On March 6, 2013, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul filibustered Obama’s CIA nominee John Brennan for 13 hours. It took 13 hours because the White House refused to answer Paul’s simple question: Can the President assassinate U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without due process, who are not actively involved in combat? Silence, in this case, speaks volumes. Why would an executive want to reserve that power?
As a self-identified collectivist (advocates wealth redistribution), President Obama regards individual rights as subordinate to the “public good” or the “needs of others.” This much, at least, is abundantly clear from his views on individual property rights.
You might be wondering “what’s wrong with collectivism, and public good?” In order to survive and thrive as a human being, an individual must be free to acquire and keep values which support his/her life, by his/her own judgment and action. Such is the nature of the human organism. Birds fly, cheetahs sprint, and humans think. Without the freedom to act on independent judgment without interference, an individual may survive by the charity (or mutual enslavement) of others, such as under socialism or communism, but without the freedom to act upon his best judgement, the individual is not the owner of his own life, because he is not free to sustain it.
The right to life being irrefutably linked to the right to property (values required for survival) — which the President has demonstrated zero regard for — gives us insight into Obama’s views on individual rights to life and liberty. Whether he is aware of the connection between the right to property and the right to life and self-ownership or not is irrelevant, and is only that much more dangerous, if he is not aware of it.
Were there not limitations placed on him by the constitutional republic which he has been elected to represent, it would be difficult to make the argument that the President would not have already stripped Americans of most, if not all property rights, given his rhetoric on the issue, and already have executed non-combatant Americans without process of law on American soil. (He has already executed Americans abroad extra judicially). Why would it be difficult to make that argument?
Because it is not reasonable to expect him to respect the lives of individuals, given his complete disregard for the property and autonomy of individuals — both of which are integral and essential to a rewarding and productive human life.
Historically speaking, the “public good” has been the justification for the slaughter and enslavement of more than a hundred and fifty million people according to some estimates. And that’s just the 20th century. It continues to be the justification for ever-increasing rights-violations by all governments of the world today.
We should all be grateful for the effort put forth by Mr Paul to preserve Americans’ right to life and liberty.
California is experiencing a doctor shortage. So the obvious thing to do is to redefine what “doctor” means, carry on with all the policies that resulted in said shortage, and hope that everyone is too stupid to notice. Right?? Maybe it will just… go away? Who knows what they think. Like how they changed what “unemployed” means when they saw the economy wasn’t recovering, that unemployment is actually HIGHER than it ever was during the great depression. …but it can’t be our policies!! It must be the way we’re defining unemployment! Of course.
It’s the equivalent of sticking your index fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and going “LALALALALALALAIDONTCAREWHATYOUSAYLALALALALALAICANDOWHATIWANTLALALALALA” …it’s what Democrats do. It’s what liberals do. Wait, sorry, it’s what politicians do, and the people who support them. The difference between the left and right is that people dont take Christians serious enough to let them dictate policy, for the most part; we’ve separated church and state — but people still have yet to figure out that progressivism is just as asinine, destructive, and faith-based.
The efficient brilliance of statism, right before our eyes… what do you even say about this nonsense? To people with their eyes open, it looks a lot like witch-burning or virgin sacrifice.
It’s like this: Oh, the rain dance didn’t make it rain? Looks like we need to redefine what “rain” means then!! It can’t possibly be our policy of dancing to make it rain that’s wrong!
I got a better idea. Why don’t we take notice of the string of horrible results that happen whenever the government is in control of something, and then stop voting for people who believe government is the answer to every question.
According to westernjournalism.com, the Fort Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Colorado Theater, and Connecticut shooters were all registered Democrats. (Eric Harris and Derrick Klebold, the Columbine shooters, were too young to vote, however both sets of parents were registered Democrats).
Perhaps the overwhelming majority of gun-grabbing Democrats are merely projecting when they mistrust others with weapons. They can’t be trusted, and therefore do not trust others. After all, leftist political philosophy is that of using brute force extortion and coercion to extract unearned wealth, power, and prestige via the state’s guns. It’s not a giant leap, psychologically speaking, to actually shoot your fellow human beings, when you’ve been conditioned and taught to believe that coercion and outright violence is an acceptable means to deal with your fellow human beings.
As far as the gun-grabbing goes, it makes sense, when your livelihood depends on the state having a monopoly on force in order to extort wealth from producers, that you do not want them armed. I mean… anyone with half a brain can see the logical connection there. You vote for the state to re-distribute people’s wealth and time and effort to you by force(guns), so naturally you would prefer if those people were not armed.
Yes. Hong Kong baby. This small island was nothing more than a fishing village not that long ago. When the Island of Hong Kong was given back to China from the British, China took a “hands off”(translation: laissez-faire) approach — what happened is pictured below. With near laissez-faire Capitalism, there is no government safety net, or very little, and regulation is almost non-existent. Yet people flocked to this little fishing village in droves. But, for what? Certainly not to live under socialist or statist policies — there were none. They went there because it was economically free. And the results are difficult to ignore, even if predictable.
Taking a look around the world, you see that countries and economies are successful to the degree that they have freedom(Capitalism), and are free from government coercion, regulation, taxation, etc. All first world countries today are a mixed economy, and consequently, they produce mixed results.
It is consistently clear that Capitalism delivers the goods, even to the passive observer. No reasonable person would or could argue that it doesn’t. So why is it that the major general trend is to continuously move towards more and more statism??
People reject Capitalism(with their votes, contrary to their best interests) based on the ethics and morality that Capitalism necessarily requires.
Free markets are all about self-interest. People view self-interest as unseemly, or worse. When you trade, you only do so if it benefits you — both people believe they will benefit from each exchange in a free market, or they would not do it. That, as ridiculous as it sounds, is the reason people reject Capitalism. People are convinced of an altruist and collectivist morality, which glorifies self-sacrifice and requires that individuals sacrifice themselves to the “greater good,” and preaches that they are not entitled to live for themselves, that they must sacrifice and live for others to be considered moral.
The archaic “morality” of altruism and the communist/socialist/leftist ethics of collectivism is what people reject Capitalism based on.
But I just have just one question for altruists and collectivists. One teeny tiny question. …Why?? Why shouldn’t people live to pursue their own values? Why should they live for other people and not themselves? There is no rational answer to that question.
The ethics of self-interest are the only way to rescue Capitalism from the left. A culture which upholds sacrifice/altruism and collectivism as its highest values can only end one way — totalitarianism, communism, national socialism, fascism(all essentially the same extreme left political system, slight variances). It is profoundly moral to live to pursue your own values, not someone else’s.
Access Millionnaire trader Tim Sykes’ Free Video Lessons, Newsletters, Real-time trade updates, and More HERE.
This is the unavoidable truth of leftist philosophy. Violence and coercion is the only means to implement it. It requires the support of those who don’t voluntarily offer their support, and force is the only means to achieve it.
There are only two essential political choices: voluntary interaction(Capitalism), and everything else, which, while slightly different in their implementation, require violence to enforce. These leftist variations of totalitarian statism include, but are not limited to, communism, socialism, and fascism.
While I’m on the subject, it is inaccurate of me to refer to Obama as a socialist. Socialism means state ownership of industry and business. Fascism is something more insidious and destructive, because it allows failed government policy to be passed off as a failure of private enterprise. Under fascism, private ownership may be retained, but all business and industry is controlled and centrally regulated by the state. Obama is, more accurately, a fascist. To be clear, I am not demagoguing or appealing to emotion — by his own policy advocacy, and the definition of fascism, Obama is a fascist. That is fact. Bush was a fascist. Each and every President for the last 100 years has been a fascist to some degree, although none as ideologically or purposefully as Obama.
I think this is actually an Obama quote. Oh, no, it’s Hitler, never mind. Hard to tell the difference sometimes, them both being extreme leftists. This is called ‘collectivism’ and it is the method by which all tyrants in history have justified the enslavement and genocide of millions. The same collectivism that liberals are teaching in our schools and universities. The same collectivism that Obama is attempting to institutionalize right now. Hitler and Obama share a philosophy — is it really any wonder people don’t want to give him their guns?
For everyone thinking “how dare you compare Obama with Hitler!” I’m drawing parallels where they exist — these two men are both collectivists. I am certainly not equating the two morally(it would be very, very difficult for anyone to achieve as much evil as Hitler did), BUT I am definitely equating them in terms of their collectivist/altruist ideals. Actually I’m equating O with every tyrannical dictator ever, in terms of their political and moral ideals.