The Last Capitalist

A site dedicated to restoring individualism in the United States of America

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Honduras: When Democracy Becomes Tyranny

Posted by jemartynowski on August 3, 2009

I think we can learn a lesson right now from what is going on in Honduras.  Here, in the United States of America, we live by rule of law.  It is how we maintain, sort of, a capitalist society.  People must not be allowed to use force on anybody else.  The laws we have were created to prevent any one person or majority from doing as they pleased to the minority.  Created as it was, the republic was to stop tyranny by majority.  Even James Madison, father of the Constitution, said about democracy “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

With the current administration, the government is doing just that.  They believe, and have said so, that since they are the majority, they can do whatever they damn well please.  When questioned about Republican criticism of his plans, President Obama said, basically, we won so shut up. 

What really kills me is that there are many Americans on both sides of the aisle that say, “yep.  He’s right.”  No, he’s not.  He needs to follow the rule of law like anyone else.  He only has certain, enumerated powers according to the Constitution.  Too many of the opposition even thinks that since he won he can do what he pleases.  But that’s not what capitalists are all about. 

How does all of this relate to Honduras?  I’m glad you asked.  To recap, the president of Honduras was trying to change the rules so he could run the country for longer than he was supposed to be allowed.  The country’s constitution was being threatened by one man who was trying to take more power than it was supposed to have.  That sounds familiar. 

Then, the supreme court of Honduras issued a court order to have President Zelaya detained and removed from office, as they are constitutionally obliged to do.  The military carried out this order with no violence involved.  It was exactly as a civilized society should do.  But the socialist leaders of the world, including Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, claimed that something was terribly wrong even though nothing, really, was. 

“Oh my goodness!  This man was elected by the people!  His will should be done no matter what!” they say.  Not true.  He, like our own president, has no right to expand his power unconstitutionally.  There is no reason a free nation should be backing away from the situation and even, as many have, support the ousted ruler.  In fact, we should be supporting the courts and the laws that helped create a free nation there. 

Obviously, there are some pitfalls that must be avoided.  If our executive branch was strong, yet compassionate to the free people of Honduras, it would support the non-violent move while issuing warnings that they would only be supported if they continued to do things the peaceful way, the interim president steps down as he says and new elections are held.  Everything can be done peacefully and correctly.  The socialist leaders of the world support Zelaya because many of them took their power by doing the exact same things.  They eliminated term limits.  They then give things away and let the majority rule and take what they want from the minority.

What lessons should we learn?  We should learn that massive expansion of powers to one branch of our government is a bad thing.  It is supported by bad people because that’s how bad people become tyrants.  We want to avoid mob rule disguised as social justice.  No, I don’t support a military coup or anything like that.  I just support the American citizens becoming wise and not being dumb enough to support those who want to take freedoms from us.  We are by no means at the same scary point as Honduras, but we want to stop ourselves before we get there.


Posted in Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

(Another Reason) Why Obama Is An Idiot.

Posted by jemartynowski on June 4, 2009

Barack Obama recently said this garbage:  “We need somebody who’s got the heart to recognize — the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

This statement proves that one of two things must be true:  Either Obama doesn’t understand the role of the Supreme Court or he is choosing to ignore the Constitution.  Please read this article by Walter Williams.  You cannot ignore it.  It is a fact.  The Supreme Court’s job is to be a referee.  Nothing else.  I will not go on too much more with the analogy, as Mr. Williams does a fantastic job.  All I want to do is illustrate the fact that Barack Obama either doesn’t understand the role of the Supreme Court or is choosing to ignore it in order to further his power grab.  Don’t tell me otherwise, or I might explode from hearing (or reading) too much stupidity.  A referee that will make judgements based on past successes or failures of one of the parties involved is worthless.  That is all.

Posted in Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Daily(ish) Ayn Rand Quote

Posted by jemartynowski on May 12, 2009

A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws—no principles to limit the power of its government. The only principle of a mixed economy—which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged—is that no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system—or, more precisely, anti-system—breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting—and draining—the productive elements of the country.

-From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand

Wow.  If this doesn’t describe “how we got here” as people like to say these days, nothing does.  Forgive me for not posting this excerpt earlier, as it is one of the most importantly prophetic from Rand’s writings. 

What I like about this commentary is that it not only describes why our economy is crappy but why our political system is crappy, as well.  “Such a system … breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps…” It is exactly why I about blow a fuse when people tell me that the Constitution and our founders intended for us to be a formless blob that can constantly change.  Wrong.  It is a set of rules that LIMITS the government’s powers and outlines what they are supposed to do.  If followed, we’d be much better off.  This is why we must keep fighting for our individual freedoms no matter what our oppressors say or do to try and shut us up.

Posted in Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s Almost Tax Day!!! Yay!!!

Posted by jemartynowski on April 14, 2009

It’s that wonderful time of year!  Spring is coming, baseball is starting, and the government systematically drains a third of our country’s productivity for redistributions to whoever bribes them the best. 

I thought this would be a good opportunity to crush all liberal arguments for the constitutionality of taxing the bejeezus out of us for whatever the hell the government wants to do with the money.    Sound like fun?  Sure it does.  Let’s do it!

The only real argument for the constitutionality of about 90% of what Congress does is the “General Welfare Clause” (cue scary music).  Liberals say, “you’re stupid.  Obviously the founding fathers wanted us to have a fascist government that could do what they want with our money because they are people we elect who know best what to do for us.  That’s why they included the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses.”

I say to you, “no, you’re stupid.”  Let’s see what Thomas Jefferson says about the matter.  Thomas?  “To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.”

(Bold italics mine)  My favorite part is obviously the bold part.  If, in fact, the general welfare phrase meant that congress could pass laws for whatever they deemed good, the rest of the constitution would be useless.  Why, if that were true, liberal fascists, would they have bothered to write the rest of the powers down?  I know logic and reason are not your thing, but please, use just a little bit. 

This is where the biggest disconnect is between the American people and the founders.  The people of the United States believe they are voting for whoever can run our country the best.  They want someone who has the best ideas of good and evil, who knows what to do with taxpayer money and who has the best ideas of how government should be.  This is an incorrect attitude.  The founders wrote a government that, when the rules are followed, could be run by idiots.  There is no way to screw it up, because it’s already outlined for them.  People like Barack Obama think that the Constitution needs to be torn up and rewritten because it holds back the power of those elected.  He wins an election by saying, “who would you rather have making decisions of what kind of government you have, a brilliant Harvard grad or some ex-military war hero?”  I would say that’s not the right question. I want the guy who will follow the rules and NOT make those decisions as he is constitutionally bound not to do so. 

I think I’m ranting now, so it’s probably a good time to stop.

Posted in Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Daily(ish) Ayn Rand Quote

Posted by jemartynowski on March 20, 2009

Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document—the Constitution—which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetrated by all the other kinds of governments—unrestricted governments acting on unprovable assumptions—demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built.

-from Philosophy:  Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand

Too many times we listen to politicians telling us how they want to run the country vs. the other candidate.  President Obama, now that he’s in office, is still doing this.  The funny thing about all of this is that Constitutionally nobody has the right do decide how the country is run.  Really, the debates and all of the speeches about policy are about how much we want to listen to the Constitution and how much we want to ignore it.  Honestly, most of the decisions these politicians are making are already made for them, they just choose to ignore that fact. 

The reason for these limitations is that the writers of the document knew that government can only screw up freedom.  Right now we are looking at a textbook example.  Taxpayer money should never have been used to bail out private institutions.  It was.  Every company is now being criticized for how they are using our money, and everyone wants them to be punished.  Know what?  If they weren’t given bailout money, they would have been punished earlier for these stupid decisions.  We could have had the same results we are now but without using taxpayer dollars.  Now, the government is using these screw ups to justify even more regulations.  It’s a snowball effect and we’re just getting rolling.  If only we had some sort of document that limited what the government could do…

Posted in Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Outrage Misplaced Over AIG Bonus Pay

Posted by jemartynowski on March 17, 2009

“Those jerks!  They ran the company into the ground, took taxpayer money, and now they’re paying out large bonuses to themselves!”  We’re hearing this all over from both sides of the aisle in Washington.  President Obama and others are coming down on this company for paying bonus money to people who actually did hit their contractual goals.  Sure, this is a mistake, but one that was made a long time ago, when these contracts were signed.  The bigger mistake was made by the United States Government.

The people in power are doing a great job getting the American public all fired up over this, and they should be.  The problem here is that they are misplacing their anger.  The government of the United States, with full support from our president, approved of handing this company money knowing full well that these bonuses are on the books, payable because these people hit their goals.  This is one of the thousands of things the government should have looked at before they passed any bailout plan for anyone.  Sure, I don’t think we should have passed any handouts of our children’s money to companies, because it results in just what we have coming:  government control over them.  But the point is the misplaced anger.

President Obama, Democrats, and Republicans are blasting the company now because of these bonus payments.  Really, though, are they just mad at themselves for being suckered into paying for something they didn’t do enough research to know about?  What’s the difference between these contracts and the contracts the company had with crappy homeowners?  Legally, nothing.  The government just wants to pick and choose who gets what, which is the basis of this screw-up to begin with.

So, yes, be mad.  Just make sure we know where to direct our anger:  the stupid people who are too dumb to read contracts before throwing money around (the same people who want to decide what treatments we get medically.  Woohoo).

Posted in bailouts, Capitalism and Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »