Obama and Bernard Madoff

Most Americans have still not grasped the magnitude and the far-reaching effects of the national debt. Edward Cline makes an excellent attempt.

To grasp the magnitude of the national debt Obama (and his Republican predecessor) has been ringing up, a comparison should help illustrate the task. Bernard Madoff’s robbery and defrauding investors of some $50 billion can be represented by the diameter of the solar system. The federal government, using the same scamming tactics, is amassing a debt about the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy. Madoff’s scheme can be measured in millions of miles. The federal government's, in almost limitless parsecs. That measurement ought to suffice to dramatize the scale of the hole he is deliberately digging for the country in his role as Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

Where is all the money going to come from? From the productive Americans, who are going to work for Obama whether they like it or not. He has short-sold the American future.

That growing, astronomical debt, however, will serve to shrink the productive sector and make it less productive in exponential leaps and bounds -- off a cliff. It must inexorably reach a point that the productive sector can no longer sustain the debt it is expected to pay. Then we will have reached the economic status of, say, Zimbabwe.

Ed talks about the outraged cry of indignation by the media over Madoff's scam and yet they refuse to apply the same standards to the Obama administration. Why should they? They have become willing accomplices in this scam of horrendous proportions. It will deal a crushing blow to the American way of life - which is - you work hard, be honest, and you will make it big. Now people will work hard to pay-off Obama's debts.

What clashes with the news media coverage of Madoff’s trial, conviction and sentencing for his crime is the studied obtuseness of the news media for the same crime being committed by the government. Madoff, you see, was “greedy” or “avaricious,” and that, according to the morality of altruism and selflessness, is immoral and antisocial. The government, however, is committing the same crime, but that is in order to “do good.” So its orgy of debt-creation, its extortionate policies of roping all Americans into a “dog-eat-dog” welfare state, and its targeting the most productive and the wealthiest in society for special punishment, are all acceptable and laudable.

Even though the news media has knowledge of this multi-trillion dollar scam, that knowledge elicits not an iota of outrage among the photogenic news anchors and highly paid print pundits. No respectable TV or print journalist even thinks of the scam in terms of a continuing and expanding bilking of Americans from their wealth, investments and taxes.

Ed goes on to examine and explain the meaning of Obama's greeting on 4th of July. It is a revealing commentary on the thought process and ideology of a man who will go down in history as the most anti-American president ever. Recent polls have put Obama's popularity at 50%. So half of all Americans are in a state of denial and it's not clear whether the other half fully realises the gravity of the situation. There are some positive signs - the tea parties being organized across America and I take solace in knowing what Samuel Adams said:

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

What makes America great

A great post by LB from 3 Ring Binder about the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a reminder to all Americans and people like me sharing the same values of what LB states so well:

As an adult, I recognize the flag to be a symbol of what makes America great. It represents the tremendous efforts and outstanding achievement of our Founding Fathers in creating this nation based not on bloodlines, money, religion, or might, but on individual rights.

Immigration and Individual Rights

One of the best articles I have read on TOS is "Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle. I have a special interest in this issue as I plan to immigrate to America one day. Craig says in this article:

Every year, millions of people seek to immigrate to the United States, and with good reason: Opportunities to improve their lives abound here. Immigrants and would-be immigrants want to pursue the American dream. Whether or not they would put it in these terms, they want to be free to think and act on their best judgment; they want to produce wealth and keep and use it as they see fit; they want to make better lives for themselves and their families. In other words, foreigners want to come to America for the same reason the Founding Fathers established this republic: They want lives of liberty and happiness.

Immigration is the act of moving to a country with the intention of remaining there. Morally speaking, if a person rationally judges that immigrating to America would be good for his life, he should immigrate; a rational morality holds that one should always act on one’s best judgment. But does a foreigner have a right to move to America? And should America welcome him? Yes, he does—and yes, she should. Recognition of these facts was part and parcel of this country’s founding.

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

Unfortunately this pro-immigration attitude, expressed by George Washington in 1783, has all but vanished from American politics. Indeed, the policies of America—the republic built by and for immigrants—have become hostile to immigrants.

People today in most countries who even want to visit are interrogated at the embassies during the interview with suspicion. When they ask if you intend to settle in U.S. and if you hesitate even for a second, you can wave your tourist visa goodbye. Craig goes on to mention some brilliant American immigrants like Ayn rand, Issac Asimov and a lot others who would have been denied entry under today's laws and how immigration to the land of liberty is now largely prohibited by American law. He goes on to say:

This prohibition, however, is un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—demands a policy of open immigration.
Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.2 Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

He further explains at length why it is moral and that to prohibit a person from immigrating to the U.S. is to violate his right to act on his judgment; it is to retard his ability to live a life proper to man; it is to commit a moral crime. I almost got up and applauded when I read this. He then explains the invalidity of the arguments against open immigration one point at a time. They include protection of culture, crime, jobs, welfare, terrorism, and more. One of the more controversial issue's he discusses is the solution to the problem of the estimated 12 million “illegal” immigrants currently residing in the America. His solution is:

In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they “broke” by moving to (or remaining in) America—and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled “illegal” (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)—the solution to the problem of so-called “illegals” is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made “criminal” by immoral laws. (“Amnesty” is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be “pardoned” for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

Some argue that granting amnesty to “illegal” immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that “illegals” broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws...

Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law?

Upholding the rule of law does not mean enforcing illegitimate laws; it means establishing and maintaining a government and legal system based on the objective social requirements of human life—namely: the recognition and protection of individual rights. Laws that violate individual rights are illegitimate laws, and such laws morally must be repealed.

He ends this article by offering a five-point plan to achieve a rights-respecting and thus moral immigration policy for the U.S. which as he says," will require substantial time, effort, and intellectual activism, but there is no shortcut; these are the actions necessary to solve the misnamed “immigration problem,” which is, in fact, a problem of too few Americans recognizing, embracing, and upholding the basic principle on which America was founded."

Right to bear arms

A. C. KLEINHEIDER:

Guns have been so fetishized and derided in our politically correct and increasingly suburbanized culture that they have transformed into this huge monster that clouds what firearms really are and always have been
To rural folks who grew up with guns in their house, firearms are just a way of life. You learn what they are, how to use them safely, and what not to use them — for ever.
They are, in fact, a tool. A dangerous tool to be sure but no more than a circular saw or a chainsaw.

Most Americans don't appreciate the right to bear arms. The increasing tendency to look at the nanny state to do everything for them has become a bad habit. While it is the job of government to protect a citizen from violence, it would be foolish to give up your own right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Increasing dilution of the gun-right laws should be a concern for all Americans.

I live in a virtual police state where owning a gun is almost impossible unless you happen to have an old license. Freedom is most appreciated in places where it is missing. Owning a gun in India is only possible for the privileged few who are politicians , have connections with them, or can afford to dole out huge bribes for the license.

Abhijeet Singh whose web-site is an excellent resource on gun ownership laws in India talks about the history of Indian law.

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

He goes on and describes the current scenario.

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment.

Abhijeet's blog also mentions a news report where people used rocks to fight the terrorists during the Mumbai terror attack . Can you imagine that? They actually threw rocks to protect the Jewish center which was the terrorist's target. The terrorists shot back with AK-47's and threw grenades at them. The police which is good only for extortion was missing. Finally 195 people were killed and many more seriously injured.

Image courtesy Oleg Volk - http://www.olegvolk.net/

I believe in what Ayn Rand said:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

Jefferson and the Somali pirates

I was reading this very interesting post Ranking the Founding Presidents from Powell History Recommends. While reading about Thomas Jefferson's (ranked 2nd) Powell mentions that "Jefferson continued to steer the new nation with its self-interest as his guiding star as its third president and his most notable accomplishment in that area was his leadership in the war against the Barbary Pirates." The mention of pirates immediately piqued my curiosity and I did a google search on Barbary pirates and I found a recent story on New York Times called Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars.

The article mentions some striking similarities with Somali pirates like: "how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive. They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted. The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships." Thomas Jefferson's description is very striking: "When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

In another article "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" Christopher Hitchens says:
Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling:

It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.

The solution to this problem according to Ayn Rand Center in it's article "How to End Piracy in the High Seas" is:

“What we need--in response to piracy as well as other foreign threats--is an across-the-board reversal in U.S. policy. When, for example, it became clear more than a year ago that the waters off the coast of Somalia are a playground for pirates, the minimum that Washington should have done was to lay down an ultimatum to the pirates to leave Americans alone or else--and lived up to it.

The substance of that warning: if any American vessel is captured by pirates, we will use military force to destroy every last pirate base in Somalia. When such a threat of retaliation is made fully credible, it can be sufficient to deter would-be aggressors. If any dare test us, then we must apologetically respond with force."

Some other sources of information:
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
Terrorism In Early America

FBI spied on TEA Party Americans!

Canada Free Press Reports that FBI spied on TEA Party Americans. It says that:
"Even as average Americans were planning to get out in towns and cities to demonstrate against Big Government and Big Taxes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance was being unleashed upon them. In fact, unsuspecting Tax Day TEA Party participants were being closely watched during the demonstration planning stages in a covert operation that began on or about March 23, 2009."

This is exactly the the reason why increasing number of Americans are reading Ayn Rand and taking her philosophy seriously. The individual rights are being corroded gradually and government is becoming the dominant force in the lives of the citizens. This is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want to happen.

If the news of FBI at the Tea parties is true, it points towards Obama's America increasingly resembling Putin's Russia. Obama might take this as a compliment but let this be a warning to all freedom loving Americans, and let this be the time for adding an intellectual backbone to the Tea party protests. I would ask people living in US or elsewhere to read Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" to understand the recent events and to find a why we need philosophy in our lives.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."
“Philosophy and Sense of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand.

Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence

Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence:
A video presentation by Onkar Ghate
In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....
On this, the book’s 50th anniversary, we will examine the moral revolution launched by Ayn Rand, without which the political revolution of the Founding Fathers had to remain incomplete. We will see what this moral revolution has meant for America so far, and what it promises for the future. We will see why Atlas Shrugged should be considered America’s second Declaration of Independence—a declaration not of political but of moral independence.

American at heart

I wrote "Living under socialism" a few days back where I had mentioned being an American at heart. Jasmine had posted a comment which I liked so much that I wanted to share with others.

Residing in the U.S. now I can completely relate with your description of "people like me who are American at heart (born in the wrong place)"! That 'Americanism' more fundamentally is actually a sense of life and matches with the Founding Fathers vision of a free country in my understanding. That is what I feel completely at ease with and is the very same sense of life which unites those of us living in different countries and parts of the world I believe. I will unabashedly and proudly say it is our world whatever part of the world we live and not theirs-or as Ayn Rand's novel states -"We The Living"!! A sunlit universe....Having spent 28 formative years in India, I also am constantly inclined to tell people here -don't do this to this great country -do you people understand the path and future you are taking yourselves towards? Ask me (!) I have come from that past and absolutely do not want to go back to that kind of life!

Thank you once again Jasmine.