Obama Gets Praise From Collectivists

From Reuters: 

"CARACAS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - With both presidents facing tight re-election fights, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gave a surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday - and said the U.S. leader no doubt felt the same.
"I hope this doesn't harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama," the socialist Chavez said of a man he first reached out to in 2009 but to whom he has since generally been insulting.

...


"Obama is a good guy ... I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he'd vote for Chavez," the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.
Chavez is one of the world's most strident critics of Washington and his 14 years in office have been characterized by diplomatic spats and insults at the White House." 

From Fox News

"And Russian President Vladimir Putin -- who is back in Moscow's driver's seat after a stint as prime minister -- has said the reelection of Obama could improve political relations between the two countries.


He also reportedly called Obama a “genuine person" who "really wants to change much for the better."

Very interesting. This isn't splitting-the-atom kind of news, but it is interesting and worth knowing. Presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Coolidge, and Reagen doubtfully would have received praise, compliments, and endorsements from collectivists, don't you think? 

What is a collectivist? Socialism, fascism, and communism fall under the political philosophy of collectivism. The Encyclopedia Britannica succinctly describes collectivism as: "...any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized." and "...in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."

Collectivists don't like humans being unequal in their talents, abilities, size, and intelligence. They don't like that sports stars make a lot of money because they're talented in sports instead of working 40 plus hours a week in a cubicle for "the man." You hear them say stuff like "Is it fair that football players make as much as money as they do?" I ask, "Are you going to the games? Are you buying his merchandise? Is the stadium taking money out of your account to pay for the expenses?" I usually get a response like, "No! I hate football!" I then reply, "What's it to you then?"

They (collectivists) understand "all men created equal" to mean something like all men being equal materially, in their health, and outcome of happiness instead of all men being equal in their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The latter means that all men are equal in the state of nature which is a philosophical term for man's natural state. Man in his natural state is free to do as he pleases. He is not subordinate to anyone or anything. He has a natural right to his life, his freedom, and his property. All men are equal in this way. We all have an equal opportunity to pursue our happiness. We are not naturally equal in talents, intellect, health, family, size; the list goes on.


We come together as a society and form a minimalist state to protect our natural rights from those who wish to steal our natural right to property, who wish to enslave us stripping us of our natural right to liberty, and those who wish to murder us thus taking away our natural right to life. The state formed by society to protect our natural rights does not do anything positive like guaranteeing us a job, health care, property, friends, and so on. Some detractors say health care is a protection of our natural right to life. To that I ask, "Well, if the founders meant health care is a protection of your natural right to life, then what about good food? Wouldn't you say good food prolongs your life? Isn't it a requirement for life? If the government must protect our natural right to life with health care I would think good food would be protection, right? What about a good house? Not just a good house, but a mansion like Bill Maher has. Wouldn't that make my life better and protect it more?" It's ridiculous to think so. Government is to punish murderers, thieves, and tyrants, not supply us with things we can get through reliance on our self, friends, and family for in our task of seeking good health.

In short, collectivists seek power in a monstrous state. They like power. They like being thought of as "good" and "for the people" even when their policies do nothing but create poverty, dependency, and minimize the individual. For all their claims of loving diversity, people not getting a fair shot, and so on, they do nothing short of leveling the field of diversity, killing the individual's talents and abilities, making a desert out of a lush, beautiful, diverse, and powerful field of individuals who create a good society. I think it's sad that our president believes in and pursues policies that are shaped and inspired by collectivist philosophy. To have a guy like Chavez say what he did about our President makes me sad. I encourage all politicians to study individualism. If those on the left would only take a look into it, they will see that individualistic policies can not only produce a good society, but also reach liberal goals of peace and social justice. 

Related
The Collectivist Monster 

What is a democrat? Updated version

DISCLAIMER: The following viewpoints are not those of the blogger, but a friend of his. If this point of view upsets you, you may vent, but don’t yell at the person who posted them. Start a discussion, express and opinion, but don’t yell at the person who didn’t write it, that is just senseless… These writings are the intellectual property of me, the Author, with permission granted to the blogger who is positing them. They may not be reposted or used in any form without express written consent by either myself or the blogger of Reformed Seth.

What is a Democrat?  Boy isn't that a tough question, What IS a Democrat? As an admitted Republican, a Democrat is someone who is wrong, is clueless, and couldn't understand common sense if you stuffed it in their ears.

But I also realize it isn't easy being a Democrat. There are people who are trying to hijack your party, they are Liberals and Progressives, who all wear the Democrat hat. Unlike Republicans who only have Conservatives who claim to be Republicans, they at least have the same goal and thoughts in mind. And no, you cannot really place the Tea Party in with the Republicans, as they themselves aren't very sure what they believe in, as there are so many factions of the Tea Party.

So, what does the dictionary say is a Democrat? 

Definition of DEMOCRAT
1
a: an adherent of democracy b: one who practices social equality
2
capitalized: a member of the Democratic party of the United States

Okay, that isn't to say that Republicans aren't believers in Democracy, anyone engaged in the political system of the United States fits that description. So, let's look at the two subsets of the Democratic Party.

Definition of LIBERAL
: a person who is liberal: as a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized: a member or supporter of a liberal political PARTY (see 1LIBERAL) c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights


How about Progressives, what does the dictionary say about Progressives?

Definition of PROGRESSIVE
1
a: one that is progressive b: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

So, a liberal is all for change, in individual rights. That explains why Homosexuals and Potheads want to be liberals. They can do what they want, and no personal responsibility. I find it interesting that Democrats/Liberals believe in killing an unborn child, abortion, but do not, in any way shape or form accept punishment for crimes, if it involves the death penalty.

So, they believe in killing the innocent and protecting the guilty???? WTH? They accept the premise that what you do in your own home is fine. Which is kind of a good thing. But what if what you do in your own home is against the law? Incest, against moral laws. Growing and selling pot/weed/ganja/marijuana, all if it is acceptable, even if the government says no, it isn't right.  And that is where we have to decide, as a country what is acceptable behavior, both in and out of the home, as it will eventually spill OUT INTO THE PUBLIC. The child who gets mistreated, to a democrat, should be allowed to do whatever they want, including murder, they aren't responsible because they had a rough childhood, and it is owed them. HORSECRAP! I believe we have a perfect example of what a liberal is, two of them actually. Casey Anthony and Jared Loughner, who the media portrayed as a Right Wing Republican, and upon entering his house, it was found he was a liberal, and very far left leaning liberal. THAT is often left out of discussions about the heinous crime he committed... The left, or liberal media would have you continue to think that Loughner was and is a right wing nut who is big into guns and killing, not that he is actually part of the 'thinking and caring culture of the left'.

Democrats/Liberals always want to do things with your money, to make up for something you didn't do, or have anything to do with.

A good example of government intrusion is found in this article, "Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?" found here. 

Excerpt:

It has happened a few times in the U.S., and the opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting children temporarily in foster care is in some cases more ethical than obesity surgery.

Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital Boston, said the point isn't to blame parents, but rather to act in children's best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can't provide.

State intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting," said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

"Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child," Murtagh said.

This is, of course, just a simple guide to what a democrat is by a  republican, and I am sure a democrat would write something about republicans being unthinking, uncaring, socially backwards, big business drones who don't care about the people who are driven into the dirt by the overlords. And they would be wrong. 

Democrats believe in giving everyone everything they want, without actually having to do anything for it. They believe in entitlements, such as the pyramid of social security and Medicare, which has been set for failure since its inception. Currently the Republican Party wants to make the tough choices and fix it. Democrats want to spend 64% of the national Gross Domestic Product to pay for all of this fairytale that was foisted on the American Public by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who, by the way, was a progressive democrat. So, people who never paid into the system were allowed to take from it, and now the great great great great great great grandchildren will be paying the tab for it.

So, while the Democrats like to think they are progressive, Obama thinking he is among the best progressives, they are actually hurting and slowly killing our country.

On a personal note, the reason I didn't like Obama had nothing to do with him being black, it had to do with him being an empty suit. Full of bullshit and bluster, but no ideas. I was a disgusted at the Republican party for not putting up someone to run against him other than the old guard.

At least that is how Mark C's it...

So, do you think I am right, wrong, or just don't care? Let Reformed Seth know, and trust me, he will let me know.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressives

Unions, Tucson shooting, and mental health

DISCLAIMER: The following viewpoints are not those of the blogger, but a friend of his. If this point of view upsets you, you may vent, but don’t yell at the person who posted them. Start a discussion, express and opinion, but don’t yell at the person who didn’t write it, that is just senseless… These writings are the intellectual property of me, the Author, with permission granted to the blogger who is positing them. They may not be reposted or used in any form without express written consent by either myself or the blogger of Reformed Seth.

Well, for those who enjoy my writings or ramblings, I am back. I do apologize for the length of time I was away from the blog, holidays are hard for me, and it took a little longer to get it together again.

I was going to write about the Shooting in Tucson, and the aftermath, and to what I saw as the real problem that caused it, which to me are public unions. You know, those people who work for the state or the county, or city, who say they are there to help and to do the things that need to be done, to make YOUR life better, and easier, but it seems, they actually hate doing their job, and doing what is expected of them, to actually make YOUR life easier.

Public unions have been taking money for as long as they have been in existence. And they aren’t always good. In fact, having been in two different unions, I pretty much despise them, and find they serve no real purpose. At one point and time, they were required, business owners were too busy taking all the profit, and making the workers have deplorable working conditions. That is a sad fact of our history, and unions brought things to a better understanding to those in the work force, as to what should be right for the worker.

Now of course we have the NFLPA, National Football League Players Association, who are demanding half of the profits up front. Not taking into consideration that out of the profits that the owners have to pay salaries for players, coaches, front office, stadium up keep, etc. No, they just want the cash, and they make plenty of it to start with. How would T.O. Chad Johnson, or Peyton Manning do working at McDonalds, 8 dollars an hour?

Well, as I was looking up the cost of public unions, and how they suck so much money out of a state budget, because you have to promise people that you will take care of their retirement needs, after giving them a decent paycheck to start with. So, with a longer life expectancy, those benefits go for a long time…

And they take away from other areas that are needed, like Mental Health Care. Like the care that the shooter in Tucson should have had, should have been forced into getting.

So, as I was looking into all of this, ready to just slaughter unions for their existence, I asked a friend of mine who teaches psychology, and was a clinician for over 20 years, and asked if my premise had legs. He said NO! That isn’t the real problem; the real problem exists because we, the general public, don’t know what can be done to get people the help. We don’t know what to do when we see someone going around the bend, to get them help.

I was asked if I knew how to get someone help here in the place that I live, and I said no. I know how to in California, call a peace officer, tell them someone is going off the deep end, and they can call a 5150. That is an automatic 72 observation in a mental facility. And that fact has been known even BEFORE Van Halen put out an album with that as the name, 5150.

So, that kind of killed the rant in mid rant. As much as the liberals want to say it is wrong for people to have firearms, which is a right, 2^nd Amendment, and they continue with the attitude and name calling that incites people to wonder who they think they are, we as a nation need to look to those who fall in between the cracks in our society. Those who seem to be talking to themselves, which IS preferable to talking to a liberal, but those who talk to walls, which has a higher I.Q. then MOST liberals, but you the reader know who I am referring to, you see them on the street, at a Burger King, sitting alone, thinking that no one cares. We as a nation need to show that we do care. We need to show love, as Jesus shows us love, concern for one another. We ARE our brothers’ keepers, and can’t keep dumping it on other people.

Take time to meet someone who looks a little off, show some kindness to someone who kind of scares you, take that chance, that step to show that there are people out there who are willing to stand up and help those who fall flat, and think there is no way out.

If someone had done that in Tucson, they could have seen that there was someone in trouble, and found a way to get them help. And there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 child who didn’t get to see her 10^th birthday.

I challenge the readers of Reformed Seth to find out in your towns, states, countries, what needs to be done to get someone the help that they need. Take that step, be that person, be to others how you would like them to be to you.

These are my thoughts, and how Mark C’s it.

Are Gun Laws Effective?

Ann Coulter's article What Liberals Don't Know About Guns, Chapter 17 explores (succinctly) the effectiveness of infringing on our second amendment rights. Correctly, she notes that strict gun laws are not effective in controlling crime or shootings, however there has been one policy that deters mass murder: concealed-carry laws.

She writes:

"There's only one policy of any kind that has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the highly regarded economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not small. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

When there are no armed citizens to stop mass murderers, the killers are able to shoot unabated, even pausing to reload their weapons, until they get bored and stop. Some stop only when their trigger fingers develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

Consider just the school shootings -- popular sites for mass murder because so many schools are "gun-free zones." Or, as mass murderers call them, "free-fire zones."

At Columbine High School, two students killed 12 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn't need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload.

At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide.

In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape.

And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.

There was no one to stop him.

School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

See the pattern?

In response to Columbine, schools adopted "anti-bullying" policies; in response to Virginia Tech, eBay ceased selling magazines online; in response to the Tucson shooting, liberals want to ban the particular magazine Loughner used.

And then the next killer will come along with a different arsenal and a different motive, and the only way to stop him will be with an armed citizen with a gun."

Read the full article by clicking here.

This article was taken from Human Events.

You're a conservative?

Yes, I am. In fact, I am a conservative Republican, which makes me worse right? Scary as it seems, my values and thinking line up with the Republican party, particularly of the conservative ideology. There are three ideologies or "flavors" of the Republican party: conservative, moderate, and libertarian; I align myself with the conservative flavor. Why would I be a conservative?

Aren't conservatives rednecks?

Depends on what you mean by redneck. If your definition of redneck is a person that lives in the southern United States, then I hate to alarm you, but there are liberals in the good ole south. If your definition of redneck is an intolerant, acid tongued, white male; hey, liberals meet that criteria too. However, if you intend redneck to mean a person that holds the government should have fiscal and social conservative responsibility, then yes, all conservatives are rednecks.

The "conservatives are rednecks" argument is nothing more than an ad-hominem, when the liberal is depleted of good arguments for their position. I say that because there are actual "rednecks" that are liberal democrats and conservative republicans; they're on both sides because the word redneck does not define a political position.

Aren't conservatives racist?

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible, spear that is thrown at conservatives. However, I won't say it's a stupid question because there aren't any stupid questions, just stupid answers. Conservatives are not guilty of this accusation at all because conservatives are for equal-opportunity and anti-welfare, irregardless of a person's ethnicity. Liberals, on the other hand, could be easily hit with the "racist spear," just look at affirmative action. Not that affirmative action is totally worthless, but it does discourage working hard and personal responsibility.

Aren't conservatives intolerant?

I think this is just another ad-hominem disguised as an argument. Look, a person can be intolerant regardless of party affiliation in my opinion. What we must do with this question is ask what tolerant means. Tolerant means showing respect for opinions of others, correct? Well, how come the conservative is blasted with the intolerant insult when the liberal isn't tolerant of the conservative's opinion? Could we be fair here? The conservative should not be labeled intolerant when the liberal is guilty of the same thing. Take the plank out of your eye before you try and pick the twig out of your opponent's eye.

Why do conservatives push their morals on me?

This is a fair question. People do not want morality shoved in their face, especially when they are guilty of committing an immoral action. This is a sensitive issue, but I'm willing to answer the question. Conservatives, for the most part, believe there is a moral standard in the universe and that living up to it is the best way to live a happy and full life. Now, we also recognize that people fall short of this moral standard, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a moral standard at all. Conservatives aren't unaware of man's shortcomings! Denial of the standard because man cannot live up to the standard just results in moral chaos or nihilism and neither are good for society.

Dinesh D'Souza sums up conservatism:

"Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice."1

That's why conservatives "push" their moral standard on others. However, it's not the conservative's moral standard, it's an objective moral standard recognized by everyone.

So, why am I conservative? I believe conservatives have an accurate understanding of the human nature. One's understanding of human nature constructs one's worldview. In my opinion, conservatives have it right (no pun intended), not only for me, but for America. When following the evidence, you can see that conservative policies can not only produce a good society, but also reach liberal goals of peace and social justice.

Sources:

1. Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative (Basic Books, 2002), pg.

Are Conservatives Unchartible Tightwads?

According to recent studies, conservatives give more to charities than liberals do, 30% more to be exact. Now, that's odd huh? If I'm correct, conservatives are the ones that don't like the redistribution of wealth, so shouldn't that mean they are tight with money and scrooge-like? Hardly, but that's what liberals want you to think. Redistribution of wealth is not charity, it's not giving; it's stealing and shouldn't be done. Ann Coulter's latest article from Human Events explains the results from the latest study on giving by conservatives and liberals.

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals. His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all! Ha ha! Just kidding.

Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large. Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools. Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, "are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way."

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent. They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!) Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)

I'm sure this study won't be aired on popular news broadcasts because it's fun to think that liberals are superior to conservatives in the area of "caring" for the poor and downtrodden, when in fact, it's conservatives that generally care more for the less fortunate. We (conservatives) are more interested in giving the less fortunate a hand-up not a hand-out.

You can read the rest of Ann's article (and you should) by clicking here.

*Note: the picture with this post shows the popular perception of a conservative republican from the eyes of liberals.

Guest writer Mark to do a series on politics...

The guest writer here at Reformed Seth, Mark, will be doing a series of posts tentatively called, "What is..." and each post will be on different political platforms/ideologies. For instance, "What is Republican?" will be one post and Mark will give a survey of that party. Another might be, "What is Liberal Ideology?" I, like you, am looking forward to this series even though I have a good idea of terms and platforms, I'm sure Mark will bring his winsome authorship to the details of the terms in a fresh way. If you're new to politics, you'll especially enjoy it and if you're not new to politics, read the posts and comment, to dialogue with Mark.

I'm not sure when the first post will be done, hopefully it will be soon. As soon as he emails the article, I'll post it here.

Check out Mark's other work here at Reformed Seth.