Monthly Archives: December 2012

He’s A SouLESS Man

obama-green-energy-failures

Recently the left wing biased Huffington Post said they did a poll and found that most people including Republicans they polled consider Obama mainstream and the republicans too extreme.WHAAAATTT????? REALLY??????

You mean we’re supposed to accept that a man who when he was a senator said babies who survive an abortion should be left to die as mainstream?

We’re supposed to accept that a man who crticized Bush for spending 4 trillion in eight years as unpatriotic then gives us another six trillion in four years as not being extreme and instead is mainstream?

Obama supported the rmuslim brotherhood in overthrowing Mubarek and now they are under Sharia law,but he’s mainstream and not extreme.

Obama spent 10 days promoting that the attack on our embassy in Libya was the result of this little known video crticizing Mohammed when everyone else said it was a terrorr attack by Al Queda,but it’s the republicans who are extreme.

Obama comes out with a healthcare plan that is all encompassing and complete control of our lives,but he’s not extreme,just the republicans are.

The republicans want lower taxes and less government in our lives and he keeps raising taxes and increasing government,but that’s considered mainstream.

Obama makes Karl Marx look like a right winger.

I recently had this little list of extremeisms by libs and Obama sent to me that proves my point:

1) Only in America could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federalworkforceis black while only 12% of the population is black

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code,TimothyGeithner, the head of the Treasury Department andCharlesRangelwho once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are infavorof higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react byfrettingthat Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (MarathonOil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience … and a complete failure at his job … be reelected.
 
The poll by Huffington Post must have been a big lie and it also shows how manipulated and brainwashed the average person is thanks to the left wing biased liberal media,but Obama is mainstream and its’ the republicans who are extreme. The worst thing I thought was recently when Obama was chastising the House republicans for not going along with his fiscal cliff suggestions he shamelessly exploited the recent Newtown shootings and HurricaneSandy damage by saying,”After all we ‘ve been thru in the last few weeks should give us some perspective oif what’s important and say what the country needs now is compromise.” To him compromise is agreeing with him.That kind of statement is grotesque by any politician. In other words ,”Let’s raise taxes.”
Obama’s not a soul man,he’s a souless man.

OVERCOMING OBAMA’S NEW NORMAL

Going into election day a Romney win appeared imminent. The experts augured a certain victory for Mr. Romney. George Will predicted 321 electoral votes for the Governor, Dick Morris boldly projected 325 and Karl Rove modestly assured 279 electoral votes for a Romney presidency. President Obama had a four year record that was, from any dispassionate perspective, abysmal, if not criminal in nature.

A Romney victory foretold the Republic’s salvation from President Obama’s oppressive and dangerous regime.  This is a president who enacted fiscal policies that reduced America’s credit standing and engendered unemployment, deficits and public debt of record proportions. He was on a quixotic mission to punish productive Americans with greater taxes while cultivating a plantation like dependent state for those suffering under his punitive policies. Mr. Obama has the dubious distinction for being the first president to enlist Marxist class warfare rhetoric by expounding on the evils of America’s free market system. He conducted a shadow unconstitutional government of unelected czars immune to congressional approval after campaigning on a guarantee to have the most transparent presidency in history.

President Obama’s first term was devoid of statesmanship. Instead of demonstrating strong, mature leadership, he displayed petty, childish divisiveness. He blamed his predecessor for his own failures and engaged in inflammatory oratory that pit American against American. The President affronted the Constitution through his obsession for centralizing presidential powers, resulting in massive regulations that stifled business expansion and economic growth. His landmark achievement ObamaCare, although held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court as an enormous tax, is a centralized governmental overreach to control one-sixth of the American economy that will cost $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, President Obama tramples on the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church by requiring the Church to comport with anti-life activities of ObamaCare.

Some of President Obama’s most egregious offenses were on the international front. He dishonored America by his disingenuous remarks on his “Apologize for America” tours, and neglected his sworn duty under the Constitution as Commander-In-Chief by refusing to fashion a cogent policy on terrorism. The domino effect resulted in terrorist attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, a dictatorial regime in former ally Egypt, the deaths of four Americans at the American consulate in Libya, and cleared a path for an Iranian nuclear enrichment program putting America’s only Middle East ally, Israel, in harms way.

Many of the President’s 2008 supporters were furious for being enticed by his “hopey-changey” sloganizing. In hindsight they felt duped and their support for him made them feel as though they bought that celebrated bridge in Brooklyn. Their anger was palatable and they would right their wrong by sending him packing from the White House. The burning question that consumed many 2008 Obama voters was whether the President’s dismal record reflected a purposeful effort to denounce America’s Constitution, it’s heritage and reduce its world standing out of pure disdain due to his Marxist upbringing, or was it simply due to sheer incompetence? Neither reason was cause for consolation.

Who would vote to re-elect a President who was only transparent in his capacity for deception and incompetence? Putting aside the suspicion of massive voter fraud, to begin to answer that question it is safe to assume that the President secured his base. I’m referring to the usual suspects who cling to the progressive/socialist democratic agenda every election cycle and cast a democrat vote solely to support some personal mania. They are legion and include the phony celebrity crowd, union thugs, environmental and feminist zealots, the secularist atheists and agnostics infamous for booing God at the DNC convention, abortion enablers, race baiters, anti-gun fanatics, and, of course, the democratic party’s mainstay, the anti-American manic-depressives. His base also includes the “reflexive” democrats. This tragic lot mindlessly votes democrat simply because some influential figure in their life, a parent, teacher, or their butcher, directed them accordingly. This community of misfits is the perennial heart and soul of the democratic base. They are a veritable Neverland of hypocritical pretense, odious self-centeredness and willful ignorance, and fortunately for the Republic this collective operates on the periphery of the American electorate.

Apart from the progressive/socialist extremists wing of the Obama voting bloc it’s important to mine what was the primary issue that was the tipping point for Obama voters. The Third Way performed a study of 800 Obama voters that included democrats, republicans, and independents, and the results showed that an overwhelming number of Obama voters favored increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing government spending, intervention on “income inequality” issues and government welfare programs. The GOP experts in their search to identify the primary reason for what many believe to be Mr. Obama’s upset victory agree with this evaluation. Former Vermont Governor and ubiquitous GOP advance man John Sununu (R) chalked up the President’s victory to a growing base that’s now “dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs.” Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, pointed out that individuals and families living well above poverty levels now qualify for numerous government assistance programs. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute attributes the Obama victory to the growing wave of Hispanic voters who voted for the President by a margin of 75 percent due to the President’s dependent state polices. MacDonald states that, “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”

But there is cause for solace for the GOP.  Despite The Third Way’s results showing that the President’s non-base voters support a social democratic welfare state, his voter turnout dropped appreciably from 2008.  The president’s dreadful record caused many who voted for him in 2008 to suffer from what could only be described as voter remorse, and the 2012 voter results reflected that sentiment. The Bipartisan Policy Center reports that despite an increase of eight million eligible voters in 2012 voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to 57.5 percent in 2012. This reduction in turnout was mostly in the democrat camp where the democrats had 4.2 percent less turnout in 2012 than in 2008 compared to the GOPs dip of only 1.2 percent.  The Pew Research Center’s long view shows that Mr. Obama received less of the popular vote in 2012 than 2008 and was flat or down from 2008 in virtually every age group. Obama is the first president in U.S. history to win re-election despite (a) winning fewer electoral votes, (b) a diminished popular vote total, and (c) a lower aggregate vote nationwide.  Guy Benson reported that, at the end of the day, only 406,348 swing state votes separated Obama and Romney, and if Romney would have garnered those votes in the swing states in the right proportions he would have had 275 electoral votes.  Additionally, the 2012 election resulted in conservatives retaining control of the House of Representatives, 30 Governorships and in 24 states Republicans control both the Governorships and the legislatures. Therefore conservatives indeed are certainly not relegated to the wilderness of the American polity.

Notwithstanding the President’s atrocious record and his reduced support in 2012 he seduced a particular faction of America to embrace his vision of a new normal of high unemployment as a means to foster widespread government dependency. Thus his obsession to inhibit America’s free-enterprise system is the method to his maddening mission.  President Obama’s policies of dependencies caused America’s welfare state to increase 19 percent under his administration. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector there are 79 means-tested federal welfare programs, at a cost approaching $1 trillion annually. In his report, Rector said the increase in federal means-tested welfare spending during Obama’s first two years in office was two-and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history, after adjusting for inflation. President Obama’s lure of dependency infects those who take the bait with lethargy and despair, ultimately requiring them to repay the price of inducement in the form of higher taxes and depressed communities.  Mr. Obama’s “handout hell” brings to mind the sagacious quote, “The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money”.

The President’s ideological vision for a socialist welfare state is a mandate for mediocrity not excellence, and a program to punish success and enable failure. Russell Kirk said, “…to seek for utopia is to end in disaster”. America has bore the brunt of the Obama “hope and change” utopian vision and must now endure four more years of polices that foster decline, fear, and discord. The President will undoubtedly continue his mission into his second term to ignore the Declaration’s First Principles, circumvent the canons of the Constitution, and exert his energy to sully the principles of conservatism that forms the basis these founding documents.

But in the face of such malaise there is promise. The 2012 Obama turnout was markedly reduced and the fundamentals of his socialistic welfare state are baseless and its results have been in free-fall failure since his 2009 inauguration.  If, under the Obama mandate, America’s stagnant GDP, which is now less than it’s debt, a loss of American credit worthiness and consistent high unemployment and profligate spending is not sufficient evidence, one must only look to other nations to see the dire effects of a socialist state. The mainstream media can run protective cover for the Obamas regimes rage against America for so long. The public’s conscious awareness of the calamitous ramifications of his socialist policies are at critical mass and his reduced voter turnout, albeit sufficient for victory, is evidence of that realization.

The solution for America’s Obama woes is not more doses of failed socialist ideologies, but a rekindling of the conservative sentiment that enlivens the spirit of American greatness.  The principles of conservatism are the foundation for America’s cause of order, freedom and justice. America’s cause provides the unfettered opportunity to reap the practical and moral rewards of our concerted efforts, recognize natural law, and exercise our natural rights.

America was ordained to unleash in humankind the “moral imagination”, the imagination that inspires one to lead a virtuous life. The moral imagination was described by conservative philosopher Russell Kirk as aspiring to the “apprehending of right order in the soul and right order in the commonwealth”, and that the moral imagination “informs us concerning the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked apes”.

Russell Kirk also referred to those “permanent things” that animate a fulfilling life as, “…things in society: the health of the family, inherited political institutions that insure a measure of order and justice and freedom, a life of diversity and independence, a life marked by widespread possession of private property. These permanent things guarantee against arbitrary interference by the state. These are all aspects of conservative thought.” John Attarian aptly describes the permanent things as “… norms of courage, duty, justice, integrity, charity, and so on – (that) owe their existence, and authority, to a higher power than social good”. American conservatism inhabits these ideals inherent in the moral imagination and the permanent things. These ideals are central to conservatism and foster a society that preserves freedoms and inspires the best in our nature, and they take their cues from the Judeo-Christian traditions that form the underpinnings of America’s system of justice.

Conservative values and principles forged the American idea, but progressive/socialist’s have been successful in shaping the conservative narrative. The progressive/socialist’s capacity to fashion destructive public policy is matched only by their talent for canards when defining conservatism in the public square. This is where the conservative’s natural inclination toward restraint, decorum and an assumptive attitude for public acceptance of time honored and successful conservative principles has been turned against them by the intimidating prevarications of the progressive/socialist mob mentality. In order to distract the public from the horrendous results of their policies the progressive/socialist must depict the conservative through a smudged lens of lies and deceits.

In an era of Obama-driven socialist policies destined to damage America but lauded by a liberal educational establishment and its negative ramifications shielded by over 80 percent of the American media, the conservative can no longer assume the public will, as a matter of course, recognize the inherent benefits of the conservative course for America. Conservatives must endeavor to be aggressively proactive with their message and principles.

Solutions have been aplenty for conservatives to take back the presidency to counteract the progressive/socialist assault on conservative America, and the central theme is coalition building. Erick Erickson of RedState proposes that conservative must focus on preserving the conservative brand. Erickson believes that the movement must extricate itself from conservative organizations that are more fixated on the GOP leaders in their groups and not the conservative movement. The focus needs to be on the conservative cache of ideas, not the leaders. Erickson says, “Conservatives need to take their brand back from the GOP and disentangle themselves from the ego driven side of conservative institutions that make it about the leaders of the organizations and not the ideas these claim they’re promoting once they get back off their next donor funded book tour selling books to other donors”. Along with applying state of the art political technology Erickson suggests that conservative grassroots coalition building is imperative. Resolute conservative groups such as Heritage’s Action for America and Club for Growth should be leveraged to build coalitions and grassroots support.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich presented a 25 point report to the RNC that outlines a host of viable propositions, amongst them are campaigns built around “coalitions, long term party building and team efforts versus consultant-based campaigns”. One of the former Speaker’s tactical suggestions is for conservatives to become fully acquainted with the democrat’s strategies by “…build(ing) a library of must reads” that are the blueprints for the democrat’s strategic approach to campaigning. I suggest that number one on that reading list should be “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s tome is the bible for the democratic party’s electioneering efforts, and Barack Obama has the dubious distinction of teaching its tenants while he worked for the criminal, and now defunct, ACORN organizing group.

Conservatives must realize they can execute on all the well thought out strategic and tactical plans they devise, but their best laid plans to take back the White House will fall short if their message misses the mark. Messaging is the means for success. As distasteful and untruthful the democrats messages and candidates may be, as a party they stand aligned daily with the mindset that the perception of their message becomes a reality for voters. The GOP must emulate their opponents vigilance with a conservative message that is clear, relatable and uplifting to the voters.

There will forever be factions of the American electorate that opt to take advantage of its well-intended welfare systems than their own God given talents. And there will always be politicians such as Barack Obama that promise the electorate false utopias energized by destructive policies, cherry coated with bribes, lies and divisiveness. Conservative makes no such promises. Conservatism recognizes humankind’s innate desire to maximize their God given talents and endeavors to lay the foundations for a society to enable man’s potential. This was the vision for America’s founders that caused America to be the greatest country in the history of humankind.

Conservatism rejects the Obama-led progressive/socialist new normal that inhibits potential and is designed to lull Americans into a catatonic state of mediocrity. To quote Pope John Paul II, “Do not be satisfied with mediocrity! The world will offer you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” In the GOP’s quest to craft a coherent message that represents conservatism and resonates with the electorate, the late Pontiff’s remarks are an excellent starting point.

Auto maker fires chaplain to appease non-Christians

After spending the past decade guiding and counseling employees of luxury car manufacturer Bentley, a Christian chaplain was unceremoniously fired in an apparent attempt to avoid offending those of other faiths.

To add insult to the dismissal, Bentley let the reverend go just days before Christmas.

“It is just beyond belief,” the chaplain said, explaining his role was not limited to helping Christians.

His job at Bentley was not proselytizing, he explained, noting he provides “counseling to workers who have stresses at home such as broken marriages” and strives to help individuals of all faiths.

“Everyone thinks it is quite ridiculous,” he continued. “There have been no complaints against me and my position is to help people and not just those who are Christians.”

Without forewarning, he said his superiors instructed him to vacate the premises to make room for what the company calls “a multi-faith outlook.”

The chaplain’s former employer might be worried about offending a vocal minority, but Bentley has now upset a great number of employees instead.

A group of workers signed a petition to reinstate the chaplain and, as one of his supporters said, “Everyone is really angry about it.”

According to a retired employee who witnessed the chaplain’s work, he was dedicated to his job and “was there for a lot of people.” He recalled one particular incident involving a suicidal coworker, explaining the reverend “turned him around.”

There is obviously no mandate forcing companies to employ Christian chaplains and it is the prerogative of Bentley executives to fire whomever they so choose. This does present a case study in shortsighted decisions many leaders make to appease rabble rousers.

A man trying to better himself by helping those around him was fired on the spot because some with different religious beliefs objected to his presence. As one thinks of the countless agencies — many of which consist of fire, rescue, and other high-risk professions — that offer the services of a chaplain, it becomes clear such positions are vulnerable everywhere they exist.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Gerald Nadler’s Gun Violence “Opinion”

nadler

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), on December 21, 2012, said:

“Now, the fact of the matter is that Germany has 150 or so people killed a year with guns; Canada, 170; the United States 9,000 to 10,000 a year. We have a murder rate with guns that are 15 to 20 times higher than any other industrialized country. There’s only one explanation and that’s the availability, the easy availability of assault weapons and of high-capacity clips.”   [emphasis mine]

Nadler also said:

“One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” Nadler offered no explanation of what “legitimate violence” is.

Well, those statements may be Rep. Nadler’s OPINIONS. He offered no study to support his opinions. He certainly has the right to express his opinion, but there is just one glaring reason why Nadler’s opinions cannot/should not go unchallenged: the MSM reported what he said as a fait accompli, something that everyone believes.

So, if we use Nadler’s opinions as representation of his “logic,” then there can be only one explanation for this country’s violence. Never mind liberal, bleeding-heart judges who somehow seem to never see actual violence.

On CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Nadler said

What are we most angry about? It’s that every poll shows that by massive majorities, Americans agree with what you just said. Yet we have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder. And that’s what they are. They’re enablers of mass murder, because they terrify the class of political people. And even though polling shows that most NRA members would support reasonable gun controls, every time someone proposes it, they come in. They lie. They say they will take your guns away. And they stop any kind of legislation to prevent that.

Again, Nadler spouted his opinion, offering no support for anything he said. Piers Morgan did not, in any way, challenge Nadler or his opinion.

There is a stark difference between opinions and facts, something Nadler doesn’t understand and/or chooses to ignore. As Bernard M. Baruch said, “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” James R. Schlesinger said, “Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” As the “Big Apple Corner” website says, “The sayings mean that opinions can differ, but that those opinions must be based on factual truths.” Neither Nadler nor the MSM ever cite or offer any factual truths to support their opinions. Yet, opinions are what form the basis for much of today’s legislation. Pity.

And, in what has to be the silliest piece of legislation ever proposed, a bill that would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition was introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO). The bill was advocated by Nadler, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and other Democrats. I guess that McCarthy, DeGette, Nadler, Pelosi, et al, think that the first 10 rounds will never be effective, will never kill anyone, and all the police/first responders have to do is wait until a pause in the firing occurs as another magazine is inserted.

But that’s just my opinion.

The Journal News Doxes (possible) NY Handgun Owners

Screen Shot 2012-12-24 at 2.36.00 PM

(Westchester County, NY)

Watch out for those spooky gun owners!  At least that’s what The Journal News wants you to think when they published the names and addresses of everyone with a handgun permit in Westchester and Rockland counties.

Journal News released the Google Map, which doxed these people, through an affiliate site called lohud.com on December 22.

 The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

So, what’s the point?​  You don’t include people with rifles, and you admit that the list isn’t accurate.  It’s just people who have a permit because they’re all crazy and need to be followed.  Liberal logic can be amusing at times.  IF the people really wanted to know who had weapons in their neighborhoods, you would think lohud would put the time and effort in to have a more comprehensive list.  If that wasn’t possible, then why waste your time?  So, was this little stunt necessary?​

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart called this ‘intimidation,’ and wrote on December 24 that:

The newspaper didn’t even feel it necessary to publish a rationale for that violation of privacy – publishing the names and addresses of gun owners makes them more vulnerable to robbery when they aren’t at home, since criminals will know where the guns are.

They did, however, run a piece targeting gun owners as the root of all evil:

In the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and amid renewed nationwide calls for stronger gun control, some Lower Hudson Valley residents would like lawmakers to expand the amount of information the public can find out about gun owners. About 44,000 people in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam — one out of every 23 adults — is licensed to own a handgun.

Yes, because all gun owners are crazy people for wanting to protect their family and  property.  When did that become a mental defect?  This whole narrative framing gun owners as sex offenders who can’t control their impulses is liberalism at its most depraved state.  Yet, their representatives on the Hill have the temerity to ask conservatives to work with them on new gun regulations.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Rockland County, NY

Rockland County, NY

 

The Selective Hypocrisy of Dick’s Sporting Goods

DicksWe are all by now familiar with the tragedy that occurred on December 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. CDN readers & contributors have provided several excellent articles and analyses of what happened.

Kevin Fobbs provided an analysis what happened and why Connecticut laws failed to keep a gun out of the hands of Adam Lanza. Fobbs offers another article about what could have prevented Lanza’s attack. Fobbs says, “What if there had been a ‘Three Strike Rule’ in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities?” He then offers what is (to me) obvious to us Second Amendment supporters and should be obvious to gun-control advocates: “This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!” Well said, Kevin, well said.

An article by Kyle Becker places (intentional) “Firearm Homicide” in perspective with other perfectly legal activities. The chart Kyle offers has this at the bottom: “WHY is there No outcry to RESTRICT baseball bat ownership?” That statement brings me to the point of my article.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has over 500 locations in 44 states. Dick’s Sporting Goods has decided to stop the sale of some semi-automatic rifles from its stores nationwide and remove all guns previously sold in the stores nearest Newtown, CT. The move came in response to authorities’ attempt to determine whether gunman Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a gun from Dick’s in Danbury, CT, just 12 miles from Newtown, CT.

That’s well and good. Dick’s is free (for now) to pull any merchandise it chooses. But, at the same time I did not hear about Dick’s pulling baseball bats or golf clubs or archery sets. Or did I simply miss that announcement? Selective hypocrisy from Dick’s? If Dick’s is going to stop sales of semi-automatic rifles, can we expect Dick’s to be consistent and pull all sporting goods merchandise that can be used as a weapon as well?

Speaking specifically about baseball bats, I am reminded of the scene in The Untouchables movie where Al Capone (played by Robert De Niro) beat one of his subordinates to death with a (wait for it…) baseball bat. While I’m sure that the beating in the scene was not real (I hope not), it graphically illustrates what can be accomplished when a baseball bat is used as a weapon. I am certain that (at least some of the) Dick’s executives saw that movie and scene. The person being beaten was just as dead as if he had been shot. So, Dick’s, are baseball bats going to be pulled next?

And that sentiment goes for medical doctors as well. Most of us are born with two hands and two feet. When we reach puberty, or 14 or so years old, we can use our hands as weapons to strangle people, and our feet as weapons to kick people to death. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. The human brain is the ultimate weapon. Where does the reductio ad absurdum of gun control (or any weapon control) ever stop? Is Dick’s going to try to pull brains off the shelves as well?

But that’s just my opinion.

Instrumental Rationality: How Progressives Use People as Means to a Political End

17shooting_ss-slide-1I6D-blog480Whenever there is a tragic loss of human life, conservatives grieve or pray. Progressives scheme for a way to turn the tragedy into an emotional weapon to promote their irrational agenda. Their perverse point-of-view may even lead them to abuse the dead for their political causes.

Such was the case with Newtown, where 20 beautiful children’s lives were snuffed out, along with six who worked for the elementary school. The emotive force of that catastrophic event provoked an immediate chorus of argumentum ad misericordium from the left to deprive Americans of the right to self-defense.

Leftists thus uses as a cudgel the dishonest presupposition that they have a monopoly on compassion. They pose as if conservatives are on the side of the deranged shooter if they are on the side of the individual’s right to defend himself and his family from criminals; and let’s be frank, from the government. But conservatives value human life much more so than progressives, who employ an instrumental rationality that deforms people into faceless, numbered entities or members of victim groups — means to their political ends.

Conservatives want to see every human life unfold naturally. Each person should be free to explore, face adversity, and with the support from those who know this particular individual, overcome those obstacles that prevent him from becoming a person in full. Each human being’s life is an end in-and-of-itself. It is complete and needs no addition or subtraction from government — only protection and true justice.

The progressive is racked by a tortured conscience that cannot accept that this kind of life is “all there is.” Disbelieving in the ancient religions, he partakes in the creation of illusory grand causes and fancies himself an integral part of them.

It is inconsequential to the progressive whether the cause really makes a positive difference for the individuals he shares this world with. Indeed, many of his causes, such as radical environmentalism, are based on irrational hysteria, and serve to make life worse for his fellow man. But he intuitively follows the supposed nobility of his vision, affirmed by the presumed elites who inhabit his environ.

What progressives cannot grasp is that supposedly positive causes like feminism, veganism, animal rights, and environmentalism are actually anti-causes: they are directly opposed to human life itself.

Abortion is the feminist opposition to human life. Veganism is the codification of guilt for man’s “predatory” behavior of eating meat (like other animals). Animal rights is the false elevation of animals to rational beings, and the lowering of man’s mind to that of instinctive beasts. Environmentalism is the synthesis and all-encompassing opposition to civilization, and the flourishing of human life on the planet.

The latest cause of ‘gun control’ (more accurately, the government control of guns) implicitly argues that men have no free will, and that we are slaves to inanimate objects.  Therefore, men are not entitled to self-defense; yet the moment that someone becomes part of the government, he is somehow not a member of the human race. He is a privileged being –able to control his savage impulse to kill his fellow man, which comes about merely by being in the presence of a gun.

As opposed to making the nation safer, the inequality of power resulting from gun control would be infinitely more dangerous than the dispersion of the potential for violence as reflected by high rates of civilian gun ownership. This is true for other social phenomena besides violence; the economy, for example.

The progressive cannot see that by not trusting himself, and by not trusting others, that he is denying the existence of agency and free will. By blindly trusting this mystical entity he calls “government,” he is misplacing his faith in easily the most corrupting and dangerous human institution known to mankind.

The tragedy of the socialist’s vision, for all its unblinking homage to democracy and human rights and social justice, is that his causes are easily manipulated by those who see collectivism as a means to power over the impressionable. For those who desire a ready path to meaning in life, as opposed to the torturous path of self-discovery, socialism holds out a means to instant karma.

The progressive is someone who is easily led, and even more easily misled. This is because his ideology leads to the abandonment of the self and the systematic avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability. Ask a socialist about someone on his side taking responsibility or accountability for his actions and he will inevitably blame ‘the system’ or his ideological opponents.

Unwillingness to compromise on principle makes the conservative hated. Deemed selfish, individualistic, and judgmental, he is shunned and forced to commune with the great minds of history that are yet hallowed in the libraries (until the socialists obliterate them, as they do with all those who stand outside their totalitarian schemes). He chooses to educate himself so that his mind is his own; his to care for as a work of art. The educated conservative is very much a creature of the Enlightenment; but even deeper at his core, of the Renaissance.

In essence, the socialist has no understanding of what it means to be alive and to be a human being in full; he must live at the expense of others, not only physically, but metaphysically. His is a sad life of craving appraisal, which he even denies to himself out of altruistic pretenses; he pours out this unfulfilled desire for validation in the worship of a cult leader, who gladly accepts the power to rule over him, and in turn gives him what he desires: More self-denial.

The ugly process of self-negation is reinforced in millions of true believers’ minds until the vicious community consumes itself in a spectacularly bloody conflagration of self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others.

Contrary to popular mythology: Socialism destroys society. What promotes society? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for each individual, who is protected by, though not encumbered by, the corrupting power of government.

Because of a Child

Do you ever get so caught up in the hustle and bustle of the holidays? Spending too much money? Stressed with all the family? Not enough time to get everything done? Sometimes its good to take a few minutes and remember why this day is special to so many across the world.

Because of a child.

Please allow me to share a short story with you today. It does not solve all the world’s problems. It doesn’t buy the rest of your gifts, nor solve the seating issue at the Christmas table. But you’ll like it.

Every year my husband spends hours, even days embellishing our front yard with Christmas ornaments. Over the years he has collected enough unique decorations to have several little theme areas. His personal favorite manger scene, an old fashioned plastic set, that use giant light bulbs and light up to show now faded Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men, and Baby Jesus. These were passed down to him by my parents when they decided it was too darn cold in the snow to put up decorations. Each year Bob would build a lean-to covered with palm fronds trimmed from his sister’s tree and carefully place all the characters at center stage.

Every year people from all around drive down our street to look at the scenes. But not everyone admires the holiday spirit. One year someone knocked everything over, tangling and pulling all the cords creating a giant mess. And they stole Baby Jesus.

The next year Bob determined to put his decorations out again decided he wouldn’t let hate ruin his Christmas. But he couldn’t find a replacement for his Baby Jesus so the manger was left empty. We didn’t worry about it; there were still plenty of other things to look at in the yard.

Until the day a small girl about four or five walked down with her father. Like other children she was in awe of the lights, the giant Frosty…the penguins skating. But then she saw the manger scene. (Bob was working in the yard, fixing some broken bulbs and watched her.) The little girl tugged on daddy’s sleeve and whispered. After a short conversation the man approached Bob. He said his daughter wondered where Jesus was so Bob told him the story of the thieves and the man explained it to his daughter. After a few minutes they walked away.

100_0787But about ten minutes later they reappeared. Little girl with her favorite doll in hand. After some encouragement from her dad she caught Bob’s attention. She did not think the manger set was complete without a baby and offered her doll to lie in the manger until Christmas. What could my husband do? He had never had such a wonderful and generous offer. Of course. And her special doll stayed until it was time to take down the decorations.

In continuing years we still put a doll in the manger. We are reminded of the true meaning of Christmas.

Because of a child.

 

 

Ayn Rand’s Answer to the Left’s Bullying

r-AYN-RAND-large570

Smug, self-righteous leftists bully anyone who dare disagree with their doctrinaire suppositions. This is a cynical but effective ploy that is socially castrating millions of sane, but otherwise intimidated potential critics. Rational, logical, and clear-thinking Americans are silencing themselves for fear of being ostracized by the true believers of various marxian faiths.

The leftist Thought Police wield the weapon of political correctness to silence any and all criticism of the left’s campaign to hijack the U.S. government to accomplish its authoritarian ends. The best way to counter-act such shameless political correctness is contained in an excerpt of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction work “The Virtue of Selfishness“:

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, today’s political debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the “liberals,” the second by the “conservatives.” The champions, in this respect, are the “liberal” Republicans who practice both; the first toward their “conservative” fellow Republicans – the second, toward the Democrats.

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers.

The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all ages and cultures, but seldom on so wide a scale as today. It is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity, but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture. It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment – not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite’s of one’s own.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

When one give reasons for one’s verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one’s reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral “hit-and-run” driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.

Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle – and when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest in protesting that “moralizing” should be kept out of intellectual discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality is to sanction it.

The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important to be certain of one’s premises and one’s moral ground. It illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions, wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals – those who recklessly leap into battle, armed with nothing but a few random notions floating in a fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings, hopes and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis.

In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right; one has to know that one is right.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:

“If this be treason, make the most of it.”

(Ayn Rand, July, 1964)

A very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives

This year, while we defense conservatives, like most people, will be celebrating Christmas and will try to find joy in it, we will nonetheless be sad, because America’s defense is now in the process of being gutted quite literally through massive cuts in budgets, nuclear and conventional weapon inventories, modernization programs, and the force structure.

It will be the fourth sad Christmas in a row for us in the last four years.

In 2009, the Congress, after initial resistance displayed by the HASC, the SASC, the SAC, and the full House, capitulated to the White House (including its veto threats) and agreed to implement the disastrous modernization program killings demanded by Defense Secretary Robert Gates (one of the worst SECDEFs in American history). The consequence was the killing of many crucial modernization programs, such as the F-22 fighter (the best fighter in the world and the only one capable of defeating the latest Chinese and Russian designs), the Multiple Kill Vehicle for missile interceptors (which would’ve enabled them to intercept multiple missiles and multiple warheads, or warheads and decoys, simoultaneously), the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a ground-based boost-phase interceptor), the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, the CSAR-X rescue helicopter, the AC-X gunship, and many others.

Yet, those programmatic closures, as dumb as they were (individually and collectively) were just a sign of the wholesale gutting of America’s defense that was to come.

In 2010, it was followed by more programmatic closures as well as the ratification of the New START treaty, which obliges only the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal by 1/3. This treaty is undermining nuclear deterrence while containing multiple loopholes which Russia is mercilessly exploiting, not counting Tu-22M bombers as strategic bombers subject to its ceilings, and having a pathetically weak verification regime. In 2010, many conservatives, including myself, and many nuclear weapons and arms control experts, including former Assistant State Secretary for AC John R. Bolton, urged the Senate not to ratify this treaty. Sadly, in the 2010 lame duck session, just 2 days before Christmas, the Senate, including 13 liberal Republicans, voted to ratify this destructive, treasonous treaty.

While the negotiations on ratification conditions were ongoing between GOP Senators and the White House, Obama dishonestly promised to invest seriously in the modernization of the arsenal that would be left. At the time, I urged Senators not to believe Obama’s false promises, which, as I warned, were not worth a rat’s rear end. Sadly, 13 Republican Senators were duped by Obama’s useless promises – which he broke no sooner than the ink had dried in the ratification documents. (However, Republicans at least ensured that the New START ratification resolution passed by the Senate contains a firm legal obligation to modernize all three legs of the triad as well as the warheads and the related facilities, including construction of the CMRR and the UPF.)

So, after this betrayal by 13 Republican Senators, the Christmas of 2010 was a very sad one for us defense conservatives.

In 2011, Republicans, after agreeing to Sec. Gates’ $178 efficiencies initiative, foolishly agreed to $487 bn in further, immediate cuts to defense spending (which are real term cuts, not mere growth rate reductions as is often claimed) and to sequestration – a $600 bn per decade gun put at the head of the Defense Secretary – whose intent was to force the Super Committee (formed per the provisions of the Budget Control Act with the aim to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings) to do its job of finding the required savings. Predictably, the deadlocked Super Committee, composed in equal number of partisan Democrats and Republicans, failed to do its job. So, on November 23rd, they announced their failure to come up with any deficit reduction plan, thus triggering the sequester. From then on, it was clear that sequestration would kick in, unless Congress could agree on a replacement.

2011 was a very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives.

When the year 2012 began, we hoped that things would get better: that sequestration would be resolved, that a pro-defense Republican President (Mitt Romney) and a Republican Senate would get elected, and that further damage to America’s defense would be stopped. These hopes were quickly dashed, however. The Congress has proved itself to be completely unable to resolve this (or any other important) issue before or after the November elections, and in those elections, thanks partially to Republicans’ issues with Romney and to third party candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, Republicans got trounced across the board, losing the presidential and Senate elections (Republicans actually lost two seats on net) and losing a number of seats in the House.

The results produced the same kind of a deadlocked government that has existed since 2009. The same kind of deadlocked government that nearly shut down in April 2011 and nearly caused America to default on its obligations for the first time ever in August 2011.

At the same time, Republicans have tolerated, and continue to tolerate, in their ranks pseudoconservative Congressmen and Senators who support deep defense cuts (indeed, lead campaigns for such cuts), oppose solutions to sequestration, oppose giving American troops what they need, and collaborate with the House’s most strident liberals for that purpose. And yet, Republicans and so-called “conservative” media and groups – such as ConservativeHQ and the American Spectator – hail these Republican traitors as “conservatives”, “conservative heroes”, and “Reagan heroes”.

And now, thanks to these indecisive elections and the deadlocked federal government, and the two parties’ failure to agree on any replacement for sequestration whatsoever, the sequester will kick in on January 2nd and slash defense spending across the board by 10%. Only personnel spending will be exempted. Ironically, that is the largest and fastest growing part of the defense budget, which is eating the rest of the budget alive and crowding out all other parts of it. Without reforms and significant cuts to personnel spending, the US military will, as CSBA’s Todd Harrison warns, some day become unable to carry out even the simplest tasks. Yet, it is the sole part of the budget exempt from sequestration – and the FY2013 NDAA just passed by Congress also prohibits any meaningful reforms to that part.

So this is a very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives – indeed, for all genuine conservatives. Four years of reckless defense cuts are culminating in what will be the deepest cuts to defense spending, inventories, and modernization programs since the 1950s – even deeper than the cuts that followed the end of the Vietnam and Cold Wars. The US military will be completely gutted as a result, with all the military, diplomatic, and economic consequences stemming from that.

A very sad Christmas, indeed.

Guns: Freedom or Tyranny?

bidenFollowing the school massacre in Newtown, CN, Joe Biden, chosen by Barack Obama to lead the administration’s effort to stem the gun ‘epidemic’, met with “law enforcement leaders.”

Biden met with Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Obama’s drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, Senior Obama advisers Bruce Reed, Valerie Jarrett, Cecilia Munoz and Kathy Ruemmler also attended.

Biden remarked:

“I’ve worked with some of you for a long, long time.  We’ve worked on everything from cop-killer bullets to types of weapons that should be off the street. That’s what I want to talk to you about today. I want to hear your views, because for anything to get done we’re going to need your advocacy.”

While openly hoping to impose an assault weapons ban, the White House is actively seeking “advocacy” from Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius and Jarrett.

Holder has yet to adequately explain the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, Napolitano has accused Veterans of foreign wars of being national security threats and has yet to secure American borders, Sebelius is actively assailing American liberty through obamacare and Jarrett has never explained her ties to real estate scandals involving convicted felon and Obama fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko or her involvement in recruiting self-identified communist Van Jones as green jobs czar, Saul Alinsky devotee Mark Lloyd as chief diversity officer within the FCC, and wealth redistribution advocate Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar.

Meanwhile Obama was pushing Congress to quickly pass gun control measures, saying:

“A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.  I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.”

On Sunday’s “Meet The Press,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre reiterated his statements made Friday at a Washington DC press conference, when he said armed security in every school is the answer to stopping shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School.National Rifle Association Holds News Conference In Wake Of Newtown School Shooting

LaPierre said:

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.  I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it.”

At Friday’s press conference LaPierre made the statement:

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The United States will descend into bickering between Americans and “progressives” over how to prevent mass murders committed in gun free zones by mentally deranged people acting on their own.  “Progressives” seek to do this by depriving law abiding individuals of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  Americans seek to ensure safety by having armed, right minded, principled individuals capable of ending the violence present and acting before it spirals out of control.

This debate overlooks the point of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When the Constitution was written, “Militia” meant ordinary citizens capable of banding together to fight threats to their liberty. It did not matter whether the treat was from an external source like an invading army, or internal, such as an over-reaching government.

The framers of the Constitution clearly expressed their views regarding a well-armed citizenry.

thomasjeffersonThomas Jefferson:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

George Washington:washington

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

James Madison:

James_Madison “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”

“progressives” seek to totally ignore the second part of the Second Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.   This displays their willful ignorance of history.  Anyone who has studied history knows the first right tyrants abolish is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That the likes of Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius, Jarrett et al, who no longer secretly seek to impose their version of tyranny upon the United States, are now openly insisting that the Second Amendment be revised to suit their fancy should trigger the sound of alarm bells in the mind of every freedom loving American Citizen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/guns-freedom-or-tyranny/
Revolution is coming.

Why We Should Not Give Up in 2013

churchillAfter President Obama came to power, he ran trillion dollar deficits every year, doubled spending, exploded the national debt, downgraded the country’s credit rating, and sought to remove the debt limit, permanently. Unemployment continues unabated, worst of all in the black community at over 14%, women are losing their jobs in droves, and over half of young grads won’t find a job in their fields.The Democrats have not passed a budget in three years, and yet the American people find it more convenient to blame the GOP for their economic woes than the president and the party that had majority control of the government since 2006.

President Obama effectively gave amnesty to illegal aliens, unilaterally compromising our national sovereignty, and forced a healthcare bill down our throats that will limit choice, ruin the doctor-patient relationship, wreck the medical industry, and cost three times what was originally promised — after the president said that healthcare costs will bankrupt the country.

In addition, the president hung diplomats and security personnel out to dry at Benghazi before going fundraising in Las Vegas, armed al-Qaeda-connected Libyan rebels who very well may be running weapons to al-Qaeda-connected Syrian rebels. He refused for weeks to call the 9/11 anniversary raids on our embassies and missions “terrorist attacks,” instead blaming a pathetic YouTube video, and even announcing at the UN that the “future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Muhammad.”

This, while Gitmo is still open, the Patriot Act has been renewed twice, extraordinary rendition continues, and the NDAA suggests the president seeks power to detain or even kill suspected terrorists — American citizens included — without trial. His government is collecting and storing data on all American citizens, whether suspected of any crime or not. The Department of Justice gave assault weapons to drug cartels, killing hundreds in the process, apparently with the intent of making the case for stronger gun control laws. After a tragic shooting in Newtown, the leftwing media wasted no time making their irrational case for stronger gun laws.

The Constitution is tattered, the justice system is co-opted, the economy is largely nationalized, private property is obsolete, the currency is debauched, the debt is skyrocketing, the schools are indoctrination centers, the universities are propaganda mills, the news media are absent, national security is compromised, our wars overseas are without end, the election system is fraudulent, the government is unrepentantly corrupt,  citizens are being spied upon, our gun rights are being threatened, the party system is broken, and the free speech necessary to alert our fellow citizens is being stifled by political correctness.

How did we arrive to the precipice of national ruin, and what is the ultimate solution to the challenges that confront those who prize liberty? No one has all the answers, but we must work together to find them and to communicate them to others. No matter how hard or frustrating or risky to our careers or our reputations, we have to fight back. We cannot give up on this country, on our children, or on our fellow Americans.

It is time for the American conservative to face a few hard truths. It is irrelevant whether the progressive believes himself to be a friend of the working class or a liberator of men or an erector of utopias or the usherer in of a new world order of perpetual peace and universal “social justice.” The effect of progressive policies are exactly like those that would be designed by the worst enemy of freedom, liberty, prosperity, and success of the United States imaginable.

If a general one hundred years ago was faced with the task of destroying the United States, the crown jewel of the Enlightenment and the nemesis of tyranny and oppression around the world, he could literally do no better (or worse) than the progressive Fabian socialist has done incrementally from within. Again, the damage to the country has been wrought by design, as can be clearly and unmistakably gleaned from the leftist tracts of a Marx, a Gramsci, a Horkheimer, or an Alinsky.

It is now beyond the point of arguing with indoctrinated neomarxists, who are mentally unequipped to fathom the conservative’s warning that the country is headed toward ruin and not toward millenarian rapture and on into some socialist paradise, where no one works and blessings poor down upon the masses like manna from government heaven. Their consciences are carefully conditioned to react to all rational judgment as necessarily discriminatory or unjust.

The progressive’s views revolve around empathy and compassion, which are resistant to any rational arguments, which require a recognition of reality. The insertion of facts, evidence, and history into an argument with a leftist is like throwing a stone into a raging river; it will only appear from the perspective of the leftist as a barrier to progress, and in any event the fluidity of his mind will find a way to circumvent it.

The conservative must face the fact that he has become the radical, the same kind of radical as our founding fathers were. The left has proceeded from the assumption of “the ends justify the means,” and has approached the coercive apparatus of government with an instrumental rationality in order to effect its utopian vision.

The legal system is a tool to the left; the education system is a tool to the left; the media is a tool to the left; and so forth; all institutions are seen as potential power for them to be seized for the cause. Conservatives believe in honoring institutions and thus refrain from utilizing their potential power to accomplish the vision of liberty, freedom, and individual rights.

This must change. We must see institutions in this country as more than sacred traditions to be preserved. We must see institutions as a means to power, with the battle cry of going on the offensive in the name of liberty. All manifestations of injustice and unfreedom must be attacked and swept away.

No, now is time for leftists to be exposed as the selfish, greedy, and envious looters and parasites upon the system that they are. They must be cast down as the ultimate of hypocrites, infiltrators who tells beautiful lies and who manipulate the institutions of society in order to achieve their megalomaniacal dreams of controlling every aspect of human life.

In 2013, we conservatives and libertarians must found, support, and co-opt institutions to propagate the values of liberty and freedom in our culture. We must go on the offensive and attack the left intellectually. We must no longer tolerate the left’s misuse of freedom to institute unfreedom. We must be relentless and we must be bold and speak loudly and clearly — enough!

Our founding fathers, the nation’s first radicals, would do no less. And friends, the harder it gets, the harder we must fight. No quit, no regrets.

The Progressive Bible: El Torre Del Babel

tower-of-babel-19-jun-091Chapter 11

11:1 And the whole nation was of one language, and of one speech.

11:2 And it came to pass, as illegal immigrants were drawn to Obama’s paradise, that they found a plain in the land of Arizona; and they dwelt there.

11:3 And they said one to another, in their own language, Go to, take steel girders, and forge them thoroughly. And they had a beacon for transmitting, and coax had they for cable.

11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a television broadcast tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we decide to illegally immigrate to other nations.

11:5 And Obama came down to see the city and the tower, which these illegal immigrants built.

11:6 And Obama said, Behold, we are a multicultural society, and it is xenophobic to have one language; and this these illegals begin to do: and now since they have successfully jumped the border they may demand of us what they please.

11:7 Go to, let us go down, and provide them with subsidized Spanish language teaching, that future Americans may not understand one another’s speech.

11:8 So Obama presented a huge cardboard check for the first shovel ready jobs: and these illegals set off to build the television tower.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Telemundo; and through it Obama did confound the language of future Americans: and from thence did Obama save or create three million jobs.

Read other chapters of The Progressive Bible: