Success and Material Possessions Correlate Wednesday, May 19 2010 

Until recently, people equated success by the quality and amount of material possessions they obtained. Now, under the guise of simplifying one’s life, pressure is mounting to discard one’s things, and cast off many modern comforts.

I know a family who succumbed to the lie that greed was the root of their material wealth, and believed they had too much because they were hoarding. Therefore, they sold their beautiful home and many of their lovely possessions in an effort to ‘simplify’. They felt guilty for their prosperity.

Guilt manipulators condemn success, and assault prosperity in a concerted effort to coerce their victims into thinking: less is more — attempting to make everyone equal. If one realizes any level of affluence, and acquires abundant possessions, they make him feel criminal because he has more than others.

Keynesian social engineers tout the innocent unproductive populace as the backbone of society — although they are never satisfied with what they have, and continually crave for more. Furthermore, they feel entitled to a share of the producer’s income, and the government provides it for them in housing, food, healthcare, and schools. Vilified as insatiably greedy is he who buys his own home, eats his own food, gets his own healthcare, and chooses which schools he attends. The wealthy are repeatedly accused of achieving success illegitimately — they obviously cheat the system to make their money — a la Gordon Gekko in the original movie: Wall Street. (Not to be confused with the gecko that rakes in millions of dollars for an American insurance company, and makes it look so easy even a caveman can do it.)

Successful people work hard, have expertise in their respective fields, provide excellent service, and risk failure. There rests the beauty of a free capitalistic society — effort, skill, good service, and fearlessness result in financial reward proportionately.

People strive for a better lifestyle for themselves and their family. Remove that incentive, and those who produce will stop producing and all of society will suffer for it. It is the pursuit of private property which propels mankind forward — even for the French. Many people living in centrally planned societies look at the affluence we enjoy, and yearn to have the same opportunities available to them in their own countries. But alas, many suffer under despot leaders — who, of course, deny themselves no luxury — yet oppress their subjects through so-called ‘social justice’.

Liberty is good, and prosperity is the natural by-product of a free society. Edmond Burke, the great English statesman of the 18th century, correctly observed: free men are not equal, and equal men are not free. Let us not become fatalities of those who want to strip us of our liberty and thereby impoverish us as a nation. Birthed as the beacon of freedom, America must stand firm in her heritage, and resist the guilt manipulators who condemn her, and want to control her citizens by ‘simplifying’ their lives.

Obama like Jesus? Monday, Apr 12 2010 

Some people confuse racism — preference given or denied due to one’s race, with Socialism — the political ideology of: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need“. Therefore, they believe when someone says the agenda and actions of President Obama are socialistic, that the person who opposes him does so only because Obama is partly black. They will not deny he is a socialist, but will deflect the accusation with cries of racism, and justify his actions by comparing him to Jesus, who, in their minds, was a Socialist in His own right. Both positions, however, are incorrect.

I recommend David Chilton’s book, “Productive Christians in the Age of Guilt Manipulators” for deeper study, but will briefly address these two gross misnomers.

Jesus’ life and teachings promote truth, private property, and individual liberty with responsibility, which are foundational to the proper working of the free market. Regarding healthcare, Jesus never demanded His followers who were doctors (Luke, for example) to practice medicine at their own financial demise. He took nothing from anyone else to give sight, hearing, restored limbs, or the breath of life to those He touched. People received from Him freely, and He gave from His own resources — no one else’s.

Jesus did not continuously feed the poor, either. He never gave preference to someone because he was rich or poor — he treated all equally. On the three occasions when He fed the multitudes, they first listened to Him speak before receiving anything, and when He fed them (out of concern for their strength to travel home), He did so without collecting everyone’s food and redistributing it for all to share equally.

We must remember, too, that Jesus in no way worked for or represented the government. He did not command the government to go and do His work — He commanded His disciples. It is the job of the government to guarantee equal opportunity, not equal property. It is the responsibility of the church to help the poor — but he who refuses to work, shall not eat.

A worker is worth his wages, but not all work is equal, therefore, neither are wages.

Jesus lived a perfect life which included obeying the eighth commandment, “Do not steal”. If Obama wants to imitate Him, he can begin by keeping his hands out of the people’s pockets.

Pelosi – 1; Freedom of Choice – 0 Sunday, Nov 1 2009 

Yesterday, Louisiana Senator David Vitter came to Houma, Louisiana, and held yet another town hall meeting. Scheduled only two days after the nefarious Nancy Pelosi health care bill exploded on an unwilling American citizenry, Vitter addressed the crowd. Having with him the 2,000 page, 20-pound bill, and a panel of 1 doctor and 1 small business owner from the area, the audience of over 200 people listened with anticipation for words that would quell their fears. At least ten percent had the opportunity to speak directly to the Senator asking questions or making comments. The audience was calm, but with the specter of that albatross of a bill looming on the table in front of them, everyone paid close attention.

People are concerned that this bill transforms American healthcare into an American nightmare, and rightfully so. Its real purpose is about power, not healthcare. Who has the right to make choices for the individual — the individual, or the government? When does one go to sleep? What does one eat? Does one smoke? May one be over weight, or under weight? According to Nancy Pelosi and her ‘historic’ bill, a bureaucrat will decide all, because the government knows best. We are now a collective.

An Article from RealClearPolitics.com Friday, Oct 30 2009 

Why Democrats Should Start to Sweat.

Atlas Shrugged . . . DONE! Sunday, Aug 16 2009 

Finally! I’m finished reading Ayn Rand’s masterpiece Atlas Shrugged. It took me since the end of April, including a short hiatus, to accomplish the feat, but I did it! I remember seeing the book laying around our house when I was a child. At the time, I told myself I would never read it — it’s over 1000 pages long. However, its impression stayed with me, and when it became imperative to read it, I rose to the challenge.

The book is definitely a “must read” for those who want to understand the convoluted thinking of today’s progressives. It takes the progressive-collective-entitlement mentality out to its natural end — which is not a pretty sight. However, I think Ms. Rand could have told the same story in far less words. Of course, I’m not a fiction lover, and prefer text that gets to the point rather than goes into some descriptive narrative that is non-essential to the plot. There were parts I felt were racy, therefore, skimmed over them — again, I got the idea and didn’t need the description. As the book progressed the language got more raw. I don’t see any reason to use the Lord’s name in vain, and it became quite the expression toward the end of the book. Also, one can tell quite quickly that the premise of the book is that man’s productivity is the measure of virtue, not the standard set by God. Throughout the book I kept repeating to myself, “this is Godless”. If Atlas is Ms. Rand’s masterpiece, and reflects her philosophy of objectivism, than one can only deduce that she believed that there is no God; or if there is one, He’s not involved with the affairs of men. (Of course, she now knows differently.)
Her book is loaded with quotable text which eloquently and accurately depicts progressive thought. My recommendation is to read the book. Finish it. You’ll see that much of her fiction has become reality in our lives. Scary.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.