Posts Tagged ‘thugs’

Change: We “Need” – Governed By Necessity

Saturday, August 10th, 2013

Do Needs Trump Rights?

One of the most abused and over-used words in the English language is “need.” In all its forms, including “necessity” and “necessary,” there lurks a cruel despot willing to plunder, murder, and enslave any person at any time for almost any imaginable reason. “Need” in all its forms has been the excuse of tyrants throughout history.  It is used to seize those things that the needy want or wish, but cannot or will not themselves provide.  Once America accepted the cult of “need” as a driving rationale for government, it was inevitable that we would see the demise of our nation.  Now we have a President who has elevated the claim of “need” to supersede the assertion of rights.  Ours has become a nation of needs. Let me be clear to all those who use “need” as a bludgeon against your fellow man: You’re monsters, and your self-serving claims of “necessity” will not be forgotten, or forgiven.  “Need” is not a legitimate claim to anything, and until Americans understand this, there will be no chance to restore ours to a nation of rights.

I “need” a million dollars, or so I might claim. You might ask me for what purpose, but if I can’t tell you, or if the purpose is unsatisfactory in your estimation, it won’t matter at all so long as I can get some body of politicians to agree.  The framers of the constitution left in a number of loopholes through which despotism could slither, gaining direct access to our liberties in order to strangle them, one by one.  Your property?  It’s not yours if the government or some favored concern decides it “needs” your land, your chattel, or your money.  The political process now exists solely to rationalize and legitimize some person’s concept of “need” so that once codified in the laws of the land, it will become an unchallenged, irreversible claim for all times upon all persons residing within the nation.

One might claim a “need to eat.”  Everybody needs to eat, right?  Nevertheless, my “need to eat” doesn’t entitle me to walk next door to my neighbor and threaten him with bodily violence unless he feeds me.  His right to his property trumps my alleged need. It doesn’t matter whether I’m a starving bag of bones or a gargantuan tub of lard.  In any civilized society, where the rights of property are observed, a person making such a claim at gunpoint would be considered a criminal and prosecuted as such.  Why then do we permit a third party that profits from the robbery to carry it out without respect to property rights?  The government takes from your wallet, and places it in the empty wallets of others while taking a cut for its administrative troubles, all based on the generalized claim of need: “Everybody needs to eat.”

One might claim a “need to medical care.”  Here, the robbery goes farther and deeper, because the monetary costs of this “need” are not the only thing being redistributed.  Doctors and nurses have their pay capped under such a paradigm because the government claims the bargaining power of aggregated millions.  It can set the price for medical services at any level it likes, and the only choice those who are professionals in the field may do is to simply refuse to participate.  Worse, because government sits atop the heap in judgment of who is most needy or most “deserving” of the redistributed loot, government becomes the arbiter of who will live or die.  Death panels are not imaginary, but are instead a fact of life in a system that is permitted to pay for necessities while determining what those necessities may be.

Let me be perfectly blunt in explaining my position: Your need for a thing, whether goods or services, is not a legitimate claim upon my wallet.  Redirecting your need through a third party charged with meeting your needs at the expense of my bank account is no less evil.  One can claim anything as a need, but spreading the burden of such needs around doesn’t diminish the moral failure, but as Rand famously wrote, merely “multiplies the number of victims.” Rather than taking your whole monthly grocery bill from a single neighbor, you take some tiny fraction of a penny from millions of neighbors, with government at the enforcement arm of your protection racket.  Every person compelled by law to pay for your meal, your education, your medical care, your housing, your “Obama-phone,” or your utilities is right to view you and every person like you as a collection of mobsters, while seeing  government as the enforcers of a vast organized-crime syndicate made up of thugs.

Naturally, the concept of “need” isn’t restricted to individuals or classes of individuals. In 2008, when George W. Bush began the bail-outs that Barack Obama finished, it was all on the basis of a claim to need by vast corporate entities that had become “too big [to permit] to fail.” When Obama bailed out Chrysler and GM, again the claim was that the “need” had been great, and that we would trump the rights of millions of Americans to their wealth for the sake of a “need” by large corporations and trade unions.  The claim of necessity has ever been the tool of thugs and tyrants, and it has always served their interests first, and foremost.  At each instance, the claim of a critical need has been the driving force behind the actions, but it seems too few are willing to demand in response: “Need? By what right?”

It is easy to claim a need. Every person “needs” something.  The question must be: “By what right does one’s need confer a positive obligation upon others to fulfill it?” Unless and until the American people come to see “needs” as “high priority wishes,” the country will continue the moral cannibalism we now practice until such time as it devolves into the literal form.  This will require Americans to ask themselves some extremely consequential and deeply introspective questions about their own behaviors, and if there’s one thing our nation lacks, it is the will among its citizens to strictly critique themselves.  As Americans, our response to any claim of “need” by any person great or small should be met with a question: “By what right do you impose your needs as a claim upon others?”

Ours can be a nation of needs or rights, but it may not long suffer while attempting to be both.

Occupying Wall Street: The Left’s Tea Party Imitation

Friday, October 7th, 2011

Exactly Backwards

The left has nothing.  It’s true.  The “Occupying Wall Street” crowd is fake.  Yes, they’re real people.  Yes, there are a few of them. Even if their numbers were multiplied by a factor of ten, they wouldn’t amount to one-tenth of one percent of the population of eligible voters in 2012.  In truth, one good rain storm combined with a cold snap would send them home.  Most of them wouldn’t stand shivering in the rain for anything.   We know who they are, who is funding them, and who is inciting them.  We know their purpose and their intentions.  Unlike the Tea Party, these people really are terrorists.  They are here to imitate the Tea Party as a political pressure group, but they have neither the principled underpinnings nor the intellectual honesty to be like the Tea Party except in the most superficial sense.

They exist not to drive an agenda, but to act as the excuse for which an agenda will be followed.  These are the mindless zombies constituting the Army for the Obama-Soros war on America.

If you want to know how completely fake this “Occupying Wall Street” movement really is, consider the idiotic list of demands they’ve introduced. To consider the sheer, juvenile lunacy of their demands is to realize and understand that these people do not represent anything remotely intellectual, or even vaguely genuine, but instead the mind-numbed absence of thought expressed by the zombies.  It’s not that they all have room-temperature IQs, but that they are behaving precisely like megaphones attached to robots with the microphone in the hands of Soros’ band of directors and board members.  Everything they say in their chants is an expression in the most mindless form of the demands of their masters.  There is not an original thought among them.

More, you can consider the desperation with which the left is comparing this aimless mob of ne’er-do-wells to the Tea Party.   They want to paint this “movement” as sharing several characteristics: They tell us this is “grass roots” and spontaneous, they tell us this has real, principled underpinnings, and more, that it has real influence based upon politicians’ concerns on the basis of the demands of the protesters.  This last is a particular fraud, since it is the leftist establishment that is determining and orchestrating the course of the protests and the spouting of the protesters.  Let’s not pretend that these people have cobbled this together.  We already know that Adbusters is behind this, and even Andrew Sullivan thinks they’re a joke.

Now you might wonder why we should care to consider a hoax like Occupy Wall Street to be a threat worthy of our concern, but what you must come to understand is that the threat comes not from this army of hapless, moronic refugees from their parents’ basements, but from the people who will use them as an excuse, the casus belli for an impending war against the American people.  Let’s face reality:  Barack Obama is in serious electoral trouble.  George Soros owns key people in and around this administration in a thoroughness of penetration that is unprecedented.  J. Edgar Hoover’s infiltration of various organizations to include the government have nothing on Soros’ far-reaching and indecent ties with the U.S. Federal government.  He is in a position to be able to carry out a bloodless coup d’etats against our constitutional form of government.  These idiots camped out on Wall Street are intended to provide the trigger.

If you’re not the least bit worried, you should be.  Watch what the leftist politicians say and do in response.  They’re attempting to set this up as an excuse in the first instance to further their legislative agenda(Pass it NOW!) and in the second instance to take more tyrannical steps if the left feels it is necessary to maintain power.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum actually expressed sympathies with the protesters.  In that moment, he permanently disqualified himself from any elected office for his willingness to shamelessly pander to this mob.  Herman Cain, by contrast, managed to get it right when in  describing the protesters as anti-capitalist, and explaining where the blame really belongs.  We need to adopt a position of resistance, not simply to these protesters, but to their masters in Washington and elsewhere.  Nancy Pelosi actually said “God bless them…”

Perhaps you’ve noticed what I have realized:  When the Tea Party marched on Washington in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps topping a million, Barack Obama left town and pretended they’d never existed.  Now, with these thugs camping on Pennsylvania Avenue just a short walk from the White House, Barack Obama isn’t going anywhere.  Do you wonder why?  These are his people, there to support his agenda, and not the reverse as it’s being portrayed.  This is a set-up, pure and simple, and you should be letting your representatives in Congress know that you aren’t fooled, and they shouldn’t be cajoled into sympathy with or fear of this bunch.  Politicians pander to any group, and Santorum is the proof.  It’s time for them to stand up to thugs and the villains who direct them.