Selfishness and Anger | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Selfishness and Anger
by

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?
Re: George H. Wittman’s Beijing’s Balancing Act:

Mr. Wittman seems to find fault with China’s its go it alone attitude. While TAS has rightly been a cheerleader of the first order for American self-interest, they find no irony in slamming China for following similar policies. If Mr. Wittman wishes to criticized the poor execution of China’s pursuit of its economic interests, as seems to be the case, then he would be wise to state precisely how it is mishandling its economy and not obfuscate.

Pursuing one’s self interest, no matter who is doing so, is always rational and never immoral. Even if the one pursuing it is China.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

OVERPRICED FRAUD

Re: Matthew Vadum’s ACORN’s Tangled Money Tree:

Since the government and the Democrats are evidently spending a fortune for ACORN to bring in the fraudulent vote…shouldn’t the matter be open to competitive bidding? There must be someone out there who can do it for less money…

Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florid

Acorn should be disbanded and done away with and the managers of the Acorn should be going to jail. This is the lousiest agency ever in my 65 years on this earth; we will be stuck with a Marxist for president because of them. Why is the news not reporting all this on the news? Are they afraid it might hurt their candidate Obama?
Ken Roberts
Lebanon, Ohio

LONG, STRANGE TRIP

Re: Melanie Harmon’s Rocky Mountain Blues:

The leftward journey of Colorado is not new. In the early ’60s when I was attending Roy J. Wasson High School in Colorado Springs I saw bumper stickers pleading with all who read them: “Don’t Californicate Colorado.” Forty years ago Boulder was already famous for being a suburb of Berkley. Cultural icon Bob Denver was getting high in the Colorado Rockies and Comrade Judy Collins was warbling in the Red Rocks Amphitheater.  Actually, if you draw a line east and west through Pike’s Peak, north of that line, which contains the population center of gravity for the state, it has been deep blue for decades in most places. So, I fear the disease of liberal-socialism has been in the Colorado body politic for some time. However, now that the latency period is over and the patient is symptomatic, possible a cure can begin. I hope so. Because, as Michigan has shown, the disease of liberal-socialism left unchecked is unfailingly fatal.

John Jarrell
San Antonio, Texas

RSM 1, MSM 0

Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s Stickin’ With the Hockey Mom:

Once again, Robert Stacy McCain gets it, and he gets it right.

Late in the Democrat primary campaign in Pennsylvania, much was made of the fact that every single one of the 100 top newspapers in Pennsylvania had endorsed Obama over Clinton. So much for media experts.

Another example. A good friend, and “Washington Insider,” once told me that a certain Republican candidate for the House of Representatives would not defeat the Democrat incumbent. He cited two things: The Allentown Morning Call had endorsed the incumbent, and everybody in Washington was saying that the challenger could not win.

He did win, however, and by the exact margin that I had said he would (52-48, if memory serves).

The point? Pennsylvanians, like most voters in this country, don’t vote the way their local newspapers want them to. Pennsylvanians, like most voters in this country, don’t vote the way the Washington insiders think they will. Pennsylvanians, like most voters in this country, don’t vote the way the all-knowing media mavens dictate.

The signs and portents, then, are good for John McCain, aren’t they?

Really good.
A. C. Santore

BEEN THERE, DONNE THAT

Re: Roger Kaplan’s John McCain and John Donne:

Pure Objectivists may decry Donne as a Romantic and dismiss him for seeing what is inaccurate reading of reality. Certainly Donne’s devotion quoted and interpreted so beautifully by Mr. Kaplan is diametrically opposed to Rand’s writings on rational self-interests. What would Rand make of such beautiful transcendence of these lines: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main”? Or “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”? She would dismiss such words as pure sentiment and without a basis in reality. Would she not ask Donne to offer some manifest and visible proof that another’s death has diminished her in some measurable way?
 
Rand brought much good to this world with her philosophy. She trashed many a treacly philosophy and punctured, though not fatally, socialism, but she did not believe in transcendence. Rand clearly stated the only things worth believing is hard and cold reality; one’s loyalties are owed only to oneself. But a philosophy, like a child, may have many a father but only one birth mother. Since each human being is limited, the truth they speak will reflect this limitation. So one is wise to adhere to much of what Rand has taught but not to the exclusion of other complementary writings.
 
John McCain’s life reflects a mixture of both pure self-interest and a well-documented belief in a higher order and greater good than just his own happiness. As been mentioned numerous times, a young McCain was bit of a lout but with age came wisdom and a grounding sense of patriotism. McCain may have joined the military out of a sense of tradition or to please his family, but his actions in war not only distinguished him but also molded him into a better man. While a man purely invested in rational self-interests would have left his brothers in arms imprisoned while taking full advantage of his name, a man of transcendent belief could (and did) not. If fact, a man who held pure Objectivist views would never have joined the military; joining the military for such a man is contrary to his core beliefs. But a man who understands that he is “involved in mankind” does join because his self interests transcend the limited self; to truly serve his own interests he must serve the greater good. (This greater good is not to be confused with the power grab of Obama and the Left; their greater good means bringing down the highest in the service of the envious and undeserving so the great unwashed masses, of whom the Left sing hosannas but in their hearts deplore, can crown their new messiah king and bask in the glory of their false god.) While McCain has often espoused an unhealthy mixture of political philosophies and has taken many offensive steps to accommodate the Left, he has consistently acted with the intention to serve the greatest good. McCain is a flawed human being (not that any other kind exists) but he is one that believes his best interests are the ones that serve his country and humanity. He is a man worthy of the presidency. Can the other candidate truly say that?
Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York


Voters with assets and jobs to lose, while standing in the polling booth next Tuesday, recall that “R” after a candidate’s name stands for “Recession,” and “D” after a name stands for “Depression.”
David Govett
Davis, California

KEEPING THE ‘O’ OUT OF OHIO

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Who Will Protect America?

We read your inspiring, truthful article, and quite agree with you. And thank you for writing it. Obama is an alleged radical, so full of hatred, as is his wife, who parrots Rev. Wright, almost word for word. We would sure like to know who recognized his manner of speaking, and sponsored him at Harvard and Colombia. A good speaker does not a President make, if it’s your only asset. He has his speeches written for him, and makes them, almost like a robot as he can’t make a speech without monitors. That’s the reason for the big hullabaloo, that Obama got caught out, by Joe the Plumber, he answered, off the cuff, about spreading the wealth, which in reality means “Reparations,” and now Joe the Plumber is being victimized by the State of Ohio, sadly.

And for poor Joe the Plumber, who didn’t win the lottery as did Obama, with his questionable donations, to say he would like to buy out his employers business, which was his dream of the future, why, the State thought he had a hidden agenda. So they checked to see if he ever drew welfare, got unemployment benefits, owed back child support — pathetic. Just because he one-upped Obama. And this is before Obama wins the Office. Is this a sign of his actions, should he win? This is very scary. If the State of Ohio, or the liberal leftist main stream media, had vetted Obama, as they did Joe the Plumber, assuredly Obama wouldn’t be on the ticket for president. Why all the cowardice of the media? Why is Hawaii denying us proof of his Birth Certificate? 

The Moore Family, Relatives and Friends
Newark, Ohio

GUNS AND FREEDOM
Re: Patrick O’Hannigan’s The Second Amendment Shuttle:

In 1791, the Bill Of Rights was added to the Constitution of the United States of America. These specially enumerated rights of the citizens of the new nation were added for specific reasons.

In the case of the second amendment it was to limit the centralized Federal government from restricting the possession and ownership of firearms by the populous. This restriction was, largely, passed along to the states as the logical extension of legal cases that ruled that other amendments, guaranteeing the rights of citizens under the Federal government, also applied to the States.

The reason for the inclusion of the Second amendment into the Constitution is simple to understand. The people of this country had spent eight years fighting to defeat the forces of a government that was not only not responsive to their pleas, but showed no hesitation to use force to make them bend the knee. The colonies had no central government, no standing armed forces, nor anyway to rapidly procure one. Except to call for volunteers, each man to supply his own weapon. They had learned the lesson that a large, powerful central government was not the friend of the common man and that that if the common man were left without the means to defend himself against armed force, he was destined to live in chains.

This sentiment was illustrated by several of our greatest Americans:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” -Patrick Henry(1)

 “I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason(1)

 “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed — unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” -James Madison(1)

 “…Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.” -Thomas Paine(1)

 “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States…” -Noah Webster (1)

On the flip side of the argument for gun control:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.(1)

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. (1)

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms was installed in the Constitution for a valid reason. It’s strict interpretation and enforcement is necessary to insuring the continuance of the United States of America. Those that seek to limit this right should be watched very carefully as this is how totalitarianism starts.

(1) Courtesy of https://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~weinfurt/gun.html
Michael Tobias

RISE AND SHINE

Re: George Neumayr’s Obama’s Living-Will Constitution:

Where do you come up with this utter nonsense?

A course in hermeneutics would help. Or a course in constitutional law. As it happens, redistribution is enshrined in our written constitution, by amendment.

Wake up.
Andrew Arato

NO SAYING DAMNING ENOUGH 

Re: Jay D. Homnick’s The Cost of Hollow Words:

I enjoyed your article. Well done. It captured the extent of the poor thinking that has accompanied many who have thrown in their support to BO.

I understand the Jews have a saying that if one saves a single life, this action saves the entire world. I can only imagine what kind of saying would be made for someone who willingly supports the death of fifty million babies.

Paul Melody

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!