Today, Barack Obama said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Obama's core principle is redistributive "justice." That means from those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need---apparently even if it means we must go hungry and be too hot or too cold in our homes.
That of course, is signature Marxist philosophy. And indeed, some of Obama's closest relationships have been with Marxist sympathizers: Weatherman Underground bomber William Ayres, "Black Liberation Theologian" Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Communist party leader Frank Marshall Davis. Obama's 's official blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen is a passionate devotee of hard-Left, America-hater Noam Chomsky. And of course, there's Obama's wife: Michelle Obama. Here is her most recent redistributive "justice" pronouncement: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
Speaking of health care, redistributive "justice" will, of course, apply there--with frightening implications. Obama's health care plan will result in people with good health care (because they were good enough of an employee to be hired for a job with health insurance, had saved up enough money to buy their own, or on Medicare) having to give up that good health care and pay for health care for others', including, for example, lazy heroin addicts and illegal aliens. (No, they're not "undocumented immigrants"--that's another of those focus-group-tested phrases designed to elicit sympathy even if the term is inaccurate.) You cannot insure 47,000,000 more Americans with the same number of doctors and nurses without decimating the quality of our health care, especially since many of those 47,000,000 don't have the money to pay for health care.
In future years, the Obama plan is sure to degrade our health care even more because when foreigners see that-- as in 1986--amnesty was defacto granted to all illegals (which is what Obama promises to do as soon as he takes office--if it hasn't already been passed into law, which currently is being attempted) many millions more of the world's needy will sneak into the U.S. illegally. That will continue until U.S health care and other upsides of American life decline to the levels in their home country.
Ironically, Obama's core goal (for everyone in the world to live better and close to equally well) will be subverted by redistributing resources from those with the greatest potential to solve society's problems to those with the least.
Fortunately, the American system of government has checks and balances, so Obama's frighteningly extremist views (Remember that the nonpartisan National Journal rated him 100/100: the Senate's most liberal senator, moreso even than self-described socialist Bernie Sanders) an at-least-modestly more moderate Congress will keep him in check--hopefully.
Note that I am assuming Obama will be president. America's most powerful force is not the "military-industrial complex" but the ever more Leftist-biased media, and they want the most liberal candidate possible, hence Obama will be a shoo-in.
It will be an interesting eight years.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The California Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage might bring conservatives out of the woodwork - as was the case for the White House and the Federal Marriage Amendment in '04.
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage. A person should not be denied one of the rights (and a helluva responsibility) of marriage because of his sexual orientation.
I heard this quote yesterday. So he is proposing that the citizens of what is supposed to be a free country need to ask other countries for permission to live our lives as we see fit. And if those other countries say "no," well then too bad for us.
What's worse than his statement is that when he said this, all of those people in that audience simply agreed with him. If that keeps happening, he will get away with it and continue popularizing "redistributive justice." And don't be surprised if those that think maybe this isn't a good idea are pegged as racist, sexist, or elitist for daring to disagree.
I think that most of Obama's supporters are of the "what's in it for me" mindset. Maybe they can't see that what's in it for them, and all of us, is a lot more burden than benefit.
Even if he were able to keep all those promises, where do his supporters think the money to make them happen will come from? Some will come from profitable corporations, but the rest will come from hard-working people trying to make ends meet, and it will hurt them the most. They will lose far more than they will gain. Eating and driving what we want will be the last of our problems.
It's still May. Perhaps it's not too late for enough minds to change and avoid this mess.
I think any attempt to radically alter the institution of marriage will cause children to suffer.
Marriage is the most pro-child institution we have in society and it faces 3 threats:
1. Cohabitation
2. Legal equalization of cohabitation with marriage.
3. Gay marriage.
These three undermine marriage as a child-bearing institution. Again, marriage is the most pro-child institution we have. Numerous studies and exhaustive amounts of other research have concluded that children do better in married households than in any other arrangement. The gay lifestyle is destructive and not at all natural, which explains the high rate of failure for gay couples. It is a poor environment to raise a child in.
I think it is foolish for us to ignore centuries of wisdom and tried and true traditions that have been passed down to us.
The studies showing that kids do better in married versus single-parent households are usually flawed because the people who are single-parents often have other problems that make them bad parents. It's not mainly their being a single parent that is so deleterious to kids: it's if they do a bad job of parenting, for example.
And I know of no GOOD studies that show that kids are better off with straight than gay parents. Besides, even if there's a slight difference, I am not willing to abridge gay people's rights to be married. After all, all of us do things that aren't optimal for our children. For example, if we eat ice cream instead of broccoli and don't exercise enough, and have two glasses of wine instead of the recommended one--we are not good role models for our kids. Would you preclude me from getting married?
I'd bet that a child is better off being parented by the average gay-married couple than by the majority of low-income straight couples. You wouldn't want to preclude them from marrying would you?
I'm sorry for writing my previous post in such an olympian fashion. I'm really not an arrogant person.
Your points are valid, but gay
marriage adds no value to society because gay couples cannot reproduce. So, why should it be encouraged? If there ever was a civilization of homosexuals in human history, it died out a long time ago.
What about the growing evidence of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia?
I know this has nothing to do with the original post, but I decided to chime in anyway.
I believe that gay marriage is not much of a threat to children and our population, which is growing and doesn't appear to be slowing anytime soon. I believe a bigger threat is that the people who might make better parents are more and more choosing not to have children, while those who might make worse parents are choosing to have children. Good and bad parents come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and sexual orientations.
And if Obama does become president, that will not help matters for our children or future populations.
Dave, gays, in my view, are at least as likely to contribute to society as straights. As important, we do not want to restrict a group's right to marry, without a compelling reason. There is none. Although I am a straight guy, I am proud to support gay marriage.
I want to state my resounding agreement with Anonymous's statement: ' A bigger threat (to society) is that the people who might make better parents are more and more choosing not to have children, while those who might make worse parents are choosing to have children. Good and bad parents come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and sexual orientations.
What you call "redistributive justice" others call fairness and sacrifice.
Yet I know that you want us to understand that life is unfair (eg when you support the notion that some kids shouldn't be given the same educational resources that smarter kids should have.)
Which makes your support of gay marriage puzzling. Supreme Court Justice Ron George's reasons for the Court's decision arose out of compassion and fairness.
Please read this and tell me why you don't agree.
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
This might be another clue: I wasn't able to cut and paste the link here, but try googling "Whatever Michelle says is the message." Reportedly this ran on the CBS Evening News last month.
Hmm. Whatever she says goes? That sounds familiar. I might be more inclined to pay a lot more attention to her, and politically stay far away.
I like Obama, heard him speak this year. I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think McCain is solid. I'm not sold on Hilary.
It's sad this blog is morphing into a Rush Limbaugh site instead of one where good ideas can be bantered about. I'm puzzled as to why spending $9 billion a day on a useless war, money that will saddle future generations for decades, doesn't bother more people.
Candidly, Tim, I'm saddened to hear you think of my comments as Limbaugh-like. I like to think I'm more circumspect, and generally libertarian.
The percentage of politics-related posts will decrease now because the Chronicle of Higher Education has just hired me to be a guest blogger for a month.
I'll be blogging about how to reinvent higher education as well as my best ideas related to enhancing one's career. A day after my posts appear on chronicle.com, I'll post them on this site. (They insist on one-day's exclusivity.)
Glad to hear it, Dr. Nemko!
The Chronicle site is one of the most depressing on the internet. Five year searches for tenure and non-tenure track jobs, ever more adjuncts, ever rising tuition costs, the dirt on search committees.... It never ends!
I hope your message is heard LOUD AND CLEAR!
Something else to think about: his speech at Wesleyan this past weekend. He told the graduating class, among other things, the following:
"There's no community service requirement in the outside world; no one's forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America's.
"But I hope you don't. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although I believe you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get to where you are today, although I do believe you have that debt to pay.
"It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition."
"I ask you to seek these opportunities when you leave here, because the future of this country - your future, my future, my children's future - depends on it. At a time when our security and moral standing depend on winning the hearts and minds in the forgotten corners of this world, we need more of you to serve abroad."
"At a time when our ice caps are melting and our oceans are rising, we need you to help lead a green revolution."
"At a time of war, we need you to work for peace. At a time of inequality, we need you to work for opportunity. At a time of so much cynicism and so much doubt, we need you to make us believe again. That's your task, class of 2008."
He is not making me believe again.
The full text can be found here:
http://www.wesleyan.edu/newsrel/
announcements/rc_2008/obama_speech
.html
If you don't think about others, you're not ambitious enough? "Collective salvation"? "Green revolution"? "Winning the hearts and minds" of other countries?
And "work for opportunity" where? Many people still see America as the land of opportunity. Sounds as if perhaps those other countries that we need to win "the hearts and minds" of need more opportunities, and ... America needs less, maybe?
This speech rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure he spoke to a lot of supporters, old and new, that day. To me, it sounds like bad news.
I do agree we have an obligation to ourselves and to the world to do more than aim for materialistic goals.
Of course, all political candidates, indeed all people with half a brain would agree to that apple-pie contention.
My problem with Obama is what he believes needs doing:
-- He believes inequality is best fixed by replacement of meritocracy with unfair reverse discrimination/"redistibutive justice."
-- He has bought as religion the global warming scenario. I continue to read the latest science that deeply casts into question the core subcontentions: that global warming is occurring at non-trivial rates, that it's substantially man-made, and that the world will make the truly radical changes (stop driving, for example) needed to attempt to stop global warming, even if it were significant and man made.
I am convinced that four years from now, Obama will make this country much worse than it would if we had small govt, whose job was only cost-effective national defense, a modest but humane safety net for the truly needy, and moderate regulation of corporations.
Post a Comment