform to his wishes, unsound reforms, tax increases, global equality, worthless international diplomacy and financial aid to our enemies is all so un-American that it should scare all of us.  

How can anyone buy-in to this President’s proposals and actions? FDR provides a real clue. Until recent history, liberal historians (and the broad media) have evaluated FDR as near-saintly. Some believes that his election represented a great revolution in American history. But more recent analyses reveal a different picture.  

He was essentially an unproductive man throughout his life; his only success was as a politician. He had low aptitude for economics, business and the law. He was said to have a 2^nd class intellect; however, he had first class charm and guile. In areas where he lacked confidence, he viewed his superiors as having achieved success unfairly. He was financially supported by others on his way to the Presidency.  

He spoke frequently of the virtues of a free market but seldom acted to support it. He blamed his predecessors for the prolonged depression, yet his policies were precisely what depressed the economy throughout the ‘30s. His Smoot-Hawley tariff was clearly one of the primary causes of the depression. He strongly supported the redistribution of wealth, attacked industries (while supporting those who could serve him best – cronyism), and promised a 25% reduction in spending and a balanced budget when campaigning (never his real intentions). He had no business person on his economic team capable of showing him a better path to recovery. 

Obama fits that profile perfectly. Liberals love him for the same reasons and with the same faults. Unfortunately, they blindly accept him despite two enormous flaws that FDR never had: he is a thorough egalitarian and a narcissist. He is indifferent to our economic welfare and is willing to destroy it in the process of taking down the most productive among us. He and his followers are showing either an amazing ignorance or evasion of economics, the Constitution and morality. 

The true SOTU is depressing and there is little hope that Obama – with his ideology – will enable robust growth in the economy. His despicable lies re the supposed disaster to be caused by sequestration (forcing a miniscule reduction in planned growth in spending over a decade) show that he has no intent to truly cut spending. Do you realize that our total national debt in 1931 was equal to our current debt growth in just 5+ days! Do you really believe this trend is sustainable? 

His altruistic morality dictates his statist politics. “Altruism” means sacrificing one’s higher values to lower values, ability to inability, achievement and wealth to need; it is not mere “humanitarianism” as often believed. And being “humanitarian” is caring to help others without sacrifice, not forcing individuals to care for others out of duty, envy or in the name of economic equality as Obama and liberals wish. The Right and the Left both preach altruism (albeit for different reasons), and that moral code is destroying our culture as well as our economy.

Current Issues

Obama’s 12/16 speech re the mass killings in Connecticut was yet another attempt to impose collectivism on our culture. “We can’t tolerate this anymore... these tragedies must end”; “this…is something we can only do together.” “We bear a responsibility for every child.” No Mr. President, we are not truly our “brothers’ keeper” and such tragedies will never end. 

Soon after - as with every such tragedy - the focus turned to gun control. Yet - as always - control advocates are ignoring the facts: criminals attack areas of least resistance - where guns are not allowed or in smaller numbers, there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and serious crime, and new laws cannot control guns. 

I see a three-pronged problem: 

1.    Gun-free zones: eliminate them. Enable responsible individuals in public places to carry or have easy access to guns for the protection of others. And find more creative ways to improve security in such areas. 

2.    The mentally ill: loosen legal restrictions on how we deal with them. E.g. allow a registry (with reasonably restricted access) that identifies persons who have been seen as a potential danger to others - just as we can reveal to the DMV people who are a danger driving. 

3.    Politics! Rational people could agree that we don’t generally need assault weapons for self-defense or sports. But government should not dictate our needs; and the political climate is such that yielding to the control advocates on such a point would only lead to further attempts to impose controls beyond reason. And even if Congress could pass a law that rationally determined which gun restrictions are and are not violations of our right to bear arms, that would not prevent criminals from obtaining illegal weapons. 

Fiscal Cliff: does anyone wonder how a “balanced” solution to the “Cliff” became defined as increased revenues (via tax hikes) and virtually no decrease in spending? Obama’s forced deal has certainly not averted a fiscal crisis yet to come. It simply advanced his short-term goals of punishing the rich, redistributing income for the sake of economic equality and subsidizing his friends. This will all be at the long-term expense of our economy which will likely be blamed on the next President.  

Note that our financial crisis of ’08 began with the equally irrational goal of “equality” of home ownership. Few seemed to understand how that would damage our economy either. Now using the same excuse to confiscate wealth is a moral disgrace; it is a good example of how our morality is been degraded and our political system destroyed. All such redistribution and divisive efforts are undertaken merely for a statist/Marxist principle. The lies to justify it all will never end unless people are taught that inequality is a natural and healthy phenomenon that benefits the poor the most when it results from free markets, not political cronyism and statist policies. As economist Yaron Brook said, “A society that cares about inequality of income is a sick society driven by altruism and envy.” Those who ask for unearned equality or inequality are guilty of parasitism.

Current Events

Obama has no foreign policy per se, just short-term posturing.

11/7 - Govt. acknowledged that Iranian fighter planes had fired on an unmanned reconnaissance drone five days before the election.

NID director Clapper “suggested” Petraeus resign as head of the CIA.

11/9: Petraeus resigned. The Administration had previously objected to his request to provide enhanced support of the Benghazi embassy and his decision to release his own timeline of events; that was when the FBI told Clapper of Petraeus’s affair. What a convenient time to push him out.

11/13: it was announced that 2 days after the attack, Petraeus had said it was not one of terrorism; thus the supposed justification for Susan Rice’s continual claims that it was merely a mob attack due to the video. In fact, his actual acknowledgment of it being a terrorist attack was omitted by someone at the White House from the report given to Rice. 

Benghazi is Obama’s “Watergate” - perhaps worse. And all the above were clearly timed to cover up events that could have affected the election outcome. More lies and deceit. 

War between Hamas and Israel escalated again. Obama was relatively silent re Hamas’ actions but told Israel to show maximum restraint! Then Israel was pressured into a peace agreement that is viewed as a victory for Hamas, giving them more time to garner wider support and arms for the next battle. Obama’s position again revealed his distaste for Israel. And he has even been unwilling to expose Hamas’ “dead-baby” strategy which uses innocent civilians as martyrs while the terrorists hide from return fire.  

11/8: Obama deemed 1.6 million acres of federal land unavailable for oil/gas exploration and production. He clearly lied re his desire to pursue such development; his preference is to destroy competition for green energy. 

Obama continues to show support for immoral union rules and laws that violate the rights of employers as it grants coercive powers to unions and forces businesses to “negotiate” and concede to union demands which always results in higher unemployment, higher prices for consumers, and unsustainable production costs that have driven many companies out of business or overseas. The latest victim is Hostess Brands with at least 15k jobs lost – union jobs he purports to protect. 

ObamaCare is already causing corporations to make changes to compensate for regulations; e.g. cutting hours of employees to avoid fines for lack of HC coverage. And there is growing evidence of a near-future shortage of primary-care doctors. All this was predicted by non-supporters. 

The USPS reported a $16B loss in the recent fiscal year. Now it wants to eliminate Saturday mail service. It is time to end this legal monopoly on delivery service; but in deference to the unions, Obama wouldn’t accept that. 

Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the rich in the interest of “fairness”, knowing full well that the economy would be hurt by such a move. He has shown no interest in reducing spending and truly resolving our fiscal crisis. He is all about divisiveness: poor and middle-classes against the rich, minorities against whites, women against men. His ends always justify his means.  

Add it up: 0-7 against freedom and respect for rights!

What Next?

Robin Hood is returning. How did this happen?  

Obama’s followers are primarily Baby Boomers (protesters of the 1960’s who learned from Marx) and those they taught in our liberal institutions to be true statists. And Barak Obama has skillfully used them to begin his destruction of this once free country. Yes, he is the new Robin Hood: the champion of need - not individual rights or achievement - who robs the rich to give to the poor. He and his followers believe that the more one produces the less right he has to his rewards. This is contemptible, yet evidently accepted by half our population. 

The dangers of Obama’s ideology have fallen on their complacent and naïve ears. They fully evade the principles on which our country was founded (as I have been describing). This is the primary answer to the question above.  

Obama also benefited substantially from a fantastically biased Media who carefully disguised his lies and deceit and supported his invalid attacks on Romney. Then there are the minorities (and others) who accept the ridiculous notion that it is historically important to keep the first black President in office.  

Finally - and certainly not insignificant - is his weak opposition. The Republican Party is unwilling to accept true separation of church and state, to moderate its positions on social issues in the name of individual freedom, and (as with the Democrats) to understand and support the morality of economic freedom. 

Romney was handicapped by his party and some of his own views. But he was also too pragmatic to even consider distinguishing himself from a statist/Marxist, and he was unwilling to speak about many of the damaging actions of Obama and negative results to date of his policies.  

So what’s next? One can only conclude that Obama will continue full steam ahead. Republicans will inappropriately yield on tax hikes (in some form) while getting no real spending cuts in return. Continued slow economic growth, low productivity, further implementation of ObamaCare, costly environmental/energy policies and greater inflation will likely lead to another recession - with even higher unemployment - early in his second term. As government consumes wealth instead of enabling individuals to create it, free enterprise and individual freedom will continue to be sacrificed. And continued terrorism emanating from the Middle East will further reveal Obama’s weak foreign policy. 

Obama will tell us – as he did in 2008 - that we must now unite and work together for the collective good. But there is no such thing as the “collective good” - only what is good for individuals. And Obama has been a destroyer, not a uniter. He has temporarily destroyed the “American Dream” which can only be recaptured with proper education and a new free market, pro-individual rights President. 

Going forward, let’s evaluate current actions of the Administration, using that dream as the standard: judging each by the freedom and opportunities it offers and the individual rights it protects. Judgment according to needs met or political correctness must stop.

If You Are an Obama Suppoter...

Obama was raised and has lived his entire life as a statist/Marxist; that is his ideology, and it is anti-American. Why don’t you see that? 

Statism/egalitarianism always requires some to support others by force. How can you possibly consider that moral? 

Why do you accept his Keynesian economic policies when Keynes' theory has continually been proven false? Or why do you accept what sounds good over what works?   

Why do you assume that economic equality has anything to do with treating people equally? The former is Marxist, the latter is American. And why do you assume that different rules and standards apply to different people? Are we to be properly equal or not? 

How far are you willing to go in allowing Obama to sacrifice the more successful among us for the sake of the unproductive? Is someone who stays unemployed in order to avoid work and to cheat the government, or who gambles away his welfare check, worthy of our compassion and justified in forcing us to sustain his unearned lifestyle?  

Obama believes that government needs to compete with private industry; but, in fact, private industry alone produces goods and services that make an economy grow. Why don’t you see that we cannot afford to have government compete and that there is serious damage done by following his thesis? 

On what basis do you assume that government stimulus of the economy is better than private stimulus? You are replacing rational decision makers with the irrational, those with risk in the game with those without risk or incentive to be efficient. 

Bush had a deficit around $400B prior to TARP in 2008; and everyone including Obama supported TARP and considered it a requirement. Obama has added over $5T in deficits/debt, all optional. How can you say that Obama did not create his own economic mess? 

The producers (particularly the wealthy) in this country provide the jobs and government revenue to support the moochers and looters. How can you possibly say they don’t pay their fair share? 

Why do you only care about the benefits government can provide you today and not the heavy burdens your children and grandchildren will inherit tomorrow? 

Since you have accepted politicians providing you benefits at others’ expense, how can you possibly complain when they take from you to give to others - or themselves?

How can you have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too? 

If you have not contributed to society, then why do you feel society owes you something at the expense of the true contributors? If you have contributed yourself, then why do you feel that those who have not deserve the fruits of others’ labor? 

Why is one considered “greedy” to want to keep what he earns, but "compassionate" when he wants to take the earnings from one to give to others? 

If you think we cannot afford health care, then how in the world do you think we can afford ObamaCare with enormous inefficiencies and an enormous government bureaucracy to administer it? 

Does it bother you that science has verified that there has been zero global warming for the last 16 years, and that there has not been any concerning climate change in our lifetime; yet Obama’s entire energy and ecology policies are based on that myth? And he plans for more damaging EPA rules after the election. 

Does it bother you that he has subsidized - with tax dollars - inefficient “green” industries that have or will fail as the subsidies defy laws of economics? 

Do you approve of the cronyism that is associated with such policies? (It is certainly not capitalism that leads to that.) 

Do you like the high gas prices resulting from Obama’s energy policies? How can you complain about the prices without understanding the cause? 

Aren’t you a bit concerned that Obama strongly fights bullying – children taking things from others by force, yet he constantly bullies all of us with his statist/egalitarian policies? 

You are for the collective over the individual. But why aren’t you concerned about government controls over the individual? Why are you more supportive of statism than capitalism that leaves individuals free? There are no collective rights. 

Obama said he would end all military conflicts early in his term. Yet he escalated Afganistan and contributed to the crises in Egypt, Syria and Libya. He created the greatest conflict in the M.E. by sympathizing with Muslims, has accomplished nothing with Iran - our greatest concern, and has constantly rebuffed Israel - our only ally there. He has refused to recognize our real enemy. How can you possibly say his foreign policy is a success? How can you naively believe that killing bin Laden decimated Al Queda or that “leading from behind” has been a successful strategy? How can you accept his lies about M.E. events? Radical Islam has hijacked the “Arab Spring” and he cannot face it - so he lies about it.  

Obama said he was “offended” at the suggestion that his administration would attempt to deceive the public about the Benghazi attack (which he in fact did). After all the lies he has told, what is there that you can really believe he has not deceived us about? Certainly nothing dealing with foreign policy, ObamaCare, deficits, “green” energy, executive orders, etc. But that’s what nihilists do - have to do. 

Do you really believe he should be considered a hero for having bin Laden killed, when in fact Bush laid the groundwork for capture and any President would find it his duty to approve of the killing? Do you not find it arrogant of him to take all credit and to act like that made his foreign policy a success? 

Why is it okay for unions and other public institutions to influence votes for the Left, but not for churches to tell their members which candidate agrees with their values? 

Does it matter that Obama has no 2^nd term agenda? That, by default, we will see a continuation of high deficits, slow growth, foreign policy weakness leading to increased terrorism, etc.? 

If someone does not accept your political views, how can you assume he does not care about the people you claim to want to help? And if someone disagrees with Obama, why do you assume he is a racist? 

Does it bother you that Obama is conducting the most negative campaign in our history? That he says it is detestable to attack personal character, yet he has frequently attacked Romney’s character and called him a liar - without any justification? Why can’t you recognize the contrasting honesty of Romney? 

Could anything convince you that Obama is a danger to this once-free country?

The best book you could read is Atlas Shrugged: Rand defines the likes of Obama very clearly; and you will be able to see why America will likely “shrug” more than it has with a 2^nd Obama term.