Monday, August 26, 2013

Sometimes, Senator Lee, Motive Does Matter

Recently I saw the old Hitchcock movie, Lifeboat.  The story centers around a group of Americans whose ship is sunk by a German U-boat, leaving them stranded on a lifeboat.  Soon the U-boat is also sunk, and an evacuated German sailor seeks refuge with the Americans in the lifeboat.  The Americans disagree about whether or not to let him on the boat but ultimately they do.  The plan is to try and guide the lifeboat to Bermuda, but they have no compass and are unsure about the accuracy of their course.  Eventually the German sailor takes charge of the boat and the mission, including pretty much all of the rowing, as the others aren’t experienced sailors and they’re growing weak from hunger and thirst.  Unbeknownst to them the German was actually the captain of the U-boat and has a secret stash of water and sugar pills, as well as a compass.  Eventually they realize that instead of aiming for Bermuda he’s been rowing them to a rendezvous with a German supply ship. 

Hitchcock probably wanted viewers to contemplate themes about human nature, desperation and survival; but the main lesson I took away had to do with the importance of understanding what people’s real motives are.  That is to say you shouldn’t entrust someone with your boat or your life unless you’re certain that he wants to go in the same direction as you do.  Metaphorically speaking it’s a good lesson for a lot of areas in life, not the least of which is the election of our leaders.  That’s why I was greatly disappointed by an interview I saw a while back with Senator Mike Lee of Utah by Greta Van Susteren.  Senator Lee, a man whom I respect and admire, complained about Obama disparaging the motives of the GOP on their approach to Medicaid, and he went on to say that the two sides should not be questioning each other’s motives.  This “play nice” policy and misguided reverence for gentlemanly manners when we’re in a war for the soul of this nation dumbfounds me.  It’s yet another chapter out of the republican manual for How to Lose Elections (and the Country) in Ten Easy Steps.    Does Senator Lee really believe we can win a war with the devil by politely pretending that he isn’t the devil?  When would be a good time to start questioning Obama’s motives?  After the “transformation” is completed?

Motives matter.  They are critical to understanding why people behave the way they do and how they will behave in the future.   The destructive policies that republicans refer to as “failures,” the puzzling “incompetency” by what is supposed to be an intelligent man are really nothing of the kind.   They are a misdiagnosis of the problem, and the problem is that we pretend, or perhaps even believe, that Obama is motivated by the same things that we are.  People who are sailing on the great ship USA, who believe they’re sailing towards the American dream, to freedom and prosperity, need to understand that Captain Obama isn’t going there, and that’s by design.  His goals are to weaken this nation to make it ripe for the “transformation.”  The plan is to transfer wealth according to the leftist definition of who’s worthy and whose not; normalize and expand government dependency; take power from the individual and centralize it within the government for control by the Left; and gratify Obama’s ego by amassing personal glory for himself.  Everything he does, from vastly expanding our debt and our welfare systems to taking over our healthcare to making unconstitutional power grabs to arrogantly claiming credit for that which has been paid for not by him but by the American taxpayer, all of it can be traced to the motivates of this very dangerous and foolish man.

Yes I know, Senator Lee, that to delve into an examination of motives exposes republicans to the usual misrepresentations about their own motives.  But can we really not defend ourselves against charges that we want seniors to die, children to starve and poor people to go without healthcare?  Ironically, all of that is what will eventually happen when the nation collapses under the weight of socialist programs being imposed on us by the Left. 

Another reason we need to expose the Left’s motives is to make people understand the futility of logical debates about things like the debt ceiling.  We are never going to successfully appeal to the Left’s sense of reason about our looming debt crisis or about anything else because they don’t care unless it interferes with the larger plan.


So let’s have the debate.  Let’s pull no punches.  To whatever extent we can let’s force Obama and Hillary and all the leftists that presume to control this country to explain why their actions and their outcomes never align with the saintly, altruistic motives they pretend to be pursuing.  Could be that much of this country really doesn’t care where we end up as long as they’re comfortable along the way; but we’ll never know unless we finally have the debate.


~CW



31 comments:

  1. Brilliantly-crafted from historical analogy as predicate and premise, to today's conclusion. Another great read, CW.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL…your retarded crusades (which have utterly FAILED) against homosexuality and marijuana--and your moronic cheering on of GW's wars--have sunk ANY hope of the 'conservatism' playing to a younger/wider crowd.

    We Paulians tried to warn you, didn't we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still jousting at windmills, are we? I’ve never crusaded against homosexuality or marijuana nor was I ever a cheerleader for war, but I understand that this is the argument you desperately want to have because it requires no intellectual work on your part.

      If the “younger/wider crowd” would sell their souls for gay marriage and a little MJ then they’re beyond hope anyway, but you’re too much of a fool to understand that. The Obama crowd probably can’t believe their good luck.

      >>“We Paulians tried to warn you, didn't we?”

      So does this mean you are a constitutionalist this week?

      Delete
    2. As a libertarian, its good to see freedom advance here in the police-state/fasco-communist USSA in at least one key area…the gradual ending of the idiotic Drug War which cons have supported in the face of all reason and morality…

      Once again,libertarians have been proven right in our prediction that Prohibition 2.0 would be an utter disaster…its good to see America finally beginning to catch up to us on this one…

      Cons deserve all the scorn they get heaped on them for having supported such an atrocious, anti-freedom, anti-human policy...

      Delete
    3. Wow. You sure must love your reefer!

      You call yourself a "Paulian" then tell me the Constitution is irrelevant. Have you ever even been to Ron Paul’s website? Do you think the only thing he stands for is legalizing drugs?

      You’re a clown.

      Delete
    4. And you must be smoking REALLY good stuff to think voting for Mitt "UHC" Romney and John "Ted-Kennedy-Is-My-Hero" McCain makes you a anything but liberal-lite!

      And, you've gotta be on heavy psychedelics to hallucinate that Reagan cut govt!

      One can appreciate Ron Paul's message of FREEDOM w/o ascribing to irrelevant 'constitutionalism'…RP himself--in his last speech on the House floor--admitted the const. failed…ANY sane/rational person can see this truth.



      Delete
    5. I’m not particularly worried about what a simple-minded nutjob like yourself who’s never had an original thought in his life thinks about my political strategy. I voted for candidates who don’t represent my ideology but who had a shot at beating the devil. You’re an anarchist who voted for a constitutionalist for precisely the same reason, so your righteous indignation is a joke. And who said anything about Reagan? You’re like a bad-tempered, yippy little cartoon Chihuahua, always professing to want to fight and then running away from any real debate.

      Delete
    6. As a libertarian I deal in reality and facts, and the FACT is that you willingly voted for Romney & McCain.

      Another FACT is that your ballot doesn't include a qualification for WHY you voted for Romney/McCain.

      FACT: Your ballot doesn't list candidates for you to vote AGAINST…only ones to vote FOR.

      FACT: McCain/Romney only know that 10's of MILLIONS of people voted FOR them, which implies those 10's of MILLIONS of voters' views are aligned w/McCain's/Romney's.

      FACT: There were non-GOP/DP candidates on the ballot--you were 100% free to vote for them (or not vote).

      FACT: You were aware of McCain's/Romney's positions and histories when you voted for them.

      The implication of all of these FACTS is that McCain/Romney, indeed, DO represent your ideological views...

      Delete
    7. Well then it must be a FACT that your views are perfectly aligned with the candidate you voted for, CONSTITUTIONALIST republican, Ron Paul.

      FACT: You were aware that Ron Paul didn’t have sufficient support to win, which meant a vote for him would likely lead to the election of Barack Obama. Therefore you must secretly have wanted Obama to win.

      FACT: the sun is shining today. Therefore the only possible conclusion I can make is that the sun likes me.

      Delete
  5. "Rules For Patriots"...aka..."Rules For Radicals"...That knife cuts both ways for you elitists! Those who don't stand for values stand for nothing...Paulians and the so-called younger crowd will find this out...probably too late for their own good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/ron-paul/its-about-time-2/

      Delete
  7. "I am so tired of conservatives calling Republicans they don’t like RINOs. They are Republicans, the party of Lincoln. What do you expect? What is so great about the name Republican that it is an epithet to call someone a RINO?"

    --Laurence M. Vance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said, never an original thought.

      Delete
    2. …says the person who votes the straight GOP ticket while complaining the whole time...

      Delete
    3. There’s a lot to like about libertarianism so it’s unfortunate and perplexing that the ones I meet are such utter dumbasses. You cut and paste pieces from Lew Rockwell’s website, then come over here and act as if this cheap plagiarism makes you some kind of genius. You screech over and over about gays and drugs, then you scratch your pointy head trying to understand why people aren’t warming up to libertarianism and you can’t muster more than 10% of the vote. YOU do much more to discredit libertarianism than I ever could by providing a living example of the nutcase stereotype.

      Yes, with two rare exceptions I have voted the straight republican ticket. Who are you voting for besides libertarians???? Oh, that’s right. You voted for the constitutional candidate, REPUBLICAN Ron Paul, all the while complaining about the failure of the Constitution.

      Delete
    4. Abolitionist Parties in the 19th century didn't fare well at the polls either…you either adhere to principle/logic/evidence or you engage in Groupthink. I prefer principle/logic/evidence…you prefer Groupthink.

      The rest of your rant is just another embarrassingly hackneyed anti-libertarian screed…on a level w/what Liberals say.

      If 90% of American voters (including you and your fellow 'conservatives') want communism, there's nothing libertarians can do about it…but we CAN refuse to give our explicit consent.



      Delete
    5. I have a feeling that if someone pointed a gun at you and demanded your money or your life that you’d give up your wallet, even though I’m sure you profess to believe in the PRINCIPLE of defending your right to your property. If you make a calculation that the better strategy is to hand over your wallet like most people would, are you now unprincipled and guilty of Groupthink? That’s the equivalent of the so-called “logic” of libertarians like yourself. I can only prove that I'm principled by handing the country over to people like John Kerry, Al Gore or Barack Obama. And given your hatred for this country, why haven’t you moved to Chile yet? Please don’t tell me that you’re working on it, getting a bit more prepared at the expense of standing on principle.

      Oh, and let’s not forget the great job you do trying to persuade people as to the merits of libertarianism. With followers like you Ron Paul didn’t need any more help suppressing the libertarian vote. I'm sure he's real thankful.

      If you ever start dealing with reality perhaps I’ll allow you to respond.

      Delete
    6. No one's holding a gun at you and demanding you vote for the greater-of-two-evils…this is as bizarre a comparison as calling Democrat potus candidates "the devil" to rationalize voting for Republican devils…

      How can one hate a "country" (an artificial political construct)…? Its like me of hating the tooth-fairy or god, LOL…

      Abolitionists didn't have much luck persuading the general populace of the merits of getting rid of slavery either…however, I'd've been an abolitionist whereas you would've been a slaver...

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. And if the abolitionist candidate had also been a socialist - then what?

      No one was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to vote for the constitution's candidate when you hate the Constitution. You made that choice on your own.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK…I see you're a total coward…buh-bye!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the coward, as evidenced by your insistence on attacking straw men rather than having a sincere debate. I gave you every opportunity for a real debate, even putting aside the fact that I said “Ciao” to you a long while back at Andrew’s site. There’s a limit to my patience and you’re obviously not interested in persuading me to embrace your political strategy. You simply want to vent. Too bad for you. Please don't let the door hit ya...

      Delete