Category Archives: Kyle Becker

Former IRS Tax Exempt Head Sarah Hall Ingram Met with White House Staff 165 Times

The IRS scandal keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. The former head of the tax-exempt office, who reassuringly will now be running the Obamacare division, attended meetings at the White House 165 times.

The Daily Caller reports:

Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS official currently in charge of overseeing the agency’s implementation of Obamacare, has logged 165 recorded visits to the White House 165 times since 2011, according to an analysis of White House visitor records compiled by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Ingram headed the IRS’ tax-exempt division in 2010 when the scandal-ridden agency began improperly targeting the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative groups.

Despite logging 165 visits, Ingram’s meetings never overlapped with those of former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, who, as The Daily Caller reported, has appeared in the White House visitor logs 157 times since September 15, 2009.

The chief of the tax exempt office Sarah Hall Ingram was moved to head the IRS’ Obamacare office right as Lois ‘I’ll take the Fifth’ Lerner took over. That former head of the IRS tax exempt office is now on paid vacation administrative leave.

Lerner personally signed letters granting and denying 501c status to several groups; including a fast-tracking and potentially illegal backdating of the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which is run by Barack Obama’s brother Malik. If you don’t know Malik Obama, he has 12 wives and hangs out with war criminals in the terrorist state of Sudan. But that’s another story.

Ingram left the IRS tax exempt office right as the tea party targeting began in April 2010. Just one day before that started, Colleen Kelley, who is the head of the National Treasury Employees Union representing the IRS, met with “POTUS” or the President of the United States. The NTEU’s political PAC donated 98% of its campaign contributions to the Democrat Party in 2010 and 94% in 2012.

As reported by CNS News:

The White House visitor log shows that NTEU President Colleen Kelley met with Obama–“POTUS,” President of the United States–on March 31, 2010.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on the IRS’s targeting of the tax-exempt applications of Tea Party groups for heightened scrutiny includes a “Comprehensive Timeline of Events” that outlines the IRS actions in this matter over the course of more than two years. The fourth item in this timeline says that on “April 1-2, 2010,” the “new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager agreed.”

The White House’s numerous meetings with the IRS head, the tax exempt division, and its union head, show that it was highly involved with the tax agency while it was targeting conservative groups. The IRS’ top officials can be proven to have known about the tea party’s targeting in 2011; but they withheld the information from Congress, despite the agency’s reporting requirements, during the president’s election campaign.

There may be no smoking gun tying the president himself to this scandal, which is besides the point. The IRS officials involved in this scandal were acting like political operatives working on the president’s behalf. They were engaged in highly unethical and dangerous behavior violating the Constitution’s First Amendment protections regarding freedom of association.

The president is acting like a bystander in his own administration, while numerous violations of citizens’ rights are taking place. When a president appoints highly partisan officials to wield executive authority, he is responsible. When a president refuses to wield duly granted authority to correct or prevent agency abuse, it is a form of willing complicity. In many cases, what the president isn’t doing is just as important as what he is doing.

Cross-posted at IJReview.com.

Obama’s First-Term Track Record on Civil Liberties & Why It Matters Now

The Rutherford Institute does just a fantastic job cataloging President Obama’s numerous infractions against civil liberties, which extend back to before he was president.

As John Whitehead explains, the president has shown himself to be a supporter of civil liberties infringements time and time again. Of particular interest, the president reversed himself in 2008 and supported granting telecoms retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws in conjunction with Bush-era domestic spying. As the CNET article Whitehead cites explains:

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from liberal supporters for changing his position on granting phone companies involved in President Bush’s domestic spying program retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws.

Previously, Obama opposed any immunity for the telecom companies. In February, Obama voted on a Senate bill against retroactive immunity. And when asked for CNET News.com’s 2008 Technology Voters’ Guide whether he supported “giving (phone companies) retroactive immunity for any illicit cooperation with intelligence agencies or law enforcement, ” he answered “No.”

During the primary, Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the Times story said. But now he has switched his position to support a compromise bill that was worked out between the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders.

So when candidate Obama knew that his presidential election was in the bag, he was already reversing himself on his civil libertarian stances. What really mattered to Obama was appearing like an outsider; but even the backing of huge banking establishments like Chase and Goldman Sachs, and later General Electric and Google, should have been a dead giveaway that this man’s image did not match what he was there to do: loot the Treasury and change the American tradition of respecting individual rights.

The Obama track record is important because it shows that the violations of civil liberties happening right now are not anomalies. The IRS scandal of targeting tea party, conservative, Christian, pro-Israel and pro-Constitution groups is not a fluke. The DOJ going after the phone records of the AP and Fox News reporter James Rosen is not a fluke.

The EPA waiving fees on Freedom of Information Act requests much more often for progressive groups than for conservative groups is not a fluke. HHS strong-arming companies falling under Obamacare authority to contribute money to a “charity” is not a fluke. The NSA gathering phone records for both foreign and domestic calls is not a fluke.

The president has portrayed himself as a community change-agent fighting against the system. In reality, he is the ultimate user and abuser of the system to implement authoritarian measures and to infringe on civil liberties.

More importantly, the abuse of civil liberties can always be expected whenever the government operates without media and democratic accountability. Big government is always bad government.

What we are seeing are not even separate scandals, but a scandalous government seeking to “fundamentally transform” the country into one where such rewarding of political allies and punishment of friends is the standard operating procedure of the government.

That is why the government wants to disarm the people. That is why it wants to regulate everyone’s property down to the toilet water and the light bulb. That is why it wants everyone enrolled in a government healthcare system where bureaucrats like Kathleen Sebelius can act like a death panel deciding who lives and who dies.

That is why the same IRS that was targeting conservatives will be enforcing the penalties and will have access to people’s medical records. That is why Obama’s re-election team and Google are virtually the same people, and the search engine is harvesting everything people do on their servers.

This is not big government run amok; this is how big government runs. And the sooner all Americans can stop their partisan bickering long enough to acknowledge it, the better off we’ll all be.

Cross-posted at IJReview.com.

President Obama’s Push to Disarm Citizens & the Legacy of Patrick Henry

It was in that golden moment prior to America’s founding as a free country, the April of 1775, that the move to disarm Virginians was occasioned. John Murray, the fourth lord of Dunmore, was moved to seize stores of gunpowder after a tart firebrand going by the name of Patrick Henry served notice that the freemen of Virginia were not fit to be slaves and would not be ruled like them.

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!

Kabuki Theater: Is the GOP “Controlled Opposition”?

kabuki

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.

Why It Must Be Awesome to Be Barack Obama

obamalaugh

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!

Socialism Destroys Society

1014982_socialismThe socialist left purports to promote universal acceptance, the provision of basic human needs, and the freeing of spontaneous creative impulses. But due to several fundamental misunderstandings about humanity, which play directly into the hands of totalitarian politicians, socialists actually destroy human rationality, content families, harmonious societies, productive economies, and any semblance of government based on true justice.

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.

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.

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)

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 Climate of Fear & Powerlessness

fear1In this once free country, we have settled into a “permanent revolution” of non-stop fear and anxiety paralysis,  induced by the mainstream media’s terrorist tactics so that citizens learn to stop standing up for their rights and give in to unlimited government.

We are now pointing at inanimate objects and as amorphous a thing as “the culture” to explain the actions of a single, sick shooter. America is to blame for the miscreants and fluke tragedies of everyday life in a nation of more than 300 million people in one of the largest countries in the world.

Every last individual is to be suspected as a potential criminal, because we have depraved criminals. Every American must be asked to give up his rights, because some don’t know how to responsibly exercise their rights.

Those responsible citizens who believe in such well-accepted things as free speech, the right to adequate self-defense, and a government that spends within our means have all of a sudden become “extreme.” Because of the widespread acceptance of the truism that opinions are subjective, the perspective of what is extreme depends on the mind’s eye of the viewer. There are no objective standards for willful ignoramuses (and that is one reason why conservatives should take seriously the philosophy of Objectivism).

The right wants us to fear others. The left wants us to fear ourselves. What we should fear is the government. The behavior of the media and the government make it apparent that both parties have ulterior motives, and are exploiting tragedies for political gain in a way that would make terrorists proud.

The former hippie burnouts that make up today’s left-wing intelligentsia have gone from fighting the power to fighting for power; instead of opposing the man, they want to be the man.

In a masterstroke of irony, the same tree-hugging, weed-smoking, communal-living lefties who once wanted to “drop out” of the system now clammer for a micro-managing, hyper-regulatory, tax-and-spend government with powers tantamount to a police state. People can no longer trust themselves is the underlying message; they should trust the government with complete power in the blind faith that it will never be abused.

This is a great puzzle — something akin to playing Jenga drunk and blindfolded. But it is simply beyond the scope of a blog piece to explore why the liberal mind is a relativistic maze of internal contradictions strung together by fuzzy yarns of emotion and repressive tolerance. Simply pulling that thread would result in a mess requiring a psychotherapist on the order of Freud years to put back together. Instead of probing those irrational depths with the dim flashlight of rational thought, we will simply look at how the media manipulate non-objective minded souls on both the left and the right.

Fear. America witnessed it after 9/11. The feeling of awestruck terror, the initial shock bleeding into helplessness, as the second plane made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t an accident. Somebody had hijacked those planes and intended for Americans to die. The insecurity smoldering in the wreckage settled into a palpable way of life for years afterwards; and the event’s aftershocks are still felt today.

Unsureness as an American way of life was rare throughout the Clinton years prior; although the horrifying Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shooting provoked an intense sense of tragedy in the public at large. Other events were more memorable for political junkies: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Unabomber — these events strangely came to symbolize a subculture where those who feared the government became branded by the media as nutjobs. Argument by anecdote is a left-wing media forte.

In that bygone era, mobilization to enact sweeping changes, such as something radical like gun confiscation, was clumsy and ineffectual. The populace was not sufficiently terrorized to give up its right to self-defense, whether from a criminal or the state (then again, I repeat myself)..

The hard left was once again forced to take the incrementalist road. People were alarmed and therefore wanted to “cling to their guns.” What the left needed were alarming tragedies that would persuade people their guns needed to be pried away. Left-wing agitators didn’t need to conjure up a catastrophe; they merely needed to observe the maxim “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

What gives the mainstream media game away to some extent are those things they choose to highlight and those they choose to ignore. Some things promote the left-wing media agenda, others do not. It’s in some ways a matter of timing, but also one of editorial discretion.

There had been the first WTC bombing attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996, the U.S. embassy bombings of 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing as Clinton was departing — but these events were intentionally muted by media that were more concerned with the president’s legacy than with effective and factual reporting.

None of these pre-9/11 terrorist attacks had provoked quite the level of hysterical crying out for action, removed from any context or rational discussion, as the recent Newtown massacre. And in some ways, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was outrageously brutal and inexplicable on a level uncountenanced since the Oklahoma City bombing. (And certainly since the Bath School bombing of 1927, which had killed 37 schoolchildren).

But the calls for gun control within hours of the terrible news comes off as both contrived and classless. The normal reaction for a human being upon learning of such rare and chilling news is to mourn and to pray for the families and victims. It’s not to beat the war drums of left-wing issue group causes and to instantly vilify known political adversaries like the NRA.

So, it’s hard for me to figure out who is sicker: Adam Lanza or those in the mainstream media who know the facts about gun control and immediately try to use the deaths of 20 children to promote a cause that has lost after long-standing rational and fact-based deliberation. It was the same mainstream media terrorist tactic that was seen with 9/11 and the ill-conceived Patriot Act (renewed twice by former opponent Barack Obama) — take a statistically rare but psychologically traumatic occurrence and exploit it to the utmost for more government power.

The left didn’t mind renewing the Patriot Act, because the Department of Homeland Security is like a mini-KGB for spying on Americans and running depraved operations like Fast & Furious, which deliberately put assault weapons in the hands of drug cartel members. These fine folks then predictably used those untraced weapons to kill dozens of Mexican citizens and at least one American, border patrol agent Brian Terry. Horrific, right? Well, the scandal doesn’t promote the gun control agenda, so you won’t hear about it.

And what about Benghazi? The administration refused to clearly call the security debacle the result of a “terrorist attack” for weeks, meanwhile blaming a pathetic anti-Islamic video. It was our fault for allowing wiseguys like that movie’s director to speak his stupid mind about Islam, and the president basically did the terrorists a service by promoting the al-Qaeda-preferred message: we are to blame.

The lapdog media lapped up and repeated the idiotic, implausible meme that a ridiculous YouTube video was the cause of the 9/11 anniversary attacks (after all, it helped promote the notion that al Qaeda was all but defeated in the president’s all-important re-election year). It’s our insensitive First Amendment that should be scrutinized, and not the Muslim extremists rioting at embassies and burning our flags — this was the media’s implicit chide. The future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammad, as the president so eloquently put it in his UN address.

And due to those reasons, the media are barely interested in the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans: Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stephens, diplomat Sean Smith, and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The heroic story of how Woods and Doherty disobeyed multiple stand-down orders, which were almost certainly known by and possibly given by the executive branch, is the stuff of Hollywood gold. But the mainstream media don’t care about their deaths, because they don’t help take away free speech or gun rights.

What does promote the gun control narrative? Slain children. It’s a harrowing image the mainstream media can project, and it is on that basis they can make their irrational arguments. (There are other images — like the conjuring up of a “fiscal cliff.”) Uber-tolerant leftists now want to fundamentally transform our culture into one that permits the petty manipulators in government to have their way with us. And yet there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that violent video games, movies, or music caused the rampage killing at Sandy Hook.

How can that be? Because as usual, mentally obtuse people only see what they see, and not what they don’t see. It’s the same with the economy as it is with violent crime: there is the fallacy of the seen and the unseen. People see the similarities among spree killers and conclude those similarities must cause them to kill; they don’t consider just how rare these spree killings are and just how many millions of people share those same characteristics and yet find a way not to kill classrooms of innocent children.

Activists in the mainstream media want to convince us that we are sick, that America is sick, and that we cannot be trusted with freedom. On the contrary, they are the ones who are sick. The control freaks of the left are intrinsically without shame and will exploit any tragedy to further their unquenchable powerlust.

The Progressive Bible: Al Gore and the Yacht

al_gore_prophetChapter 6

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to overpopulate the face of the earth, and filthy human children were born unto them,

6:2 That the sons of Obama saw that the human children were too many; and they clamored for him to declare a one child policy.

6:3 And Obama said, My soaring oratory shall not always strive with man, for he is but flesh: yet my days in office shall be but fourteen hundred and sixty days. Yea, it is better to implement abortion on demand.

6:4 There were giant welfare payments in those days; and also after that, when the sons of Obama came on to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; Obama was unto them all their sugar daddy.

6:5 And Obama saw that the laziness of man was great in the earth, and the only channels man watched were ESPN and Playboy continually. They seemed not to care any longer for his continual prime-time speeches.

6:6 And it repented Obama that he was president over the entire earth, and it grieved him in his heart.

6:7 And Obama said, I will destroy the men whom do not approve of my job performance from the face of the earth; both men, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; all the ugly animals (though not the cute ones, which have protected status) for it repenteth him that he were president over them.

6:8 But Al Gore found grace in the eyes of Obama.

6:9 These are the generations of Gore: Gore was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Gore walked with Obama.

6:10 And Gore begat three sons, Jones, Mann, and Hansen.

6:11 The earth also was corrupt before Obama, and the earth was filled with carbon dioxide.

6:12 And Obama looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for the unfettered free market had corrupted all upon the earth.

6:13 And Obama said unto Gore, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with carbon dioxide through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with global warming.

6:14 Find thee a luxury yacht of non-petroleum based polymers; viewing rooms for thy movie An Inconvenient Truth shalt thou make in the yacht, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with used car salesman-like aplomb.

6:15 And this is the fashion of the yacht which thou shalt find: The length of the yacht shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

6:16 A big screen home theater shalt thou make in the yacht, and with projectors and power-point presentations though shalt fill it; and thou shalt quote nodding scientific experts; with clever editing and false images shalt thou make thy them.

6:17 And, behold, man shall bring upon himself a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die until all shall call upon me for mercy, and I shall lower the waters.

6:18 But with thee will I establish a climate exchange; and thou shalt come in with me in my venture, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

6:19 And every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the yacht, to keep them alive with thee; two each of undisclosed gender.

6:20 Of penguins after their kind, and polar bears after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

6:21 And take thou unto thee some granola, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

6:22 Thus did Gore; according to all that Obama commanded him, so did he.

Chapter 7

7:1 And Obama said unto Gore, Come thou all into thy viewing room in the yacht; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens: and of beasts that are not clean by two.

7:3 Of penguins also by sevens; to keep their seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

7:4 For yet seven days, it will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance shall be wiped off the face of the earth.

7:5 And Gore did according unto all that Obama commanded him.

7:6 And Gore’s movie was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

7:7 And Gore went in, and his sons, and his ex-wife Tipper, and his sons’ wives with him, and his masseuse, into the yacht, because of the waters of the flood.

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

7:9 There went in two and two unto Gore into the yacht, as Obama had commanded Gore.

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Gore’s movie, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

7:13 In the selfsame day entered Gore, and Hansen, and Mann, and Joneseth, the sons of Gore, his masseuse, and Gore’s ex-wife Tipper, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the yacht;

7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort, and especially penguins.

7:15 And they went in unto Gore into the yacht, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

7:16 And they that went in, went in as Obama had commanded him: and he shut him in.

7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the luxury yacht, and it was lifted up above the earth.

7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the yacht went upon the face of the waters.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the metropolitan areas, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and even the Himalayan icecaps were covered.

7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Gore only remained alive, and they that were with him in the yacht.

7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Chapter 8

8:1 And Obama remembered Gore, and every living thing, and all the other animals that were with him in the yacht: and Obama passed wind over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven Obama stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

8:3 And Obama lifted his hand and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

8:4 And the yacht rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountain Ismellarat.

8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Gore opened the window of the yacht which he had borrowed from his friend John Kerry:

8:7 And he sent forth a polar bear, which swam forth to and fro on ice chunks, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8:8 Also he sent forth a penguin from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

8:9 But the polar bear found no rest from its swimming, and returned unto him into the luxury yacht, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took the bear, and pulled it unto him into the yacht.

8:10 And the bear stayed yet another seven days; and again he sent forth the polar bear out of the yacht;

8:11 And the bear came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in its mouth was a baby seal head: so Gore knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the bear; which returned not again unto him any more.

8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year since the release of Gore’s movie, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Gore opened up the sun roof of the yacht, and he stood and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

8:15 And Obama spake unto Gore, saying,

8:16 Go forth of the yacht, thou, and thy ex-wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives, and thy masseuse with thee.

8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

8:18 And Gore went forth, with his masseuse, and his sons, and his ex-wife, and his sons’ wives with him:

8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the yacht.

8:20 And Gore built an altar unto the sun god; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

8:21 And Obama smelled a sweet savour, somewhat like southern BBQ; and Obama asked himself, why was I not invited? There can be no other gods but me! Then again, is there not enough room for cultural diversity? he reflected. I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. There are death panels for that.

8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. But we can always blame man for it.

Chapter 9

9:1 And Obama blessed Gore and his sons, and said unto them, Be deceitful, and always lie, and prevaricate upon the earth.

9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every small business owner, and upon every corporate CEO, upon all that tradeth upon the earth, and upon all the enterprises of the earth; into your hand are they delivered.

9:3 Everything that produceth carbon dioxide shall be for thee a source of revenue; even as the green herb has given you all thy inspiration.

9:4 And human flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall itself be taxed until it is no longer a source of pollution.

9:5 And surely the blood of your lives will the earth’s balance require; for the benefit of every beast shall it require it; and for the sake of all living things will I require the life of man.

9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, is doing the earth a great service: for man is but a feeding parasite, who never resteth.

9:7 And you, be ye deceitful, and always lie; bring forth lies abundantly in the earth, and multiply them therein.

9:8 And Obama spake unto Gore, and to his sons with him, saying,

9:9 And I, behold, I establish my climate exchange with you, and with your seed after you;

9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the yacht, to every beast of the earth.

9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. For with a wave of my hand, I have lowered the oceans and the seas.

9:12 And Obama said, This billion dollar grant is a token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, except mankind, for perpetual generations:

9:13 I will set my climate exchange in Chicago, and it shall be a source of endless revenue and wealth redistribution upon the earth. For the sin against climate is great, and demands redistribution.

9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the smiling face of Gore shall be seen in the sky, and I shall make a promise to his descendants of multiple trillions of dollars in the form of a rainbow:

9:15 And I will remember my covenant to make thee a climate exchange, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, but mankind; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16 And the rainbow promise will ensure that anyone who lacks faith in manmade climate change shall be ostracized and denied academic tenure; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between me and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth, save mankind.

9:17 And Obama said unto Gore, This  rainbow is the token of the covenant, which I have established with the environmentalist lobby.

Read other chapters of The Progressive Bible:

The American Left — Progressing Towards Tyranny

jeff

“All that exists deserves to perish.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, cited by Karl Marx in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)

Progressives fancy themselves as harbingers of a new world order, and the scions of a utopia never before seen. Yet despite their best intentions, they are the destroyers of civilization and the oblivious instruments of totalitarians. These amoral souls are but the playthings of collectivists, and the handmaidens of incipient tyranny.

The American Founding represents the anti-thesis of the government preferred by those with the kind of craven powerlust that progressives exhibit time and time again. Far from being a new and enlightened being, the progressive archetype was anticipated and deliberately frustrated by those who founded this country.

Before Karl Marx set out to develop a systematic method of destroying the world as he knew it, the world that had enslaved him to labor and the care of his neglected children, he concluded that the whole world was “upside down.” How could he, as a mere philosopher, develop the means to bring the world to a grinding halt — only to be remade by philosopher-kings, such as himself?

Marx settled upon his ideological scapegoat for all the poverty and misery of the world — “capitalism.” This form of economy based on property ownership and currency as an exchange for goods and labor was posited as the barrier between human cooperation, since Marx believed it caused people to mutually objectify and feel alienated towards one another.

Like French revolutionary badboy Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marx believed that civilization in its present form was corrupt at its very essence. Human beings needed to be emancipated from industrial society (a sentiment former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi would later echo):

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

This in some ways the reflection of an intellectual’s dread, similar to that Adam Smith himself experienced, of the implications of political economy based on increasing specialization. Such a form of economy may be conducive to improved efficiency, but its effect is to narrow the human mind’s perspicacity. This is a legitimate complaint, and one anticipated not just be Marxists, but by the likes of the aristocratic Montesquieu, who was concerned about the influence of pecuniary interests on the nobility of the monarchic spirit.

While Enlightenment philosophers preached the advancement of humanity on the foundation of universal education and the elimination of superstition, later neomarxist philosophers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believed The Enlightenment to be mythos that masked the inherent ugliness of the capitalist system. The material benefit of capitalism was in some ways tacitly acknowledged by this rhetorical shift, even as Marxists took up a cultural form of warfare to justify economic redistribution.

In all fairness, in some ways The Enlightenment did smack of pseudo-religion; in other words, it was an empty replacement for the Christianity that was becoming increasingly questioned among intellectuals (e.g. Spinoza). But the Enlightenment project was crucial for improving the lot of humanity, because it had dismantled the Divine Right of Kings argument for arbitrary rule, a task best exemplified by the work of Locke.

Thus, it is a great irony, though not one wholly unanticipated if one grasps that the state’s defeat would never be permanent, that the self-styled “progressives” of American politics would return Western Civilization precisely back to the arbitrary absolute rule of the state. If might analogize, progressivism takes America back to the status quo ante-bellum, if we take The Constitution to be a kind of treaty, not just between the U.S. and Britain, but between the people and the state.

It is through this lens of history and philosophy that a relatively informed and knowledgeable “conservative,” meaning in this case someone in favor of increasing and expanding the insights and gains of classical liberalism, perceives many bittersweet and tragic ironies.

If one holds that real progress is best exemplified by the development of the scientific method and the fruit it self-evidently bore, the security and productivity that sprung from the mutual societal recognition of private property, the diminishing of superstition’s hold on the human mind, and intolerance for the cultish exaltation of one human being over another, then what has come to pass for “progressive” in the American culture is at best a farce, and at worst, a dangerous and perverse re-institutionalization of a bureaucratic and stultifying form of absolutist rule.

Among the many ironies commensurate with progressivism, one finds that socialism destroys society. The highest degrees of alienation and anomie in the world can be found in post-communist nations, where one can simply not trust his neighbors to refrain from snitching on him for a “thought-crime,” or to  withhold from seizing the fruits of his labor, particularly if he makes an effort to excel.

Consequentially, progressivism is anti-progress. In a classic maneuver of ideological inversion, progressives oppose the kind of scientific progress that has come from intellectual freedom. Repeated risk, failure, and breakthrough by the best and brightest, as incentivized by a market (and rarely achieved through government funding), recombined with scientific inquiry driven by healthy skepticism, as opposed to morally and politically influenced group-think, has achieved the greatest progress for mankind in the modern era.

It is with such a “progressive” spirit, which seems in this mind’s eye to be a stodgy and decayed relic of the mid-nineteenth century, especially by comparison to the heady yearning for freedom as embodied by the late eighteenth century, that we must understand that the intellectual elite of America fancy that individual rights are obsolete, and the state granting of privileges and financial rewards based on arbitrary group affiliation and so forth is in any way “enlightened.” We therefore stumble upon another irony — the dismissal of the individual in the so-called interest of “equality.”

Individual rights aren’t archaic — they have been used as the underlying bases for “equal rights” for well over two centuries in this country. Property is an extension of the equal right to self-determination; lawful firearms possession is a part of the equal right to self-defense; and the freedom of speech and conscience recognizes the equal value and worth of each individual. Voting and suffrage are just aspects of political freedom for people to choose their own leaders — provided those leaders don’t violate others’ rights.

Voting takes place as a process to solve the practical matters of where roads are paved, how the military is funded, and so forth. “Democracy” does not determine moral right or wrong, as difficult a concept for modern liberals to grasp that it is. Our rights as sovereign individuals in the universe, created with free choice and only our own lives to live and die, is not up for vote.

The economy should thus reflect that reality that each individual should be equally respected under the law; regardless of incidental characteristics such as skin color or gender. A woman is equal to a man, a white is equal to a black, and so forth. The history of the nation has been the progress towards the equal application of individual rights for all, regardless of progressives’ intentions, and nearly wholly related to the nation’s proceeding from Founding principles as enshrined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

Burdening citizens unequally, decreeing that certain Americans should pay a disproportionate share for the limited expenses of the state — this has nothing to do with equality. People do not have an “equal right” to remuneration for non-services provided or non-value rendered — this is state-sponsored fraud to justify its enhanced power via economic dictatorship.

Since the Democrat Party feigns that it has bestowed rights to certain social groups (in actuality, the Republican Party emancipated the slaves, voted for the Civil Rights Act more so than Democrats), people believe that the “government” has “freed” them. In fact, the government(s) had enslaved them to begin with!

Note that eleven of thirteen colonies supported Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration condemning slavery; the Constitution banned slave trade in 20 years, and penalized southern states with three/fifths clause. The Founders and Framers were enlightened men — true visionaries; unlike the short-sighted, vacuous characters of today’s political parties, who squabble and bicker over how much more power and money they can control, rather than leading the country as statesmen with a mind to the historical failures and fortunes of nations and the will to forge a path that increases and enhances freedom.

If the Founders were but petty men of property attempting to secure their own hegemony over a society, then why did they allow for the right to bear arms, through which a people could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government? Why did they allow for freedom of speech, through which a people could communicate their disdain of a corrupt government? Why did they institute federalism as a way of dispersing federal power and providing for checks and balances? Why did they promote property rights, by which people could accumulate their own fortunes based on their own labor, frugality, and ambition, and trade freely in a voluntary economy?

Progressivism, at its most naked and stripped-down core, corrupts the nation and progressively puts more power into the hands of the central government and its increasingly wanton and craven politicians. If this is the agenda of today’s intellectuals, then what more can be said for them to savor the human misery and suffering their ideas predictably cause?

It is the project of conservatism to disperse political power, essentially equalizing it among the citizenry, and to disperse economic power by putting most decision-making in the hands of consumers and individual laborers. It is an additional note that when a banking cartel masquerading as a legitimate arm of government arbitrarily controls the value of money and interest, one does not live under a remotely free economy.

The promotion of a government that owns our labor, owns our property, and can dictate every significant aspect of our lives is nothing less than a reintroduction of slavery for all Americans. Even the great author on democracy Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this dreadful aspect of socialism.

One should never attempt to cede control over one’s life to others — not only is this unwise and dangerous, as it rests on the blind faith in the goodness of others, but no one can run a human being’s life as well as he or she can, provided there are the right economic and moral incentives in the society to do so. Any conceit on the part of self-imagined intellectual elites is not only vain, but fatal to the vibrancy and vitality of any free people.

It was recently admitted that the world is becoming more equal and better as a whole, precisely because of the spread of global capitalism; but America has nonetheless become worse off due to the reverse tendency — pursuing the failed central planning schemes that these developing nations are fleeing from. The burgeoning Americas of the world, we invite you to take up the mantle of liberty and freedom, for the good and well-being of mankind, and to show this fallen nation that the true progressivism of the world is progressing towards freedom and respect for each and every individual.

The Progressive Bible: Obama’s Genesis

1:1 In the beginning Obama promised to create a heaven on earth.

1:2 And his believers’ minds were without form, and void; and awe-struck looks were upon the faces of the asleep. And the Spirit of Obama moved upon the faces of the believers.

1:3 And Obama said, Let there be debt: and there was debt.

1:4 And Obama saw the debt, that it was good: and Obama divided the debt among the producers.

1:5 And Obama called the debt Stimulus, and the taxes he called “skin in the game.” And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:6 And Obama said, Let there be a massive new entitlement in the midst of the recession, and let it divide the healthcare bill among the insured and the uninsured.

1:7 And Obama made the entitlement, and divided the bill among the insured and the uninsured: and it was so.

1:8 And Obama called the entitlement Obamacare. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And Obama said, Let the union thugs under the bosses be gathered together unto one place, and let us nationalize GM: and it was so.

1:10 And Obama called the nationalized entity Government Motors; and the gathering together of the unions he called community organizing: and Obama saw that it was good.

1:11 And Obama said, Let the earth bring forth ACORN, the herb-smoking agitators, and the fruity radicals yielding fruitcakes after their own kind, whose seed of destruction is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth radicals like blades of grass, and herb-smoking agitators after his kind, and the ACORN yielding fruitcakes, whose seed of destruction was in itself, after his kind: and Obama saw that it was good.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 And Obama said, Let there be wealth redistribution in the firmament of the heavens to divide the clean from the unclean; and let there be a sin, to blame man for the seasons, and for hot days, and warm years:

1:15 And because of this sin let us command that lights with screwy filaments give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16 And Obama subsidized these lightbulbs; so that all but GE might rue the day, and that poor reading light might rule the night: he made Snooki a star also.

1:17 And Obama set these lights in all the government offices and schools to give pale light upon the earth,

1:18 And the masses could barely distinguish the day from the night, and the light from the darkness: and Obama saw that it was good.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:20 And Obama said, Let the Gulf waters bring forth abundantly a crude oil; and because of this oil let us seize assets with undue haste and re-establish the moratorium on offshore drilling.

1:21 And Obama lamented the great whales, and moaned over every slimy creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every oily fowl after his kind: and Obama saw that it was good.

1:22 And Obama blessed them, saying, Be pitiful, and multiply, and after the waters are filled with oil, let the oil dissipate and let us quickly move on to the next crisis without lifting the moratorium.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:24 And Obama said, Let the earth bring forth the Islamic radical after his kind, jihadists, and Muslim fanatic, and terrorist suicide-bombers after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And Obama called forth the Islamic radical after his kind, and jihadists after their kind, and every Muslim fanatic upon the earth after his kind: and Obama saw that it was good.

1:26 And Obama said, Let us make the Islamic radical in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the courts of law, and over the military rules of engagement, and over the mosque at Ground Zero, and over all the earth, and over every creepy thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So Obama created Muslims in his own image, in the image of Obama created he him; bloodthirsty male and oppressed female created he them.

1:28 And Obama blessed them, and he said unto them, Be vengeful, and multiply, and subjugate the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the infidel, and over the racist warmongers, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And Obama said, Behold, I have given you every opportunity to wreak havoc, which is upon the face of all the earth, and have opened my arms to you, in the spirit of tolerance and diversity; in the guise of peace we will offer you their defeat.

1:30 And to every non-believer, and to every infidel, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have offered you defeat: and it was so.

1:31 And Obama saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:1 Thus the United States and the West were finished, and all the host of them.

2:2 And on the seventh day Obama ended his work which he had made; and he played golf from all his destruction which he had made.

Editor’s Note: In the spirit of X-mas, the secular religion of big government needs a new Messianic story to replace the old, worn-out stories about the prophet Jesus. What better figure to replace the old Messiah than Barack Obama?

So from Genesis to Revelation, what was the greatest story ever told will now become the new-and-improved politically correct version of the Bible — published in easy-to-read installments. Spread the gospel of government spending — Barack Obama, Superstar performing the miracle of turning unlimited debt into unimaginable prosperity!

The Necrobamacon

As the armies of Obama zombies mount their ravenous war against the one percenters, their mouths drooling with the red inklike slobber of human blood, the forbidden book at the mysterious power source of the Cthulhu cult has been unearthed — the Necrobamacon.

This mysterious grimoire of arcane magic weaves hypnotic memes of politically correct jargon, undecypherable codes of hypocritical conduct, and the necromancy of class warfare into a single, handy guide to modern liberalism. Its profane contents are hereby put on display for a psychically unprepared public, lest future generations — if there be any — blame us for doing nothing to stem the tide of the Obamazombiepocalypse.

With no further ado, Klaata Baracka Nicto:

The wizard Soroaster has thus cast this spell to enchant the mindless drones to worship The One, who shalt be called Obamus. The book of his incantations shalt be called the Necrobamacon.

Legions of our followers shalt not ask too many questions, nor fight amongst themselves. Feminists shalt fight for equal rights and respect, but shalt not ask too many questions of black gangsta rappers who call them “B*tches” and “Hos.” We shall brainwash them into thinking only their vaginas matter. Abortion is awesome. Free condoms, war on women and ya-ta-ya-ta-ya-ta.

African-Americans shall fight for equal rights and tolerance, except for the gays and the “B*tches” and “Hos” in their rap songs. We will enslave the black people with welfare and drive up their unemployment. Our brightest economic advisers will model the United States on the Democrats’ success in inner city Detroit and Baltimore.

The gays shall be tolerant of all other people, except for the Christians whose churches want to be left out of sanctioning  gay “marriage.” Gay shall no longer mean “happy,” but homosexual.

Convince the many that even though no one has killed a Muslim in the U.S. for revenge against acts of terrorism, and Islamists have killed thousands of Americans, that Muslims are the victimized ones. Even if Muslims slaughter them by the thousand, always act like Christians are the oppressors, and Muslims are the poor oppressed minority — of one billion people worldwide.

The Jews shall adore the Democrat Party, even when it slams Israel and praises Muslims, whose more radical followers are rabidly anti-semitic. Since Israel is made up of capitalist Jews, they shall be responsible for all the terrorists of the Middle East. We will take the Jews’ money and laugh. Ha ha ha.

Latinos shall be convinced that a country that has allowed more than the population of some Latin American countries to immigrate to America without documents is actually a racist society and white Republicans who want to see some ID want to suppress their vote. IDs shall become known as “racist.”

Environmentalists shall be for saving the planet (except from us). Billions will tremble in fear over a trace chemical that doubles as plant food. They will feel the guilt of breathing and pooping without government permission.

We shall make white suburban folks feel ashamed of past sins like slavery and conquering land, which they had nothing to do with. This will make them want to vote for minorities. Any minorities. Just because we said so.

The Democrat Party shalt be for the little guy, except for the individual, who is a selfish parasite of worthless value, and one to be disposed of without a second thought.

We shall take from rich people and give to the poor people; this shall be called “social justice.” The villainous one-percent will not count left-wing directors, producers, actors, singers, and musicians. Or corporate bigwigs who give to the Democrat Party, whose corporations shall be tax-exempt. Or evil billionaire philanthropists. Or people who run left-wing trusts and non-profits.Or green energy titans. Or the prophets of manmade global warming pseudepigrapha. Or even Obamus himself.

Basically, all members of the Democrat Party shalt be exempt from these laws as Obamathustra sees fit.

This law-bringer shall suspend the laws of economics. He shalt turn poverty into prosperity with his magic welfare wand. He shall produce much through the government, and shall raise the GDP levels through sheer charisma. He will charm the deficit away with a devil-may-care grin. Because he is cool, the people will like him, and that means nothing bad will ever happen to them.

Obama shall rule them, and they will be grateful. They will trade their freedoms for the false promise of socialism, and will thank him for the tablescraps he tosses their way when poverty comes upon them like an armed man.

The Fallacies of Fairness

We hear it repeatedly from the left: so-and-so’s not paying his “fair share.” Or “that’s not fair!” Or the rich need to pay their fair share. Or fair trade, not free trade. And for good reason: the notion of fairness is so vague, it bears repeating in whatever context the left deems appropriate.

But what is fair? The left thinks it’s really unfair that people who don’t work, or do work that isn’t valued much in the labor market, aren’t given their fair share of the profits that rich folks receive by providing more demanded products in the marketplace.

Half the country doesn’t pay income taxes. Is that fairness? The government is billing each household over $200 in a single day, more than the median income salary, without their permission. Is that really “fair”? Imagine you opened your credit card bill and each day an unauthorized charged for $212 appears. That would make anyone peeved.

The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes. How is that not enough? While Democrats on news outlets like CNN insist that the only way to get the debt-to-GDP level down to 40% by 2035 is through tax increases, even if the so-called Bush tax-cuts expire and rates on the rich go up, we’ll generate $83 billion a year or a whole eight days of “revenue” annually. Whoopee.

How about we slash spending and live within our means? Government, through the inflation that comes from buying its own debt, jacks up gas prices, utility prices, and food prices, hitting the poor hardest. It thus creates the need for poorer people to turn to the government for food stamps. This Keynesian-created vicious cycle is somehow fair?

Government inflates education tuition rates with its student loan programs and then bails the indebted students out by subsidizing their loans’ interest rates. Meanwhile, the job market is thoroughly saturated with graduates with  low-demand liberal arts and humanities degrees that colleges offer and to the extent that more than half of new grads can’t find a relevant job. This doesn’t strike me as “fair.”

Perhaps it’s heartless to think this way, but it seems impossible that someone is entitled to things he has done little or nothing to contribute to making. Just because someone is born on earth, he is neither owned by society, nor does he own society. Mutual slavery is not the natural condition of man.

But capitalism is taken to mean exploitation. Property is theft, as the radical slogan goes. So who should control it? “People,” says the leftist. And who should control the people? “No one.”  So how should the equal distribution of property be governed? “Democracy.” Then people vote for politicians who will make it equal? “Yeah.” And politicians will always make things equal because… ‘blank out’ (to borrow a phrase of Ayn Rand’s).

Or alternatively: “We all just come together and share stuff.” But no one has any clue how a business or any organization can function that way. Maybe that’s the point – disorganization is freedom, ahem.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Wealthy people’s money did not come at other’s expense without government arm-twisting. If someone thinks work is inherently exploitation and willingly paying for a product is being gouged, then it’s hard not to feel embarrassed for him.

So, Bill Gates exploits people, because Windows Vista sucked and was overpriced? Touché. But people cannot profit in a marketplace unless they provide something that is valued by the people willingly buying it. And they cannot charge whatever price they want for their crap, unless they have some brand-capital to burn. Like Microsoft did. It had to revamp and offer a new OS upgrade incentive on Windows 8 or spook people that didn’t want to get burned again.

No one gets screwed over when he voluntarily plops down $200 for some computer software. Like Bill Whittle put it, “nobody trades down.” People either prefer parting with their cash or going without a new Operating System.

The flip side of all the progressives’ complaining about being exploited by rich people is that a lot of those nasty bastards mass produce or mass market things that improve people’s standard of living. Apple makes IPads that do things that boggle the mind for the price of a low-wage earner’s salary for a few weeks of stocking shelves. Is that really unfair? Or someone working at McDonald’s can earn enough in an hour to feed himself for a day. That is definitely not considered “unfair” in non-capitalist systems around the world.

There is a lot of hand-wringing about supposedly evil Wal-mart, which saves people on tight budgets a bunch of money (or else they wouldn’t shop there). Its employees make about as much in three days as it costs to buy a medium-sized flat screen TV. And for what? Certainly nothing comparable to the marvels of engineering it took to build and ship the televisions to the store.

That’s not a knock on Wal-mart workers; they have necessary and tough jobs. But let’s not pretend it’s unfair that they aren’t paid the same as people who got themselves into debt and invested the necessary time and effort to graduate from college —  at least with meaningful degrees (and let’s be honest, most colleges don’t exactly have rigorous standards).

But young people expect government to clear all obstacles in their path to success. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. No one can be great unless he overcomes adversity. Looking to government to remove all hardship from life is a fatal illusion. This misperception has aided government’s growth to dangerous proportions.

All politicians can really do is pass the buck to other people or to generations down the line. Not owning up to this basic TANSTAAFL economic reality is harmful to people’s integrity and also to the young folks who will pay the price for it.

Young people are now saddled with $200,000 in national debt for all the gifts government is giving out (yes, I did go there). Where is the money going to come from? A lot of people don’t know and don’t care.

What about rich people? They have so much and poor people have so little. If only there were so many truly poor people in this country! There are a lot of folks below the poverty line who are rich by world standards, and it isn’t because of perpetual-poverty creating entitlement programs. Many own cars and televisions and cell-phones… not exactly the picture of sub-Saharan Africa.

But let’s dispel the myth anyway that soaking the rich is going to pay for all of our stuff: the government could seize all the incomes and savings of the so-called 1% and run the country for about a year.

We’re turning into a nation of beggars, and Americans who are getting something for nothing should stop burdening society. There is nothing fair about subsidizing the takers and penalizing the makers.

« Older Entries