Saturday, May 30, 2009

A Doomsayers Postscript

This is in reply to some readers of “The Doomsayers.”

IMH: Yes, “global-cooling” was the sky-is-falling mania back in the 1970’s and I guess the mid-1980’s, before the alarmists discovered that no one was listening or buying it; so they switched to “global-warming” and ramped up their propaganda efforts, using the same but tweaked gossamer computer data. Which is why I wrote “a little over a decade ago.” It seems like a century ago, given the current level of thinking (or non-thinking). I don’t wonder about the root motivation of climate alarmists, either, which must be the same species of man-hatred as that of Waxman, Obama and company.

Michael Smith: Thanks for the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute?) run-down on the House committee votes. Yes, I agree that Waxman’s and his ilk’s purpose, through their bill, is to compel Americans to commit economic suicide and reduce the survivors to rags and handouts from the government. They know that this would be the sole consequence, not as objective knowledge, but as the same kind of feral knowledge that Floyd Ferris exhibited in Atlas Shrugged. (They are practiced evaders of objective knowledge and of reality.) The worst thing anyone could do is what the Republicans did when they proposed the amendments to Waxman’s climate bill (which were predictably defeated), which was to assume that Waxman and his ilk have the best interests of the country at heart; thus the futility of proposing amendments to a piece of legislation they ought to know was authored by killers; all their amendments would have accomplished, had they been adopted, was to soften the blow and prolong the death-throes of this country.

Waxman and his ilk are not “misguided idealists.” They are killers posing as “public servants” in service to the “ideal” of non-existence. They know what they are doing. The Republicans and conservatives do not know what they are doing, because they are obsessed with concrete issues (such as vote-rigging, which I‘m certain Obama is guilty of through ACORN and George Soros and the Democratic National Committee), or God, or “traditional” values, or all three irrelevancies and so miss the whole point of such legislation. There is no one in either the House or Senate who understands the evil and who can call Waxman out on his malignancy and ulterior agenda. Or Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, et al.

And, we mustn’t forget the role that George Bush played in this on-going tragedy. John Lewis commented with his usual clarity on Bush’s responsibility for it on the Oactivists blog. Obama is simply his anxious, in-a-hurry successor to the very same policies that Bush initiated and endorsed for eight years. (Some years ago on Rule of Reason I called Bush a socialist.) Even some Democrats are noticing the similarities between Bush‘s rhetoric and actions and Obama‘s. If Obama had been president on 9/11, he would have committed the same treason as Bush’s, which was to not eradicate states that sponsor terrorism or ask Congress for a declaration of war against them, but to evade knowledge of the evil of our enemies, and commit American lives and treasure to a no-win “police” action against the Muslim “bad guys” and those who attacked this country.

Observe Obama‘s “patriotic” commitment of more troops to Afghanistan; do you really think he wants to defeat the Taliban, or is it to expend and sacrifice our military vitality and resources? I have never believed that his words and actions stem from ignorance or un-intelligence. He is a valueless man who seeks to destroy values. I curse every time I hear him “honor” our soldiers, and wish I could tell him he has no right to lay wreathes on their tombs or set foot on any American battlefield or even to visit Normandy. If any of the Marines or Secret Service assigned to his protection had an ounce of moral certitude, they should quit, rather than guard the life of this anti-American, anti-life president.

Note that Obama, like Bush, constantly harps on the necessity of “sacrifice,” not only of American civilians, but of our troops. Is or is not that the same code of altruism? What matters the Republican or Democratic label? And now that the United Nations and the European Union have taken Obama’s measure, they have become even more obviously our “drooling beasts.” They know he is one of them.

Note also that Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and other wealthy apologists for their wealth, and many other Obama supporters, as well, haven’t said much lately, because Obama and Congress have marked them for poverty, too. As far as Obama and other socialists are concerned, their past philanthropy won’t be enough to admit them to Marxist heaven; they must give and give and give until it really hurts. If I weren’t going to be affected by Obama’s “spread the wealth around” plans, I would say that is perfect justice for having supported the irrational from either conviction or from pragmatism and got this creature elected.

Jim Douthit’s analogy of Osama bin Laden as president who enacts policies designed to destroy this country is a brilliant piece of thinking (forwarded to me after I posted “The Doomsayers“) that ought to be sent to every member of Congress, and to the White House, as well, if only to put them all on notice that men of reason know what they’re up to (which may or may not stall them, probably not). So, we have every right, every justification, every piece of evidence, to dub Barack “Obama bin Laden.”

If bin Laden’s purpose on 9/11 was to plunge the country into economic and political chaos as a prelude to its downfall and takeover by an Islam-friendly dictator -- one who is also friendly with other America-haters, such as Hugo Chavez and the Saudis, to name a few -- Obama is accomplishing that very same purpose; but Bush, as John Lewis emphasized, was there first. Waxman and his ilk have been and continue to be only their accessories to the crime-in-progress.


TimC said...

"Jim Douthit’s analogy of Osama bin Laden" - is there a link to this or can you reprint what was sent? I can't seem to find it?


As usual, great essay/followup, though very sad it has to be said....

Anonymous said...

Tim C:

I will try to copy and paste it here later.


Exalted Moments said...

"Waxman and his ilk are not 'misguided idealists.' They are killers posing as 'public servants' in service to the “ideal” of non-existence. They know what they are doing."

Agreed 100%. I have used the term "genocidal maniacs" in the past. It is going to take ridding the culture of sacrifice (specifically altruism) for most to recognize this. Until then, these 'people' are going to continue to inflict a lot of damage.

Charles T. said...

"If any of the Marines or Secret Service assigned to his protection had an ounce of moral certitude, they should quit, rather than guard the life of this anti-American, anti-life president."

If only.

Michael Smith said...

Ed, I agree completely with your comments about the moral guilt of the Republicans. They are every bit as committed to altruism -- and its political manifestation, the welfare state -- as Obama and the Democrats. Consider some quotes from prominent Republicans.

“For I had learned the truth: there are greater pursuits than self-seeking.” John McCain.

“Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself.” McCain.

"Every place there's a hungry child, there's a cause," McCain said. "Every place there's a senior without life-saving prescription drugs, there's a cause. Everywhere there's a child without education, there's a cause. Everywhere in the world where there's ethnic, tribal or age-old hatreds, there's a cause." McCain.

“I learned long ago that serving only one's self is a petty and unsatisfying ambition. But serve a cause greater than self- interest and you will know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of fame and fortune.” McCain.

Or consider these statements from George Bush:

“Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities.” Bush

“I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort….. I ask you to be citizens: building communities of service ….”. Bush

“Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.” Bush

“Our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.” Bush

Her is just one from another prominent Republican, Bush’s father.

“There is no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others.” George H.W. Bush.

Conservatives respond to these quotes by claiming that Bush and McCain are not “real conservatives” -- a “real conservative”, they say, was their sainted Ronald Reagan.

But Reagan began his presidency by stating HIS commitment to altruism. This is from his first inaugural address:

“We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they're sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?” Ronald Reagan

And this is from his first major address to Congress a few weeks after he was elected:

“ I regret the fear that these unfounded stories (about budget cuts) have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight……….We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us -- the poverty stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need -- can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.” Ronald Reagan.

In this last statement, Reagan not only endorsed the moral foundation of the welfare state, he gives the left an invaluable tool -- the concept of a “social safety net” neatly concretizes the left’s view that capitalism is an inherently dangerous and risky system wherein those that succeed do so largely as a matter of luck, while those who find themselves “in need” were simply unlucky enough to fall from capitalism’s treacherous high-wire act.

Space does not permit me to properly state my disgust with the Republicans. Suffice it to say that the choice between Republicans and Democrats is only a choice between a party guided by mystics of spirit and a party guided by mystics of muscle. And as Miss Rand predicted, the former have delivered us into the power of the latter.

Anonymous said...

TimC et al.: I inadvertently deleted the Jim Douthit Oactivist remarks on Obama. If you know anyone on the Oactivist mailing list, you might query that person.


Anonymous said...

The bill of attainder, as it were, is clear.
Now how do these charges serve the advancement of capitalism? More to the point, what positive program follows from this analysis?

Harold said...

George Tiller murdered. I know rule of reason is a big defender of abortion, and thought you'd like to know.

Andrew said...

Yes, Harold it is unfortunate that the distinction between potential and actual continues to be misconstrued. Even more disturbing is that so called "pro-life" advocates would murder an actual life in an attempt to make a point. There should be no mercy for his killer.

George Tiller is a hero and will be remembered as such among all right thinking, reasoned and principled individuals. A sad day without a doubt.

revereridesagain said...

Andrew, thank you for your words in support of Dr. Tiller. The blatant hypocrisy and evasion coming out of so many of the conservative christian sites is nauseating. They claim to "condemn" his murder after having called him -- and by extension every one of the women who were his patients -- "murderer" for decades. They claim to oppose the taking of any life, while ignoring the women they will condemn to both living and actual death if they are successful in outlawing legal abortion.

Real, actual women are of lesser importance to Christians (as well as to Muslims) because, unlike a seconds-old fertilized egg, they are neither virgin nor "innocent" in their eyes. They prattle about the "innocent child" apparently oblivious of the implication that they consider the woman to be somehow "guilty". Guilty of not being "pure" enough for their god, of possessing independent minds where a fetus can be imagined as belonging entirely to their god, guilty of having engaged in sex for reasons other than pleasing their god by conceiving a child.

These people cannot grasp the concept of a woman's happiness being grounded in something other than childbearig any more than they are willing to acknowledge that a woman owns her body instead of merely leasing it from their god.

Michael Labeit said...

"If any of the Marines or Secret Service assigned to his protection had an ounce of moral certitude, they should quit, rather than guard the life of this anti-American, anti-life president."

I don't know if this is nearly as easy as it seems. Guarding the president, I believe, is the responsibility of an honor guard-like detachment of the USMC. Assignment to such duty is normally considered a special honor within the military and enhances the promotion status of military personell assigned to perform such work. I don't believe however that the same exact Marines guard the president everyday. The unit most likely operates on a rotational basis, given that Marines can be found all over some of the grounds in and out of the White House and associated government installations in D.C. In addition, assignment to law enforcement duty that is actually legitimate in accordance with Objectivist standards may require duty that involves guarding the president. Marines who complete this honor guard type work (they tend to be among the best within the Corps) may qualify to assume better command positions in the future - positions which act to maximize their output by allocating them optimally. This is due to the fact that honor guard work requires an above average level of military bearing, the exhibition of which demonstrates a Marine's capacity to handle greater command responsibilities.

Also, normally, one can't just quit within the military. Military contracts are not as flexible as civilian ones. Whether one may leave a unit or not is a decision made ENTIRELY by one's commanding officer. These honor guard marines are all enlisted: corporals, sergeants, staff-sergeants, etc. Leaving such a unit could very well depend upon the choice of a general, as it is currently with me. I've filed a release request packet to leave my reserve unit and was subsequently told that the decision to reallocate me or not was up to a brigadier general.... and I'm a mere specialist, one rank below sergeant (and I filed my packet in February).

Chances are that leaving an honor guard unit is quite difficult because size in the military is a good thing - it indicates that commanding officers are meeting their quotas.

The only alternative to filing a request packet is going AWOL - a non-alternative/career-zapping invitation to Fort Leavenworth.

Anonymous said...

Michael: Re your comments on military duty. I could have also recommended refusing White House duty instead of "quitting," although that, too, would be a perilous step if one contemplated a lifetime military career. But, the military has been so politicized and rendered politically correct, one should begin to take any kind of "protest" action seriously.


Michael Labeit said...


I would say, if I knew that assignment to an honor guard unit would entail shadowing president Obama, I would at least seek some other assignment within that unit if possible. An infintely more rewarding (and more flamboyant) post is guard of the tomb of the unknown soldier. This at least has a profound symbolic purpose - unfortunately for marines, it is a post dominated exclusively by *soldiers* of the Third Infantry Division of the army. Perhaps the military can administer a new drill and ceremony regulation allowing each presidential security guard to hold his nose with his left hand while he renders the salute with his right when Obama approaches??? The avoidance of Obamacentric security duty can be a guiding principle for military personel before they make career decisions.