"Need" as the Ultimate Justification

I believe the liberal mind is a more socially accepted version of the criminal mind. Both justify taking other people's money and property for their purposes.

The human condition at bottom is that one must traverse the gap from "need" to "value produced" which satisfies the need. The need is generated by a living organism using its energy to maintain its life. That process, life, gives rise to needs which must be fulfilled if the life is to continue.



The blue arrow is "the gap." To mature as a human being means that one is able to navigate that gap and provide for his needs in a way that works while at the same time doesn't undermine his continued ability to provide for his needs.

The criminal mind and the liberal mind emphasize "need" as a lack - ultimately a lack of stuff or status. They think it unfair that the needy are not provided for. They believe that it is fundamentally unjust that everyone is not provided for - that it is some kind of cosmic injustice and that the world, because of this, is basically unfair. Because this is unjust, they say, they feel justified to correct this injustice and that is why they can, with a straight face, advocate taking your stuff, destroy a country such as America that has a system that allows people to traverse the gap of being human and create value, giving away other people's values (money) to poor people and poor nations, etc., etc.

Every time they open their mouths, they reinforce the "goodness," the "appropriateness" of being needy. When Obama brings some poor person or crippled person or in some way needy person onto the stage with him, he wants to hear about their neediness - the more needy the better - and he adds importance to their being needy. (I find this embarrassing for the person he is using.) He gives them his ear and kindness, attention and ultimately some money or goods. The one thing he doesn't do is talk about how they resourcefully went from need to results that satisfied their need. To focus on that would mean he would have no reason to exert his power over us and take our stuff.

Because Obama and Michelle, the current point people for this view, and the rest of the liberals do this, I consider them and their kind the embodiment of evil in mankind. (I'm not talking about evil in the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments manner. Because man possesses volition, he chooses his course of action. He can choose to get across that gap, using his talents and mind to do that or not and this is his fundamental choice - to live as a human being or not.) There is nothing evil about having needs. We all have them by virtue of being alive. Granting them ultimate status and holding them aloft rather than supporting getting across the gap - by being creative and productive - is evil.

The ultimate joke, though, is on those that hold aloft need as the ultimate in importance. Although evil appears potent because it counts on fear and causes havoc in human lives by destroying their values and it always seems pleasurable in the short run, it is ultimately impotent. That is because it is not about developing the means for producing real value and satisfying needs. To continue, the mind besieged by evil must feed off the people who do traverse the gap since they are the ones who know how to get from need to value produced. (Frederick Douglas made clear that taking care of the needy for its own sake provides nothing lasting: "A man, at times, gets something for nothing, but it will, in his hands, amount to nothing.")

When I hear/see Obama, Michelle, the Pope, mother Theresa when she was alive, Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Weiner, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and thousands of other such people, I see evil incarnate. They foster a world that doesn't and cannot work, and they work to create parasites wherever they go. There is nothing more hideous that that. (If you think Mother Theresa was humane, she had millions of dollars and would not spend a frickin' dime on having the dying people she cared for have some measure of comfort as they went through the dying process. She could have conditioned the air because she could have easily have afforded it. Why? Because she thought suffering was the way to becoming whole - and holy, i.e., coming to know god. Source: The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens.)

The criminal mind is always justified to commit his crime. Why? Because to his mind, the world is not just and did not treat him fairly for him to properly mature when he was dependent on others. To him, this shouldn't be. (I wonder if some portion of humanity is pissed because their God or their ancestors' God threw they out of the Garden of Eden? There everything was provided. Now they must work for the values they need.) He stays needy rather than find a way to clear away his fears and his grievances such that he become a value producer.

A person stuck in need ends up hating the good (value production) for being the good. (The good is value production and virtue is action which produces value.) Hating the good for being the good is envy and this mental orientation is sourcing the destruction of values now upon us.

So how do we get through this? Create and produce value. In everything you do. You will love it and will feel so nourished by it.

The torch represents the value you seek to produce that
lights your way. The stiffened arm is your moral strength
to get on with it and produce the result!

The Real Issue of Universal Health Care

The real issue in Universal Health Care is moral.

When I say MORAL, what do I mean? I mean the actions you take to live your life the best you can live it which in turns gives you more desire for life. These are moral actions and they do not come from just anywhere and they are not arbitrarily socially constructed. They come from the fact that you are a living being who must act to maintain your life.

My concern is not what Universal Health Care will do to your pocketbook. Of course it will be expensive - far more than Medicare. And that in itself can undermine a person. My concern here is what it will do to your motor, the engine of your energy that generates everything you do. What will it do to that?

It kills it. Drip, drip, drip. And it kills it at every level and in every person who is involved in government controlled health care. Even those who want it.

Why?

Because it places an arbitrary, irrational factor between you and your actions to achieve the health care you want to live and not physically/mentally suffer. That arbitrary factor is the government.

Why is it arbitrary?

Because its interests are not aligned with your interest in pursuing health care. To be alive, you must value. You must take actions that keep your life in existence. These are YOUR values.

Today you go to a doctor and he diagnoses your condition and prescribes one or more alternatives to help you. His interests are your interests.

But this isn't true with the government. It has a plan and a gun, force, to cause the result it wants. You will get whatever it decides you should get and it won't necessarily be what you want or what works. When the government controls anything, it is the law and politics which control how that will go.

The government drives you out of integrity with yourself. This will be Obama's scar on every soul in the country.

Speaking of politics, if you want corruption, universal health care will bring it in spades. Cronyism and bribes of all kinds and at every level of society will suddenly be abundant. What wouldn't you pay under the table for something that would save your life or relieve your suffering? And if you don't understand that there will be a kind of black market of those who will take bribes, I know you are crazy.

This gets no more clear than what the government plans to do with the elderly. (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) When you get to a certain age, you will have to set up all the paperwork for your final days. And the government will determine what it will give you in the way of care when the time comes. This does not have to match what you want, what a real medical doctor would recommend or you are willing to work for. It is completely arbitrary. For anyone who wants the best for their parents, their grandparents, their children and above all, themselves, this is bone-chilling in its lack of concern. (Some people are discussing this here.)

The day will come that you will not trust anyone in the government health care system. Once it is cut off from your interests, it will become a threat to your life. You will go to a quack in a back alley who you think is aligned with your interests before you subject yourself to someone you know is not aligned with your interests.

In this video which I have featured a number of times, the resignation of the people under the Canadian system is present for you to see. They accept it. Some make excuses for it. All they can do is whine. They don't demand better because it is useless to make such demands. Their moral fire is gone.

And this is what is going to happen to America if universal health care is passed. It will be the end of America as the home of the independent spirit.

What will be left? A moral grayness that is inconceivable to most Americans. It is the end of what you so take for granted being American. The bureaucracy will be so big and so all-powerful that most people will never be able to fight it. They will just give up. That's what I see in the Canadian video.

This will happen to every strata of society as well as the health care industry, except those who can escape it. The politicians have themselves insulated from this, of course.

It will happen to your doctor. Many will leave the profession. The Hippocratic Oath will no longer be operative as his ideal. It will happen to nurses too as they watch people waste and suffer pain before them because they cannot be treated as they would otherwise have been. It will happen to hospitals, ambulance drivers and secretaries as the evidence will accumulate that strips away the pretense of the universal health care plan.

Pretense?

Oh yes, pretense will become more important. Health care workers will be coached on how to "serve" and present themselves in a way that you can tolerate. This will become the new industry. All to maintain and grow the pretense.

Is it really a pretense? Yes. It was never intended to provide better health care. It can't. It was only intended to concentrate power in the hands of the government and to ride the wave of an immoral moral which says that it is your duty to take care of your neighbors. There is nothing that distinguishes this from that hideous institution of slavery that it took centuries for America to get clear of. There were plenty of reasons for it too, but it is no advance to make everyone slaves.

Has Obama become America's Jim Jones luring us to our death? It's the same immoral moral that he used. Hmmm.

Wake up!

Destroy the Economy to Save the Economy

Biden is explicit about it.

Where are the intelligent? Where are those that understand that the economy is an integrated whole? Where are those that understand that money stolen from those who have it and given to those who don't does not put money in the hands of the creators of businesses and jobs? Why is there so much emphasis put on the destruction of wealth and none on the principles to be be followed in order to create it?

Is this stupidity or intended? And who should pay rather than who will pay for this reversal of cause and effect?

Will someone please tell me where this has ever worked?

S e a of D e b t

Is Alinsky's Principle Turning on Obama?

Saul Alinsky is Obama's primary mentor. He was powerful because he had a specific plan of action for gaining power. Alinsky was a psychopath, pure and simple. He appeals to people who want power and are angry. Hillary liked him and so does Obama.

"Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.' (Saul Alinsky) That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain." (or a President, George Bush - SCB) (This quote from here.)

The internet is abuzz with articles about Obama's underhanded dealings and being the thug behind the scenes. This was mentioned a few weeks ago related to other people and organizations but had died down. Now it is back.

And what a perfect place to put all the frustration and outrage over the general government incompetance. It's clear to me there is a crisis of confidence in the US Government. Two of the biggest crooks, Frank and Dodd, at the heart of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco are making pronouncements, yelling in response to every question, as if they have moral authority - which they don't.

McCain supporters are increasingly frustrated. Their hope has been that given all the mess maybe McCain would have enough belief in freedom to at least forestall the complete capitulation of our relatively free society to liberal fascism and the socialist state.

All of this is now accentuating Obama's fascism and willingness to operate via threats of force. What follows is a list of links that I gleaned from the internet, thanks to a friend sending them to me. Further most of these links came from http://www.instapundit.com/, a middle-of-the-road website written by a law professor.

Start with this one about Alinsky and his tactics.

Then read this from the UK on how Obama undermined our government's negotiations with Iraq leaving them confused.

Then how about this one on how Obama is silencing the voice of Gun Owners. Also here.

One comment on a blog: "I fear that under the Obama administration, the lawyers sending these letters will be government employees."

And here is evidence of that already. Two elected officials are protecting the Obama campaign and only the Obama campaign. How unjust is that?

And here is a video showing how prosecutors and sheriffs are becoming part of the Obama's truth squad. And even the Justice Department is working for Obama.

Here in Reason Magazine's website is an article explaining why Obama is vulnerable on the Second Amendment. Notice how, in Obama's world, you have no rights. That means that you are not and independent human being who gets to live his life as he chooses. You are the property of the Government and the politicians get to decide. Your life is to be negotiated by someone else. Whatever that is, it ain't American and individual rights.

Or how about this Alinsky tactic to undermine free speech?

Here's an article regarding the NRA's response.

Obama's attempt to interrupt and silence a Chicago radio show back in August when Stanley Kurtz who investigated the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was featured.

And just a couple days before that stories were run on how Obama threatened the major TV stations who might run the ad produced by the American Issues Project. I detailed that here.

Although the Left may have overriden your voice at the US Justice Department, if you want to file a complaint, the numbers are at the link.

Voting

I've been speaking out against Obama and people are getting that I don't want him for my President. This is true. But then, they ask, "McCain isn't much of a leader either, so what does he have worth voting for?"

First of all as of now there are three candidates for whom to vote: Obama, McCain and Barr of the Libertarian Party. I rule out the Libertarian Party because of its flawed base and its existence only makes the battle for liberty harder, not easier. I would much rather distinguish the liberty position from the statist positions of the Democrats and the Republicans than I would from the anarchist and amoral positions of the Libertarians.

I dislike Obama because I'm convinced that he will say anything, do anything and be anything to get and keep, when he gets it, power. I do not think he is a saint nor do I think he will ascend into those blue skies and white puffy clouds on his website unless he disintegrates before our eyes - which he is really working to have happen.

I definitely do not trust his Marxist past - 20 years sitting in a Black Liberation Theology church listening to a rabid racist preacher who, while a free man in the United States, is willing to blame America to its roots including the very principles of individual rights on which it is founded. I'm not willing to give those up, are you? For what? So one man or a group of men can dominate and force you by law, and you have no founding document of your individual rights on which to build your case?

Reverend Wright is about revenge not freedom. There is nothing to make up when you are free. Life begins anew and you are free to make of it what you can. That is as good as it gets in a political system. If you don't rise to the occasion, you designate yourself a victim and then you have to get back. To gain power to now dominate someone else is invalid as a workable idea and can only lead to war and rumors of war.

Included in Obama's Marxist past is his association with the domestic terrorists, Ayers and Dohrn, who subscribe to the same Marxist beliefs. Marxism is about class warfare. It is about setting one man against another in principle. It justifies any kind of violence based on one's prefabricated victim status. It leads nowhere. Countries set up on that principle have failed or will fail. (I can see it now if Obama is President. He invites Ayers and Dohrn to the White House. They, who have bemoaned that they never caused as much destruction as they would have liked, leave a package in a cloak closet. Boom! I do think this idea is silly, but I'm pointing up the inconsistency of a victim who wants to right a wrong by force when there is a civil mechanism to do so. Since Obama throws Wright and Ayers under the bus, can we get a promise out of him that he will never invite them to the White House? )

I don't want any of this governing our country and I don't want any of this choosing our Supreme Court judges. Simple as that.

This leaves McCain. McCain does not hold my view of government as the protector of individual rights. He definitely is a statist. There are two things that I like about McCain. He is able to articulate his claims on our lives in terms of sacrifice for the country and for all of us. Obama articulates his claims on our lives in terms of sacrifice for the poor and the least among us. Obama sets up the class warfare situation and McCain does not. I consider this difference a plus for McCain. (Under my Favorite Websites and Links see "From Each According to His Ability..." as a demonstration of the consequences to a society that sets up this principle.)

Next, I think McCain, if he does what he says he will do, will choose Supreme Court judges that are originalists - that is people who will interpret the Constitution based on the principles that generated it and are displayed there. (I, by the way, do not see an originalist as anti-abortion. I know many people do. I consider the right to abortion as the woman's right to her body and thus a derivative of her right to her life. A fetus, until it is born and has independent existence, is a function of her body and her life. It is absurd to claim that a fetus has a right to life which then sets up, in principle, a conflict of rights. There are no conflicts regarding rights. When she gets pregnant, she does not become the property of and thus under the direction of the state. Her body is her property - her fundamental property. Pregnancy does not convert her into a slave. The religious fundamentalist be damned on this point!) Developing law based on the principle of individual rights is vitally important to our getting our freedoms back. They are ours by right. Until this gets straightened out, we are not free. This is a vital issue.

So at this point, I'm voting for McCain.

You notice, I have not mentioned the war. I don't think either one of the candidates are going to abandon the results that we have achieved in the Middle East. I don't think it is the distinguishing issue. I do think that McCain will be a more capable Commander-in-Chief than will Obama. I think he can stand, if he has to, by a decision that can get unpopular. I don't see that quality in Obama.