A Question From Barack Obama

[RoyalOrleans]

Obama wants to know the following: How do we balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another"?

 

So what IS the premise of the president's question? The premise is that we MUST, in fact, balance our freedoms with some mandate that we take care of one another. that we must balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another."

 

This is a very delicate, touchy subject to delve into, because the detractors will respond "So, Neal. You don't care about people.". Here's a scenario...

 

You're walking down the street with your friend. We'll call him Barack. As you're walking and chatting you notice a pathetic-looking man sitting on the sidewalk and begging for money. Barack pulls out a twenty and gives it to the man. Good for Barack. Barack then looks at you and says "Well?"

 

"Well what?"

 

"Aren't you going to give this man some money?"

 

"No, I'm not. I don't have any to spare right now. I have my own family to look after."

 

"So .. you don't care about the less-fortunate?"

 

"Don't give me that less-fortunate nonsense. This guy is here because he's a drunk. That wasn't a matter of luck, that was the inevitable result of his own life's choices."

 

"Well, I think you should give him some money."

 

"Sorry ... it's a free country. I worked hard for this money and I'm free to make the decisions on how I will spend it."

 

"Not any more," responds Barack, pulling out a gun.

 

Barack then points that gun at your head and tells you that, whether you want to or not, you are going to hand over some of your property to this man. Barack has the gun, he has the legal right to use it .. your freedom's be damned. Your property rights stop where the government decides someone needs to be "looked after."

 

There's another more subtle premise at work in Obama's comment. Apparently he thinks that the only way Americans will "look after one another" is through the processes of government. Private charity has always been more effective at taking care of those truly in need. It was government, not private charity, that chased the fathers out of the homes of countless welfare families. It was government, not charity, that created an mass chaos on Father's Day in most urban areas.

 

So .. the answer to President Obama is this: "You need to correct your premise, Mr. President. You don't balance freedom against our need to look after one another. Freedom is paramount. When people use their freedom to make the wrong choices and end up in need, they must rely on the private charitable efforts of individuals, service organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques. Once you have a government that is powerful enough to seize property from one individual solely for the purpose of transferring it to another .. freedom is in grave jeopardy.

 

But then I didn't have to tell you that, did I?

 

"Greedy capitalists want lots of money. Virtuous 'liberals' want to steal it."--David Friedman.

 

"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with our own money."--Will Rogers.

[timesjoke]

I don't remember there being anything in the Constitution about the public being forced to "look after one another".

 

Each person should be responsible for himself. If people want to help a person out of the goodness of their heart, that is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged, but not "forced".

 

 

 

When a powerful man with a gun forces me to give him money or face a threat of harm, that is called robbery.

 

 

When a Powerful Government man with the law forces me to give him money or face a threat of harm, that is called.............what?

[RoyalOrleans]

In Ayn Rand's Objectivist belief, she stated that not all people are worth the same. This was perhaps a very enlightened and eye-opening perspective. Tough for many people to stomach, but everyone follows this philosophy in their personal life whether they admit to it or not.

 

Should I choose to help someone, it is because I perceive they have an intrinsic value. Obama like most statists seeks to help everyone, regardless of their position in life. They would not do this with their own money, but gladly will do it with yours! I believe it is "unnatural" and abhorrent to help people who have no perceived (or real) value. A fine example is a welfare mare and her brood with no desire for anything better in life than what she currently has. Following Obama's methodology, we have to carry her burdens. Following Rand's methodology, this type of person fails to exist, because there is no one around to enable this type of behavior.

 

A few may try to twist these words and say "Then you believe senior citizens have no value? They don't provide if they don't work?" ---- Completely and utterly not true. This is based on the ability and sense one has to provide value to others and/or care for themselves. Thus, a person can ensure they are taken care of in their old age (value of self), or the family finds a great value in the older adult's love, wisdom, and teaching; thus caring for them. I think that is what was once called- taking care of your family.

 

Not surprisingly, our educated liberals do not see the value in this belief system, or maybe they do. If they do, then once again, it is about power and creating a whole new majority generation of dependents that vote Democrat. I believe the latter to be true. Wake up my little Democrat friends. Your party uses people to increase their power instead of fostering a sense of self-worth and independence in people.

[timesjoke]

Law was changed in the same way RO.

 

A Jury of your peers were supposed to be people whi "knew" you. They knew if you deserved some slack or if you were a lost cause so they could do what was right for the community.

 

Now it ia all about who has the best actor (sometimes called a lawyer) and can entertain the just of complete strangers the best.

[RoyalOrleans]

What sort of government educated idiot buys Obama's comparison of his mandated health insurance with auto insurance?

 

I'll try to make this simple ... so that even a Democrat can understand it.

 

In most states you are NOT required to have automobile insurance unless three conditions are met:

 

1. You have a valid driver's license

 

2. You own a motor vehicle

 

3. You drive that motor vehicle on public highways

 

Does a 12-year-old riding with a friend to school have to have auto insurance? No. Neither, for that matter, does a 32-year-old. So Obama's ridiculous comparison dies right there.

 

But wait! There's more! When it comes to auto insurance, most states say that you only must have insurance to protect the OTHER GUY! You buy health insurance to protect yourself.

 

Bottom line .. When Obama draws his absurd comparison between his mandatory health insurance and auto insurance, he knows he's not making sense. He also knows that most Americans don't know he isn't making sense .. and his media pals sure aren't going to call him on it.