Henry’s fight against disarmament was echoed in a struggle less than a century later, as gun control measures were installed to prevent black slaves from rising up against their Southern slavemasters. The Gunpowder Affair shows the importance of fighting for self-defense rights against tyrannical government.

In the excellent biographical work James Madison and the Making of America, Kevin C. Gutzman lays out the significance of this seminal event in U.S. history:

When the Congress closed, Madison wrote that the Virginians “universally approved” of its actions because “A spirit of Liberty & Patriotism animates all degrees and denominations of men.” Another way of putting this is that all ranks in society and all religious associations stood for American rights. Further, Madison hazarded that “Many publickly declare themselves ready to join the Bostonians as soon as violence is offered them or resistance though expedient.” Virginians in some parts were organizing themselves into military units, and Madison wanted the entire colony on a war footing.

Madison wrote to [William] Bradford excitedly the following May 9 with a description of the recent colonial response to Lord Dunmore’s seizure of the colonial gunpowder. In the days before bullets, firearms required gunpowder, which was in short supply in the colonies, and so the Virginia governor’s action amounted to an attempt to disarm the colonial militia in a single stroke. Madison was thrilled by the confrontation between the militia and the governor, and particularly by Patrick Henry’s forcing Dunmore to compensate Virginia for the gunpowder.

The confrontation between Lord Dunmore and Patrick Henry, in the backdrop of the battles at Lexington and Concord one day prior to the Gunpowder Affair, would spur along the motion for the freemen of that state to forge a Virginia Declaration of Rights.

A reflection of the collaboration between senior statesman George Mason and the young upstart James Madison, the Virginia declaration is perhaps a more sturdy foundation for liberty in political theory than America’s eventual Bill of Rights. In particular, “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” is a more comprehensive manifesto for freedom than the relatively understated “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” later penned by fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence.

It should be noted that in those days, Virginia was considered by the rebels to be free and independent from Britain as of May 15, 1775. While James Madison would go on to participate in the Continental Congress, witnessing the dysfunction of the Articles of the Confederation before eventually becoming the foremost luminary of The Constitution of the United States, Patrick Henry would go on to become Virginia’s first governor.

But the reason behind the words so familiar to the American ear, ringing throughout the ages in American history, was the all-too-immediate one of disarmament of American citizens. These words might as suitably be penned for the current president as the audience of the Virginia House of Burgesses whom Henry addresses (cited nearly in full because they demand to be read and comprehended):

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss…

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Where are the Patrick Henrys of today’s so-called opposition party? Where are the men of principle and persistence? But a handful, and they deserve our support. And if there are men and women lacking in the political opposition, then we must rise up and replace them!

In an epic bit of video, conservatives get a glimpse of what they are up against: people who believe that it is even conceivable to mint trillion dollar Obama coins to render debts settled. After all, this is pretty close to what the government does with paper money, which are just state-issued permission slips to trade debts.

But what would happen if the Obama team did just that? People would lose more confidence in the U.S. government around the world, since the dollar would be in danger of  cheapening to the point of uselessness and the debt securities that governments hold would be paid back in extremely inflated dollars.

What next? Let me tell you what next. The dollar that people in the United States use as a symbol of trust that debts for goods and services, labor really, would be paid back would fall to pieces. When that happens, the currency that allows people who don’t know one another to trade with each other will be rendered too untrustworthy and the nation’s economic system will be pulled apart by the seams.

The nation itself would then be in danger of crumbling, as people’s diverse economic interests would send them in multiple directions, as they would be loathe to cooperate with others whom they don’t know and trust.

So next time, Jay Carney, that someone asks you if the Obama administration is seriously contemplating minting trillion dollar coins backing the likeness of our American caesar, just do us a favor and allay the market uncertainty — just say no.

H/T Independent Journal Review

Breitbart editor-at-large and author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans” Ben Shapiro took Piers Morgan down a notch on the issue of what should be done after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut. Shapiro accused Piers Morgan of being a “bully” who was “standing on the graves” of Sandy Hook shooting victims while characterizing gun control opponents as ‘unfeeling.’

Shapiro makes the important point about how the left mistakes passion for reason when it comes to policy. Those on the left mistakenly believe that because they feel more, and that means they are inherently on the side of right, meanwhile those who disagree with them are wrong. Rationality and evidence don’t enter into the equation.

And as Shapiro drove home, neither does history — the left dismisses the entire notion that citizens should have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. As Judge Napolitano echoed in his Washington Times article, the Second Amendment acknowledges that citizens’ have “the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.”

At one point, Shapiro pulls out a Constitution, which Piers once refers to as “your little book,” and makes the salient argument that the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution not for purposes of protecting hunting and game shooting, but so citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves from government tyranny. He then made the haunting remark that “the fact that my grandparents in Europe didn’t fear (tyranny) is why they’re ashes.”

Cross-posted at Independent Journal Review

Share this video with people who also oppose the Patriot Act, Tarp, gun control laws, and other policies based on emotion, and not reason.

H/T Independent Journal Review

Take the following emotionally extreme examples into consideration.  Is it right or wrong to kill a baby for a million dollars?  How about murdering a school full of children for a billion dollars?  Or how about shooting a family member for a trillion dollars?

As horrendous as it is to contemplate committing any of these foul acts, the monetary amount, itself a reflection of material resources and human labor, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not something is right.

Now, consider the welfare state.  Is it right or wrong to help a poor person?  What about providing for children’s education?  Or making sure that everyone has health coverage?  These things appear self-evidently right, and therefore the cost doesn’t matter to the left.  Scarcity and how resources are employed don’t enter into the equation.  Voluntary or involuntary, it doesn’t matter how these things are done.  So it doesn’t matter if government forces people to do something or not.

Now consider the case of gun control laws, which have no factual evidence to back up their effectiveness, given real-world constraints.  Guns cannot be un-invented — only taken away and put into some people’s hands, but not others.  But since guns make leftists feel yucky, it’s best to have the government make them disappear.

Since so many on the left are dominated by feelings, and not animated as much by concern for facts and reason, most don’t care about the consequences of their actions.  They just hope that things will get better.  This is not to say that left-wingers are stupid; they are rather expert rationalizers and sophists.  They put the cart before the horse — emotion before reason.

Today’s typical totalitarian leftist is thus not a jackboot-wearing thug, but an overly sensitive, cardigan-wearing milquetoast, whose obsessions about feelings make him immune to rational argument.  The danger of granting the government endless power to do good, like everything else, is rationalized away or dismissed by the leftist, since even the thought of making peace with an imperfect world makes him uncomfortable.  This is why the left will never learn from history: the past is only prologue to the coming utopia, which will be perfectly just and fair.

Leftists are convinced they are on the side of right.  They don’t care about the cost; they care about humanity.  Due to their preoccupation about humanity, they don’t particularly care about individuals (ask any leftist what he thinks about the tens of millions killed by avowed socialists).  This does not mean that leftists are hard-hearted; rather, they tend to be hyper-sensitive stars in their own imagined melodrama.  And furthermore, their emotion-centrism does not rule out calculation and cunning, since their entire thought process is focused on effecting power, which they believe will be used for good.  The ends justify the means.

Left-wingers tend to be crusaders who love everyone so much that they are willing to stick others with the bill for any cause they deem fit.  Save the planet, even if that means some people suffer.  (See malaria and DDT; ethanol subsidies and world hunger; fracking and man-made global warming hysteria, etc.)  Wage an endless and self-defeating war on poverty, meanwhile impoverishing the nation.  Rationalize away human nature, as if punishing productive behavior and subsidizing idleness will not damage an economy over generations.  We are equally poor, but the left feels better for having tried.

Such slipshod thinking makes all discussion about debt pointless.  It doesn’t matter what rational limits one wants to impose on do-gooderism; the leftist just perceives the arguer as evil for even suggesting that there are limits, let alone that there should be limits.  And the obvious fact that government cannot cure all the world’s ills is lost on him.  As Thomas Reed wrote, “[o]ne of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.”

Aggravating this delusion, if someone suggests that he owns his own life, the leftist has two reactions: first, that person is selfish and greedy; and second, that socialist schemes are perfectly compatible with freedom and democracy.  Of course, they aren’t — as the shrewder political observers since Alexis de Tocqueville have been able to figure out.

Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common-equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude.

Human beings don’t need coercion to do what’s right for themselves, but coercion is needed for human beings to force others to sacrifice on their behalves.  The way to make the world better is simple: people should stop using coercion to make others serve them, and people should serve themselves.  Economy and society should be free and respectful of individuals.  This is what the market system is about: serving oneself by serving others, and specifically, by offering goods and services in exchange for money.

Oh, but that’s so heartless!

“But what is the conservative’s response to all the world’s suffering?” the leftist screams.  ”What are we to do about [name the anecdotal case of misfortune]?  Do conservatives really want to do nothing?”

The best answer is captured by Frederic Bastiat.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

The principled answer to the leftist who believes he is on the side of right, and therefore that the means to his ends are inconsequential, is that no one is born into this world owned by anyone else, including the abstract concept of “society.”  An argument against such reasoning is implicitly an argument for the enslavement of some human beings to others.  Since this is anathema to the state of nature and is self-evidently a grotesquery, all rational justification for omnipotent government is ruled out.  A human being’s life is his own means and end-in-itself.

Since civilization flourished due to reason and not pure emotion, as agricultural and productive organization allowed human beings to employ resources in the environment to better their situation, the politicization of emotion, or the use of force to back feelings, leads to anarchy and social destruction.  Leftists should consider this well before believing that any particular misfortune obligates the socialization of suffering, forestalling but never removing accumulated ruin — whether through the means of debt or through the mass wreckage of human lives.

Running counter to this history of social disaster, the Constitution is the pinnacle of reasoned political science and the legal barricade against the mob mentality that drives majoritarian democracy.  Demagogues arise under such a system of government, because they promise the majority the spoils of government looting, meanwhile stoking the flames of populist passions. The rule of law and the scientific method were developed precisely to protect human beings from the hazards of acting on raw emotion and ignorance.  Democratic politicians and left-wing activists, on the other hand, thrive on these human vulnerabilities.

Cross-posted at American Thinker.

Exodus: Chapter 3

3:1 Now Soros kept the flock of Kaine, the priest of Moronia: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of Obama, even to Soetero.

3:2 And the angel of Obama appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a burning American flag: and he looked, and, behold, the flag burned with fire, and the flag was not consumed.

3:3 And Soros said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the flag is not burnt.

3:4 And when Obama saw that he turned aside to see, Obama called unto him out of the midst of the flag, and said, Soros, Soros. And he said, Here am I.

3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is Ground Zero.

3:6 Moreover he said, I am Obama, the god of Matthews, the god of Meacham, and the god of Thomas. And Soros hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon Obama. For Obama, you see, was not fully white.

3:7 And Obama said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in the ghetto, and have heard their cry by reason of their capitalist taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the capitalists, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Reaganites, and the Bushites, and the Jeffersonians, and the Washingtonians, and the Jacksonians, and the Lincolnites.

3:9 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the Husseinites is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Americans oppress them.

3:10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto the Pharaoh Bush II, that thou mayest bring forth my people the Muslims into America.

3:11 And Soros said unto Obama, Who am I, that I should go unto the Pharaoh Bush, and that I should bring forth the children of Obama out of America?

3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of America, ye shall serve Obama upon this hill.

3:13 And Soros said unto Obama, Behold, when I come unto the children of Marxia, and shall say unto them, The dreams of my father hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

3:14 And Obama said unto Soros, YES WE CAN: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Obama, YES WE CAN hath sent me unto you.

3:15 And Obama said moreover unto Soros, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Obama, the dreams of my father, the god of Matthews, the god of Meacham, and the god of Thomas, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

3:16 Go, and gather the elders of the tribe of Obama together, and say unto them, the dreams of my father, the god of Matthews, of Meacham, and of Thomas, appearing on the cable news networks, saying, Obama is truly the messiah, yea, Obama is truly the One:

3:17 And I have said, I will bring them up out of the affliction of America to claim the land of the Reaganites, and the Bushites, and the Jeffersonians, and the Washingtonians, and the Jacksonians, and the Lincolnites, which has been told to be a land flowing with milk and honey.

3:18 And they shall hearken to mine echoing voice, and thy fat wallet: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Marxia, unto the king of America, and ye shall say unto him, Obama of the Husseinites hath met with us, and we seek fundamental change: and now let us go, we beseech thee, five days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice for Obama.

Read other chapters of The Progressive Bible:

• Obama’s Genesis
• Obama in the Garden of Eden
• Al Gore and the Yacht
• El Torre del Babel

The following is a list of resolutions for the GOP in 2013, which was posted at the website Independent Journal Review. Apparently, a lot of people find these recommendations hard to swallow:

1. Unify

Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt speak no evil of another Republican.” The Democrat Party never has a problem getting unified support or opposition to a bill in public. Hammer out your differences before bringing up votes.

2. Diversify

The 2012 RNC had a lot of minority speakers who are rising stars in the party. Keep that trend going. The more advocates for liberty in the Republican party who can connect with people of diverse backgrounds, the better.

3. Shelve the Social Issues

The Democrat Party dines out on Republicans falling into the trap of trying to legislate social policy. The principle of equal protection should be applied, and social issues should be argued about only at the state level, and that doesn’t include candidates for Congress. Republicans should make it a point that they will not seek to implement social issues legislation at the national level (and they shouldn’t).

4. Fresh Faces

We need young, vibrant and enthusiastic speakers in the party, who are passionately opposed to statism. Vocal, intelligent and principled critics of the social welfare state like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul are vital to a party resurgence.

5. Don’t Preach to the Choir

FoxNews is probably the only conservative TV network, so this isn’t a knock on that channel. But basically, only conservatives watch Fox News. The GOP has to go to where moderates are, even if that means confronting hostile interviewers.

6. Forget Perfection

The constant nitpicking about every candidate has got to stop. Do Democrats care about every single issue? They put inept politicians in office on a regular basis, simply for the reason that they aren’t Republicans. Meanwhile, registered GOP voters couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch on November 6th to vote for Romney.

7. New Leadership

Speaker Boehner may mean well, but he hasn’t been very effective opposing Democrats in Congress. The leadership needs to change it up or be replaced by those who are serious about cutting spending and explaining why they want to do so. The House has the power of the purse, after all, and the GOP’s leaders need to learn how to leverage the people’s branch of government.

8. Get Smart

The Republican Party constantly engages in populist politics when it is completely unnecessary. In order to grab hold of the moderates and lock them up, the GOP needs to be seen as smart and mature, while the Democrats need to be looked upon as childish, reckless name-callers. This shouldn’t be that hard to do against a party whose only solution to every problem is to raise taxes and spend trillions of dollars America doesn’t have. Debt is dumb. Start making that case.

Unless a broad coalition like the tea party, which actually did shelve social issues in 2010, arises to unite against big government — we’re going to see a repeat of 2012. The political fight has to be treated like a long, cultural battle for the heart of the country, not like a one-term election proposition, which the right just lost.

Instead of learning its lesson, the GOP electorate thinks it needs to push back harder, when it should be recruiting more people into its ranks. Don’t take on this image of pushing back too hard, even as we seek to fight the left tooth and nail, but instead entice people into the party.

Stop trying to fight on all parts of the political terrain, instead of picking the most important one or two battles, and making a stand there. Obstinacy on social issues won’t mean much when the central government is running 90% of the economy. Pick debt, free speech, and gun control, and win on those issues. Forget the other stuff at the national level, or suffer ruin.

Ultimately, for the GOP to rebrand successfully, it has to be seen as the mature and reasonable party, and the Democrats need to be cast as childish, reckless name-callers.

Just a friendly word of advice from someone who was very active in the tea party and in the successful 2010 Congressional elections. I’m fiercely against abortion (not for religious reasons), gun control, more spending, tax increases, and the social welfare state. But this isn’t about my personal views, this is about preserving and expanding liberty.

H/T Independent Journal Review

Do you agree or disagree with this list? Comment below.

During the entire torturous game of shadow puppets that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party played in the run-up to the disastrous fiscal cliff deal, every single conservative knew how it would play out. The president would make some outrageous demands, pretend to compromise, and get basically everything he wanted from an effectively complicit Republican Party.

This play has been run so many times in Washington the last few decades, from George H.W. Bush onward, that one has to wonder if there is any actual opposition in either party or in the mainstream media to America’s obvious lurch towards a socialist police state.

It begs the question: Is the Republican Party a legitimate opposition party? Or has the GOP been captured by socialists and is being used to promote their agenda? Seems like a bit too Robert Zemeckis for most Americans to buy, unless one can get past the slick interchange of left-wing terms like “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “liberalism.”

But why can’t it happen here? Nations all over the world have been captured by socialists: Russia, Serbia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Cuba, Greece, Spain, Britain, and France — that’s just to name a few of the more obvious examples. It’s not to say the severity of socialism is the same: just like with diseases, peoples have varying immune responses, resistance, and coping mechanisms for dealing with the communist disorder.

America is pretty far along in its descent into collectivism. Thirty years ago, one could have said the same thing. But the Cold War kept Americans’ resistance high. Perhaps when the U.S.S.R. formally disbanded, leaving in place many of the same faces from its KGB apparatus, and the cause of radical environmentalism mysteriously appeared from out of nowhere on the UN stage, people began to lower their defenses.

The proof of the left’s effectiveness can be shown by the last few elections. President Obama has a well-explored socialist past, including but not limited to proven affiliation with the socialist New Party in Illinois. The president never had a noticeable public “coming out party,” when he rejected socialism and embraced the U.S.’ system of Constitutional government (on the contrary). Occasionally, President Obama mouths the words ‘free enterprise,’ but these empty words have no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Yet the mainstream media, let alone the Republican Party, rarely if ever mention the president’s radical leftist associations and tendencies. Speculatively, one must consider the possibility that the GOP is being used as a willing scapegoat in a socialist ruse called “controlled opposition.”

Alternatively, another way of putting it is that there are a significant number of members of the Republican Party who pretend to be on board with Constitutional government and free economy, but who are actually leftists or so-called “progressives.” They knowingly lie about their ideological loyalties, and then vote against liberty on key issues — whether on national security items or social welfare spending. From a theoretical standpoint, the problem is thus both ideological and practical.

In order to understand the argument that the Republican Party could essentially be “captured” by socialists (whether through ideological or operative influence), a bit of background information is needed. Below is an excerpt from Theodore Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” The entry of 45 Current Communist Goals into the 1963 Congressional record by Representative Herlong, Jr. of Florida can be found here.

Below lists some of the major entries:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (See recent article, “Professor calls for abolition of Constitution.”)

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["united force"] to solve economic, political or social problems.

If the Congressional record isn’t enough of a trustworthy source, one could go right to a primary document — the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a critical mind can see most of the planks from the manifesto have been implemented with a stunning degree of success. But let’s address specifically the socialist tactic of “controlled opposition.”

Socialist regimes struggling to maintain legitimacy sometimes use the fake appearance of democracy and choice, as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. This theory actually explains the behavior of Republicans much better than the alternative hypothesis that the GOP actually cares about this country and its Constitution or the null hypothesis that the Republican Party is not controlled by socialists.

When Republican politicians like Governor Chris Christie hyperventilate about a bloated Superstorm Sandy relief bill, bemoaning that Republicans don’t care about those suffering in his state, that is a perfectly socialist thing to say. When Peter King goes on CNN and sobs about this porked-up $60 billion spending bill being held up by House Republicans, and he argues like it is assumed that politicians should be visiting states like New York to buy off voters, that is also a perfectly socialist thing to say. When King slams the GOP, sabotaging its role as an opposition party from within, one that presumably disagrees with runaway spending of taxpayers’ money, again — this is all too predictable from a socialist orchestration standpoint.

The question becomes: How would lying socialists act any different?

There is the alternative explanation that these politicians are ideologically subverted and are simply unable to understand what role they are playing in this left-wing charade. Personally, this is hard to believe, because it’s all so obvious and calculated for those who know anything about socialism and communism. Witness the thousands of East European, Russian, and Cuban emigres screaming about the socialist tendencies of the Democrat Party and the new tone of American politics.

Unfortunately, there are really hardly any contradictions to the theory that the Republicans are unopposed to socialism. What would it really take for a majority of representatives in the Congress to oppose the obvious maneuver to bankrupt the country and put the infrastructure in place for a communist police state? All it takes are votes, and yet we all wring our hands as if it would be an act of bravado akin to Mission Impossible.

Government never gets reduced in size, and the budget hardly ever get seriously cut, regardless of the public outcry or danger to the public finances. Yes, politicians may be cowards, but they are also not idiots. They have children and grandchildren too, and they must assume that it is better to be in the government, than out of it.

Thus, several prominent Republicans revolting would be consistent at this Destabilization stage in what KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called the Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-Normalization paradigm of communist subversion. It would be textbook salami tactics from the party infiltrators.

Those who observe Russian politics understand that there are foil parties — ultra-nationalist and communist parties that play a role in making the regime seem reasonable –  as well as fake political opposition candidates who are actually lapdogs of the Kremlin. The last election that brought back former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin into formal power from his position of de facto power is an excellent case-in-point. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov appeared out of nowhere to run against Putin, right in the midst or roiling protests precisely against the stage-managed farce of Russian “democracy.” (Interestingly enough, it appears that the Obama campaign even borrowed its ‘first vote’ deflower power idea from some of Putin’s more amorous ads.)

On the ideological side of the equation, the left-right dichotomy is thoroughly corrupt, as it is framed and reinforced by corporate-run mainstream media. Corporations, for the record, are not necessarily supporters of “capitalism,” as demonstrated by the bailout and stimulus spending debacles. But no longer is the fight in the main public forum between left-wing statists and Constitution-supporting freedom fighters; but rather it is between fighters for the police state on one hand, and fighters for the welfare state on the other.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that this deadly dance ultimately leads to a totalitarian basketcase; after both parties get through trading quid pro quo votes in fake opposition kabuki theater, the result is a massive Department of Homeland Security under the sole authority of the executive branch and a media clamoring for gun confiscation at the first sight of any inevitable mass murder or other horrific gun crime.

The two parties are blending together in an act the communists called “convergence” — which is a mind-trick that normalizes the psychological perception of behavior through false dichotomies and calculated dialectics. This incremental tactic pushes the hard left narrative ever more into the mainstream of political awareness, due to the exclusion of rational, conservative alternatives.

The university education system, for example, plays a role in this process by censoring pro-market or pro-Constitutional materials out of syllabi and class discussions. The debate is framed between the hard left and the soft left, as if those perspectives are the only two alternatives. Political correctness and intimidation guides the conversation ever more to the hard left, specifically through the use of rhetorical tactics like the Delphi Technique.

This “convergence” is also the grand strategy for (former) communist states like China and former avowedly communist states like present day former KGB-run Russia. While these states introduce cosmetic market and democratic reforms, they remove the perception of threat that comes from communist infiltration and subversion (not that these states have to do much of anything nowadays to feed this — their guy is already in place). Communism becomes an archaic concern; it is removed from visibility, and repackaged under the guise of UN-led initiatives like radical environmentalism. Pivoting from staunch Cold War foe to mutual allies in forming an unaccountable world government takes “flexibility,” which could only come from a “reset” of relations.

When one examines the United Nations, and researches who formed the body, one finds that known socialists like Lauchlin Currie, Edouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov were instrumental in the mission. With Keynesianism being institutionalized at Bretton Woods, a slow war of attrition against capitalism was ensured, using the Federal Reserve (a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto) as a transmission belt to stretch the dollar to its breaking point, meanwhile eroding property rights and other aspects of free economy.

It is such the case that the federal government effectively owns the monetary system, owns “capital,” and thus, owns “capitalism.” We are all basically slaves to this ignoble machine. The government is micro-managing the economy into foreseeable and avoidable disaster.

Conclusively, numerous politicians in both parties are pushing America towards socialism on purpose. Where is the outcry from the Republican Party? Where is the outrage at the spending? What about the police state and our rights? If these politicians actually felt something must be said or done, they would find a way to make it happen. Instead, most Republicans are silent as church mouses, folding their hands or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

One has to hand it to the leftists — their sick, twisted plan has come off brilliantly. There are so many ignoramuses and “half-baked intellectuals” out there who are unmoved by any appeal to rational self-interest, that it doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you hit them with, they won’t ‘get it’ until a black boot kicks them in their fat bottoms.

The New Year has arrived, and along with it, an epiphany of sorts. After struggling for years to be an advocate of free enterprise and limited government, it’s finally time to concede to leftists. It would be so much easier that way — just become a lefty, and instantly have positive reinforcement all around you confirming your every thought!

Why not? It seems like a great time to be a radical leftist, looking down on conservatives and calling them names without any concern for the truth. The following is a list of 50 reasons why it surely rocks to be a progressive in 2013:

1. You can force America’s children to pay for your future retirement and healthcare expenses, and still be considered compassionate.
2. Whatever your heart desires, it’s a “right.”
3. You can make other people pay for your stuff, and call them selfish and greedy if they refuse.
4. Stealing is no longer crime, but an act of redistributive justice.
5. All you have to do is agree with the mainstream media, and you’re automatically right.
6. People who play pretend for a living think your demands are perfectly reasonable.
7. Budgets are completely unnecessary, so throw away your calculators!
8. Debt ceases to exist if you stop believing in it.
9. Go through life assuming that the only thing a nation needs to be prosperous is a printing press and unlimited government authority.
10. Supporting Democrat politicians is like voting for Christmas all year long!
11. Anything different than the Constitutional government that led to our free society is exciting and “progressive.”
12. If you come out in opposition to economic freedom, you are guaranteed at least one toast on the Manhattan-Washington cocktail circuit.
13. If you somehow get into the magical circle of “government,” all that jibber-jabber about equality no longer applies.
14. You can rail against the cruelty of competition, except when it comes to such things as academic tenure.
15. Pick some members of a minority group. Now, feed those people’s sense of inferiority and victimization. Doesn’t that feel awesome?
16. Knocking your competitors down to the lowest common denominator is an act of “fairness.”
17. Taking money from wealth producers and using it to buy votes isn’t “corruption,” it’s a way of life.
18. No matter what the problem is, we can always throw some money at it.
19. Pretending like history doesn’t exist is thought of as scholarly and professorial.
20. Reject the notion that there is so such thing as human nature. Why? Because anything is possible!
21. You can feel more ‘tolerant’ than others because you don’t blame people, you blame inanimate objects like guns. And the NRA.
22. Even in states and cities that have been run by Democrats for years, it’s always Republicans’ fault.
23. If anyone disagrees with a black progressive for any reason whatsoever — racist!!
24. Rail against warmongering Republicans, but not have to bother when a Democrat is in office.
25. Evangelize against the worst sin in the world — discrimination. Condemn the individual’s right to be ignorant without any sense of irony.
26. Multiculturalism means not having to actually know what’s going on around the world, while feeling sophisticated for acknowledging that diversity exists.
27. Look down on nativist rubes, because patriotism is a kind of hate crime against other societies.
28. If your opponent supports legal immigration, delight in calling him a closed-minded bigot. (Even when the nations the undocumented are coming from restrict immigration.)
29. When your opponents refuse to pay for your birth control and abortions, cry they are carrying out a “war on women.”
30. The most noble thing a person can do is depend on the government for her whole life, as demonstrated by that faceless woman “Julia” in that campaign cartoon.
31. Promote policies based on your good intentions, and never have to worry about the consequences.
32. Treat people like they’re numbers or abstractions, and get credit for caring about “humanity.”
33. Make the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes, and then complain whenever there is a budget shortfall that the rich aren’t paying “their fair share.”
34. Whenever something happens that promotes the progressive agenda, bemoan the need for a “national conversation,” which will be 90% dictated by left-wing media.
35. Complain about the hegemony of capitalist society, but disregard the fact that the schools, the universities, the media and the courts are controlled by leftists.
36. Whatever left-wing radicals believe is “moderate,” and conservatives who believe in maintaining our relatively free society and prosperous economy are “extremists.”
37. It doesn’t matter how good the standard of living is for those who are poor, we can always complain that there are people who have more than them. Hence, more power for us to engage in “economic justice.”
38. We can call ourselves progressive by promoting primitive, back-to-nature environmentalist superstition, and no one will bat an eye.
39. Our common cause of restoring herd mentality to human civilization is considered to be forward-looking.
40. Revel in your tolerance of other people, except for those who have a different opinion than you.
41. Don’t worry about making intellectual arguments to the masses, just buy them off with other people’s money.
42. Listen to Green Day albums on your Ipod while drinking Starbucks coffee and seriously complain that corporations are oppressing you.
43. If our side can’t convince enough Americans to agree with us, we can import millions of immigrants from other countries who have little understanding what our political system is all about.
44. While we wring our hands about the lack of critical thinking in schools and universities, we can ensure that there is widespread uniformity of opinion in accordance with political correctness.
45. Look down your nose at the U.S.’ Founding Fathers, and be confident that you are wiser than them because you live in the future. Thankfully, we don’t have to refute their arguments, just dismiss them as propertied white people who owned slaves (and therefore, we can claim all the measures they took to abolish slavery in the future as our idea).
46. Hide the left’s history of racism, and then accuse your opponents of being racists. It’s fun!
47. We can control two out of three branches of government after implementing almost every policy we want, and then still get away with blaming our opposition for the failure of the policies!
48. Get 90% of your news from mainstream media, and accuse your opponents of living in a bubble.
49. Pat yourself on the back for picking friends who all agree with you. Feel like a rebel for conforming to their non-conformity.
50. If you believe that government is God, capitalists are devils, and it’s possible to create a heaven on earth, then welcome to the Church of Progressivism!

Unfortunately, since the language of the Constitution can be technical and outdated, republishing something as brilliant as The Federalist Papers simply wouldn’t convince many people that so-called “progressives” are actually on the wrong side of history.

Most people do not understand that “progressives” are authoritarians fighting to undo the American political system, which was put into place to keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever they want with other people’s lives.

Instead of forming another complicated defense of the law of the land, let’s put the U.S. Constitution in terms everyone can understand:

We run this country. Politicians are there to do their jobs and that’s it. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. (See The Declaration of Independence.)

The House of Representatives and Senate pass the laws. This is so we don’t feel stupid for electing dictators who can do whatever they want. Putting more jerks in office makes it harder for them to work together to pass harmful laws. Since they are egomaniacs, they will fight for power and hopefully cancel each others’ idiocy out.

Not just any fool can be a Representative. Just fools of a certain age and citizenship status. Senators have to be a bit older, but certainly no wiser that Representatives.

The Congress has to actually meet once in a while. This is not a problem for career politicians. If you act like a douchebag, we can kick you out. We probably won’t, but don’t push it. No double-dipping.

Spending bills start in the House, even though some political parties act like they don’t. The House decides what stuff and how much of it the government buys. It decides what countries to invade. Don’t go trampling on people’s civil liberties. States aren’t separate countries, and shouldn’t act like them.

If you’re a thirty-five year old citizen with no real record of accomplishment, you too can be an American president! The president has to take an oath to the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t get elected to rule over other Americans. He gets to make treaties and pick bureaucrats.

Every year, the president makes a nice speech to Congress. He should take care not to insult members of the other branches. Believe it or not, the president can be kicked out of office.

There’s a bunch of judges who decide tough cases called the Supreme Court. They too can be kicked out, but they can generally stay on the court as long as they want to. The Supreme Court gets to rule on certain cases of importance.

It’s possible to commit treason against one’s country, but since most of the founders of the country were called traitors, it’s almost impossible.

We have a republican form of government, not a democracy. That means we have a bunch of somewhat independent states that are supposed to work together, help each other out, and follow the rules.

Don’t like something in the Constitution? We actually have a way to change it built in! That means none of you who don’t like the Constitution gets to say, “hey, why don’t we just forget about the Constitution?” If you have a bright idea, let’s see how much the public agrees with you.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It gives the government all of its legitimate powers, and also limits what the government can do to people. Politicians are nothing but citizens who are equal to other citizens and hold office only by the people’s consent. If politicians start bossing people around, and break their oaths of office, then the Constitution is nullified, and the authority of the government is voided.

In that worst case scenario, Washington politicians would be just a collection of 537 guys trying to order around more than 300 million Americans, but they would have no more legitimate authority than anyone else. “Giving up on the Constitution” means we should all forget about what Washington politicians say and why we should listen to them at all.

All of the states whose spokesmen sign this document agree to form a federal government on these conditions only. Without this binding agreement, there is no federal government.

Bonus: The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment — We can say whatever we want and believe whatever we want, and the government has no say in it.

2nd Amendment — We have the right to defend ourselves from the government and criminals using firearms.

3rd Amendment — Soldiers and policemen can’t just bust into your house like they own the joint and crash there.

4th Amendment — Police can’t just search people randomly, go through their stuff, ask for their papers, and all that business.

5th Amendment — The government can’t just take stuff or lock people up without a trial.

6th Amendment — Trials have to be speedy and fair.

7th Amendment — People have a right to be judged by other folks who can understand them.

8th Amendment — Judges can’t just straight up rip people off or do cruel and unusual stuff to them.

9th Amendment — Just because it isn’t written down here, doesn’t mean people don’t have other rights.

10th Amendment — If the Constitution doesn’t say that the government can do something, it can’t do it. The people and the states have all the powers not otherwise given to the federal government.

Conservatives are no fans of Barack Obama, but let’s admit it: it must be awesome to be this guy. Before checking to make sure this is Conservative Daily News you’re reading, consider the following top 20 list of  reasons:

1. Although you are the most visible public figure in the world, instruct the mainstream media to keep all the skeletons in your closet a complete mystery.
2. Make millions of dollars on likely ghost-written books, and then wag your finger at millionaires and other one-percenters.
3. Despite being one of the most radical figures in American history, convince millions that you’re a moderate and those in your opposition are actually extremists.
4. Smoke cigarettes, toke weed and do coke in your past and get a complete pass from the media.
5. Have people actually give a damn about your NCAA tournament bracket.
6. Do nothing but golf over a hundred times, skip your jobs board meetings for months, and then argue with a straight face that you “will not rest” until you get unemployment under control.
7. Take all the credit for anything even remotely good, like killing Osama bin Laden, while passing off all the damage from your destructive policies on Bush or Boehner.
8. Carry out almost the exact same war policies as your much-vilified predecessor George W. Bush, and not hear so much as a peep out of the rabid anti-war left.
9. Although you haven’t run so much as a lemonade stand in your life, live large as a billionaire.
10. Throw a baseball like a girl as you wear mom jeans, ride a bike looking like Urkel, and get called “eye candy” on The View.
11. Spend trillions of dollars you did absolutely nothing to earn or make on virtually whatever you want.
12. Publicly scarf down ribs, ice cream, burgers, beer and pizza and lecture the country about nutrition.
13. Engage in race-baiting character assassination against a white policeman by saying he “acted stupidly” by arresting a friend, then have a beer with him and laugh about it.
14. Arm Mexican drug cartels with assault weapons, leading to the deaths of dozens of Mexican citizens and American border patrol agent Brian Terry. Upon hearing the news of any horrific public shooting, act like you care deeply about the victims and immediately call for tighter gun control laws.
15. When a nine-hour raid on a diplomatic mission results in the deaths of four American servicemen, blame an anti-Islamic video for weeks and refuse to call it terrorism. Pretend that even though you’re the Commander-in-Chief, you were nothing but an innocent bystander, and that no military aid could have possibly gotten to the compound. Instead of addressing the national security meltdown, fundraise and drink champagne with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
16. Fly around the world bowingto foreign dictators and pal around with socialists. Then bridle when people call that unpresidential.
17. Call those Americans who participate in an orderly, grassroots series of protests the nasty epithet “teabaggers,” while telling those who took part in the destructive, criminal,  disease-infested Occupy Movement that they are the reason he ran for office.
18. Admit you hung out with marxists in your biography, mimic the exact same tax the rich policies as socialists in Europe, and then vehemently reject the notion that you’re a socialist.
19. Become the most powerful man in the world after doing nothing outside of being a politician, except for being a mediocre university lecturer and leftist community organizer.
20. Anytime someone says anything bad about you — racist!!

On the other side of the ledger: married to Michelle Obama (just kidding).

SHARE this article with those who idolize Barack Obama for a good laugh!

The implementation of the value of equality is the cover the left runs under to destroy capitalism, hierarchical political and social structures, and reason as a prelude to human reinvention. Since equality is not an ethic grounded in reality or reflected by nature, this moral imperative wars against nature, and by extension, human nature itself.

Why are those on the left so dismissive of human nature in their worldview? Why do they not account for economic limitations whatsoever? The answer is that they share a deeply totalitarian desire to create values in absolute freedom and to remake humanity as they see fit. This necessarily entails giving the state unlimited power.

Leftists argue that conservatism is obsolete because its assumptions about human beings’ rational nature are ill-founded. Many on the left believe that the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason portrays a half-human view of people. They claim that they desire to integrate man’s rational and emotional sides in order to restore human relations and a government based on compassion, empathy, and love, rather than rational self-interest.

But primarily because they tend to live in a state of material comfort, leftists are led to believe that civilization is an artificial state of affairs where man is insulated from the demands of nature; and therefore, natural law. Human nature and history do not apply. In other words, man can be reinvented and re-engineered by a socialist vanguard. This endeavor would supposedly save man and eliminate war, poverty, and misery.

Human experience does not support the left’s point of view. The main source of the leftist’s misunderstanding of human nature is that he assumes that man is a product of society. He also directly and irrationally wars against the chief factor that led to human civilization: rationality.

Rationality to the left is a grave enemy. It is a state of mind appearing to the left as rigid, blunt, and alien. The leftist adopts this view of rationality because he fears the regimentation of human life and thought, the formalization of human relations in a market (what Marxists might call “commodifying” human relations), and the withering of emotions such as compassion and empathy. Ironically, it is the pursuit of a society rooted in emotion and not reason that leads straight to the collectivist mob mentality so characteristic of totalitarian regimes.

The left’s emotion-based outlook creates what has been called “repressive tolerance,” or an irrational lashing out against human judgment and all forms of traditional morality. The cultural marxist left cannot accept “civil society” as a place of free-ranging emotions and spontaneous value creation, competition, and destruction in the industrial-capitalist context; to him, society must be co-opted and managed towards the obliteration of value judgment as a necessary step towards domination of the economic system.

Mankind must be economically dominated so that social engineering can proceed from a material basis. In the capitalist hierarchical context the left’s destructive plan is carried out by rewarding conformist behavior or non-critical thought; by suppressing those who succeed relative to others and who refuse to bend to leftist dictates; and by incentivizing failure. This system insulates the entrenched elites from challengers from below and embeds the elites’ fiats in all human relations.

Thus, there is an important flaw in the left’s reasoning (if we may distinguish it for sake of argument from rationalization), one encapsulated well by Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” or the idea that in every political system, oligarchs have a tendency to rule — the left exculpates itself from its own moral system, which is supposedly based on equality.

So we return to our original problem of man: Is he naturally a rational animal or an irrational emotional animal? The answer is that he is “naturally” neither.

Man has the capacity to reason; and as Ayn Rand shows in The Virtue of Selfishness, this faculty must be actively engaged and exercised or it decays and shrivels. Man has emotional instincts as well, and these are the most fundamental of needs to satisfy for healthy humans. But emotion must be put in the service of reason in order for civilization to flourish. Why is this?

Because a society that operates purely on emotion is not a society at all. It is animalistic in orientation at its very core. Justice itself is a concept that implies the application of uniform standards of behavior in society as a whole. This aspect of civilization proper requires reason, and not empathy or emotion removed from logic.

Without justice, the strong are free to oppress the weak, the clever to swindle the dull, and ruthless megalomaniacs to manipulate and rule the masses. There must be a set of codified morality to guide society, or else arbitrary or pure emotion will cause fluctuations in social relations, occasionally spilling into mob violence.

Only individual rationality can prevent the exploitation of man by man. Emotional manipulation, primarily employing fear, can only be countered with critical reason. The opposite of fear that is blind hope has been the preferred tool of demagogues since the dawn of civilization.

Yet emotion, and the display of it, has an important role to play in human relations. There is no actual dispute on this point here. There is the matter, however, of the role emotion plays in politics. For this matter, we should refer again to the importance of values.

Socialism fails because of its inability to acknowledge human nature and motivation. To quote Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action:

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly happy. (13)

Socialism sets out to fulfill human happiness through the provision of base material needs, but incentivizes idleness by removing the necessity to produce what satisfies those material needs. Socialism therefore leads ultimately to economic implosion. The system also debases people by destroying virtue, since loyalty to the party trumps all else. It demoralizes society by crushing the human spirit, thereby leading to precisely the kind of widespread alienation it proclaims to cure.

Men, being ultimately demoralized, do not cooperate with their enslavers under socialism, but are rather ambivalent. After society’s values are obliterated, wanton corruption and shameless inhumanity ensue. The result is an unproductive, impoverished, irrational, and vulgar society that collapses according to its own internal contradictions.

The task for the American patriot who seeks to preserve his society intact is to engage in rational discourse and value transmission with his fellow citizens. Individualist ethics, shared humanity, and truth are the weapons to prevent our demoralization and economic destruction.

Most importantly, it is our behavior in our community, our little kindnesses, our kindred observations, our understanding of the point of view of others and our friendly challenges to erroneous thinking that make the difference in the long-run. As Vaclav Havel put it, we must “live in truth” in order to defeat socialism.

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.

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)

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.