Category Archives: Kyle Becker

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson has penned a scathing piece in Newsweek arguing that Obama’s “gotta go.” It won’t be easy for the mainstream press to dismiss Ferguson’s op-ed like they would most others because the messenger happens to be an accomplished historian and can frame America’s decline under Obama in world historical terms.

By now, everyone has heard of historian Niall Ferguson’sSix Killer Apps.” In this presentation, the Harvard professor explains how The West was able to conquer its enemies and ascend to world power. If you haven’t had a chance to view Ferguson’s presentation, do yourself a favor and give it a watch.

It is important for people to note how directly contrary to the historically successful cultural strategies the agenda of Barack Obama and the Democrats runs.

What I propose is that the American left, and by extension its political vehicle the Democrat Party, intentionally embrace the antitheses of what made Western Civilization great, plus two more blights thrown in for good measure: eight killer “Non-Apps,” or “Naps” for short. (Republicans may be guilty of these things to the extent they agree with the left.)

Below is a quick-and-dirty breakdown and a smidgeon of commentary:

1. Competition: a decentralization of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.

The Democrat Party has built its reputation on the argument that the market is too mean, and if it were not for government we’d all be slaving away in a coal mine somewhere.  On the contrary, it is government, the monopoly of legal coercion, that forces people to labor for subsistence compensation in nations around the world.

From bailouts for too-big-to-fail banks and corporations to green subsidies for shady businesses, the Democrats eschew market accountability any chance they get. Dispensing grants to “non-profits” for everything under the sun, paying hefty wages and pensions to government workers, and pampering unions around the nation, the Democrat Party is the sugar daddy of non-competitive wages and unaccountable labor. In summary, the Democrats’ goal is to centralize complete power and they have no problem using taxpayer money as a political slush fund to do so.

2. Scientific Method: A way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.

Nothing has shown more poignantly that the Democrat Party is completely cynical about abusing science for political gain than so-called “green energy.” From its applause of ethanol subsidies, leading to escalating food prices around the globe, to its attempts to get more than $72 trillion out of a global carbon tax, the left has shown little reverence for science as a method of inquiry.  The left has politicized science and everything else it touches, just like Frankfurt School doyen Theodore Adorno advised the New Left to do in the early 1980s.

3. Property Rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.

If there is anything the Democrat Party is opposed to it is private property rights. In perfect accordance with the socialist goal of eliminating all notion of private property, the Democrat-led government has eroded all vestige of the legal concept et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium (a man’s home is his refuge). Zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, safety regulations, ordinances, taxes, fees, licensing…the constrictions on private property and free exchange of goods in our society are virtually endless.

4. Modern Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.

One of the more frustrating aspects of living in contemporary America is enduring the endless deluge of hodge-podge “homeopathic,” or “New Age” remedies for everything from the common cold to terminal cancer.  Needless to say, we might as well bring back witchcraft to cure us of our maladies, as prep-work for dealing with the joys of socialized medicine. One can imagine the folksy alternatives that will appear if Obamacare gets fully implemented, such as if one is slated for an operation in nine months and only has six to live. But to wit, the trend in medicine is towards the primitive and away from the modern. The organic food movement, for its part, virtually sprouted up from out of nowhere, and it is one of the delicious ironies that the use of organic fertilizer spread diseases like e Coli.  On the other hand, the banning of the pesticide DDT caused millions of deaths from Malaria. There is certainly an anti-scientific, anti-rational tendency in left-wing thought, and it continues to permeate Western culture. (Or what’s left of it). And incidentally, our scientists haven’t effectively cured a major disease since Polio.

5. Consumer Society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.

Few things draw the ire of the modern left than the “materialism” of Western society, a faddish disposition begun by economist John Kenneth Galbraith.  But what, pray tell, is a non-materialist economy? The employment of resources to fulfill the demands of the many, fueled by mass production, has led to a dramatic increase in the standard of living in the West. But not to hear the left tell it.  Somebody, somewhere, has to be getting exploited.  If buying something one wants with money one earns becomes at the minimum a “victimless crime,” then the Democrat Party could easily be put out of business.  There would be no need for the left’s hand in the economy, inevitably shoveling money back to itself.  And of course, the innumerable regulations mentioned above, to protect us from every conceivable incident rather than allow the law to deter and punish crimes, provides further avenues for manipulation.

6. Work Ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5.

When the Democrat Party subsidizes failure and rewards idleness, it undercuts the productive dynamism that propels the economy and allows the rising tide to lift all boats.  Rather than providing a safety net, it has tied up a hammock; as fellow blogger cosmoscon pointed out, “over 90% of all tax revenues go to pay Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. … And yes, Social Security is an entitlement program.” That’s before the interest on the debt is paid.  America is taking a nap.


7. Constitutionally limited government: A novel form of government deriving from the Enlightenment principles of individual sovereignty and representative decision-making.

The dark days of Absolutism led to a revolt against arbitrary and unjust rule. Scholars such as Locke and Montesquieu devised political arrangements that would institutionally limit government power and unleash human genius and activity through ordered liberty. As the barriers to democratic government that were instituted in The Constitution have been weathered away, the country has become increasingly unstable.  The 17th amendment, undoing the authorization for state legislatures to elect Senators, led to direct elections for Senators and a more popularly influenced Congress. The lobbying of interest groups, such as public sector unions, has led to an all-out scramble for the power of the purse.  Bills that previously would be considered unconstitutional are being passed or even reconciled in the nominal interest of “democracy.”  But our founders specifically designed our government to resist the caprices of democracy, which has proven to be unstable and conducive to the rise of demagogic tyrants.

8. Cultural confidence: When members in a society believe in their way of life, seek to pass it onto their children, and would like to see it promulgated throughout the world.

The left’s counterpoint to cultural confidence is “multi-culturalism,” or the ideal that other cultures around the world hold equal value with one’s own culture. Such a point of view is peculiar to Western Civilization and is indisputably contrived, or in other words, is not “organic.” One of the greatest ironies of the modern left is the notion that other cultures are equal to Western culture, regardless of the content of those cultures or how people live within them.  Multi-culturalism is therefore a leveler of the Western-belief system and a facilitator of cultural-political erosion.

Sources of cultural confidence include the Christian religion, which the left is obviously hostile to, and has led the hard left to ally with political Islam. Many societies throughout history have not been directly conquered but rather culturally weakened and absorbed. Both the central European Avar Kingdom and the Jewish Khazar Empire were culturally absorbed by the Slavs (or “slaves” to read one etymology) and disappeared, for two European examples. A culture that doesn’t display any confidence is one that no one can believe in.  A culture that no one believes in is one that nobody will stand up for. Such cultures cannot survive, let alone prosper.


Those who are fairly well-read can easily grasp that the American left is doing the virtual opposite of what has been shown to be successful throughout history. Whether one thinks that it is just a coincidence, or that the left has codified its policies with the express aim of “deconstructing” Western Civilization, while reconstructing it through the culture, is up to the reader. But let there be no doubt that the left’s positions are not historically considered to be successful, and the Democrat Party’s record is too strewn with failure for the sane, self-interested person to be impervious to recognizing.

The Blessings of a Free Country

Americans, like all great peoples of the past, have fallen prey to a dangerous phenomenon inherent in the human condition: they have taken too much for granted. We live in a land of miraculous bounty and plenty, with wonderful comforts, affordable high-tech goods, and time-saving services available to the great majority of people, especially those who work for a living. While many Americans, and particularly upper middle class “intellectuals,” urge the government to take from the “haves” to give to the “have-nots,” these purported do-gooders neglect to notice that the economic system that provides them the ability to be “compassionate” with other people’s money is being destroyed. These self-less folks are irreparably damaging the engine of wealth creation known as free market capitalism.

The self-described elites who unremorsely do so fail to comprehend that the state-led economic policies they endorse is not progressivism, in any meaningful sense, it is regressivism. State-led economics are not the unknown in the human experience, it is the nearly omnipresent norm. It is free market economics in any semblance that is the rarity, and the prime mover behind America’s meteoric rise to world power and influence.

Upper-middle class “liberals,” who are more accurately described as social democrats, and in some cases are outright socialists, tend to luxuriate in the fruits of capitalism’s produce. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call all such people who defiantly oppose capitalism in principle “leftists.” A typical leftist on a typical day might drive a Ford Focus hybrid to an overpriced coffee shop like Starbucks, type some self-writhing existentialist poems on his Apple computer, text-message his friend on his Blackberry begging her to read the dribble, and then cart off to university for a course in Post-Modern Modernist Art, whose classroom is comprised of massive steel and plastic structures, is outfitted with ample lighting, and is facilitated by state-of-the-art distance learning technology made possible by high-speed Internet cable. There the leftist will complete his Master’s project, a post-structural critique of capitalist neo-colonialism using some parts from an old transistor radio, an upside-down neon cross, a number of plastic hula-girls who shake when you vibrate them, and some brightly-colored wax-dipped bullets (the shell casings only, of course). The leftist will receive an ‘A’ while completely missing the irony every time.

What the leftist will never realize is that what separates the United States from those it supposedly ‘colonizes,’ with merely an offer of trade no less, is America’s capitalist economic system, which allows free-thinking individuals to create, risk-taking entrepreneurs to invest, and carefully-spending consumers to buy. America put a productive gap between itself and many other states that preceded it by millennia by adopting free market capitalism while other states continued on in tyranny and oppression. Simply put, the U.S. thrived while despotisms lagged behind. The tyrannies of the world could not beat the United States in terms of economic clout while still maintaining strangleholds on their respective peoples – therefore the U.S. had to be subverted. The statists of the world adopted and codified an ideology that would rationalize their totalitarian control over the economies, governments, and societies of the world, and scapegoated “capitalism,” a term invented by Karl Marx as a monolithic descriptor of free market economies, as the source of all of mankind’s woe. Here was a boot-licking statist ideology that so-called “radicals” could behind. Unbeknownst to most of these malcontents, subversion of the free market system leads directly to tyranny in economics and then in politics.

It never ceases to amaze how this point could be lost on so many presumably bright people. What could be more stark in the world than the prosperity of free peoples and the poverty of state-oppressed ones? Nevertheless, many intellectuals’ animus is directed at an economic system that provides people with so much bounty, and not at the state that takes it away. One reason for intellectuals’ misguided notions of state and economy is their romanticism of Europe.

Historically, European states put together impressive empires on the backs of colonial peoples, but the mercantilist ideology that guided them, and which men like Adam Smith criticized so vehemently, led these European economic systems to fall to shambles once they ran out of foreign people to exploit at the point of a gun. America refrained from participating in “The Great Scramble” until it dabbled in empire-building at the end of the nineteenth century, by which time the Sick Men of Europe were wheezing as if struck by a furious bout of consumption. But by the time America was poised to take over the European empires’ overseas possessions, the entire economic model of direct physical exploitation for economic gain was discredited. It was much more profitable to trade using modern transportation and communications technology, and to develop new markets.

Another reason for the persistence of statist myths among intellectuals is that they see the state as something that can be used to “help” people. They wax nostalgic about the heroic endeavors of FDR to comfort and aid the American people. They either don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge that since the nation’s founding, the darkest economic period in American history is the one that corresponds with the most state-intervention. Interventionist policies both preceded and coincided with The Great Depression. This is a point that is apparently difficult for some intellectuals to grasp. The central bank’s easy-money policies resulted in the “boom” of The 1920s, a period of economic exuberance that bordered on the perverse. The inevitable crash was worsened by the Fed’s restriction of the money supply following “Black Monday,” only to be exacerbated by the trade restrictions of Smoot-Hawley. The Keynesian economics that guided the futile policies of the FDR administration would become the norm for the remainder of the twentieth century, providing the basis for the stagflation era policies of the 1970s, and the “stimulus” insanity of the Obama-led Democrats today. Though these statist economic policies were all irrefutable failures, they persist in the minds of the elites out of a lack of appreciation for the free market system that helps make America exceptional.

What more Americans need to understand in order to appreciate how special their country is is a broad overview that throws into relief their country’s unprecedented trajectory from frontier wasteland to economic colossus in the brief span of two centuries. To provide a historical backdrop, let’s start with an approximation of American colonial life – medieval Europe.

Life in Medieval Europe was perilously dark, filled with superstition, plague, and obeisance to Church and State. The practice of freedom of religion could get you burned at the stake – or worse. People had horrible tooth decay from lack of fluoride and basic dental care. The best known anesthetic was a piece of wood to bite on while someone performed radical medical procedures such as amputating a limb. Bleeding was a folksy cure-all that left its “patients” in a puddle of blood and likely dead. Some peasants built abodes with poor ventilation and died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Everyday one actually went and got one’s own food, which required most of a peasant family’s energy. There was no Whole Foods. There was a lot of dirt, and of what you could coax out of it by the sweat of your brow, you might get to keep half. The rest was confiscated by aristocratic landowners or the nobility. Imagine, if you will, ‘progressivism’-cum- environmentalism on steroids.

Now conceive that out of this miserable state of human affairs a great flourishing takes place. This is no miracle, mind you; this is the result of a revolution, and we must pay heed that prior to any political or economic revolution, there is a revolution of the mind. Magnificent scholars like Thomas Aquinas rediscovered the ancient philosopher Aristotle. Aquinas, notably, integrated Aristotle’s philosophy into his account of the Nature of God’s universe. Superstitions began to be dispelled; Protestants began to challenge the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, and later, the state; and serfs departed from their fiefdoms to pursue crafts or trade. The mind was set free from the residual mystical thinking of past eras and science developed in leaps and bounds. Economies began to flourish, and the landed aristocracy, and the crowns they served, struggled to retain their grip on their wayward peoples.

Haltingly at first, but through trial and error, the statists developed an effective counter-strategy. At first, they exploited nationalism, a complicated bi-product of the workings of Johannes Guttenberg’s printing press and an expansion of tribal romanticism. Later, statists co-opted the ancient communalist ideals collectively referred to as ‘socialism‘ and adapted them to the modern era, which neatly broke down capitalist economic orders so that they can be reconfigured for totalitarian control by the statists. Surely, there were many, many radical “useful idiots” who presumably opposed the state enlisting such ideologies; but once they helped to usher in their “revolution,” meaning the repeal of freedom heralded in by the Enlightenment, these tended to be put on the guillotine or in the gulag, respectively, and were heard from no more.

So we will proceed without a hitch to what the statists and the leftists both hate, and yet exploit: the market system. It has not been through altruism but through self-interest that the greatest good has been accomplished in the world. It is no less than this point that this essay attempts to put out of reach beyond all reasonable dispute.

Firstly, we can address the “necessary evil” of the state, and its role vis-a-vis the market system. While it is true that a market requires clear rules of fair exchange, such as contracts, and ownership, such as private property, it is absurd to claim that simply because the market demands these things in order to operate, and because it enlists the instrument of justice that is the ideal state in order to make sure it does, thus the participants in the market owe tribute to those in the state. Because in America the state was developed specifically to defend the rights of citizens, including private property (another way of saying that bands of robbers, including statists, are forbidden from plunder), then it undeniable that freemen precede the state. Being rationally self-interested, these freemen instituted a state as an aegis by which to administer justice. They did not create a state as an institution of coercion by which the statists are “free” to pillage and plunder the citizens as they see fit. Thus, in the spirit of Bastiat’s The Law, we dash the absurd argument of the modern statist that men’s rights devolve from government on the rocks of history and reason; men, and particularly the men who formed the United States of America, through reason and deliberation, enshrined rights as a free-standing code of morality that exists irrespective of government. It is the singular task of government not only to respect, but to actually defend, the rights of man.

We thus move on to the second matter, and that is the economic system of the United States. The modern amenities that are ubiquitous in our daily lives are almost without exception due to invention or radical innovation by capitalists; that is to say, individuals working on their own, or in small groups of mutually interested individuals, in pursuit of personal fame and fortune. The way individuals acquire fame and fortune is by making as many other people happy as possible with their creations. The way politicians acquire fame and fortune is by conquest, looting, the plunder and redistribution of resources, and massive erections to their ego that are often euphemistically referred to as “public works” projects. There have been noble politicians who have made contributions to mankind, and these typically consist of those who have led people in defensive struggles against invaders, or who have led men and women to freedom, and thus many deserve credit for these endeavors.

But when comparing the outstanding “public works” ordered by politicians to those in their charge to the inventions and discoveries of free, self-interested individuals throughout history, there really is no contest as to what kind of people have made the most people happy. While statists frequently point to such government-led projects as The Great Pyramids, The Hoover Dam, and The Apollo Project as feats that no individual could match, these works are nearly all predicated on innovations developed by individual scientists and mathematicians working alone, and nearly all require coerced labor or forcibly acquired wealth. And if we examine each of these feats, although large in scope, they are quite limited in the amount of men they benefit. There is good reason for this. Government officials are not motivated by the same pressures as individuals working in a marketplace. They have two principle motives for being in government: To use power for political gain and self-aggrandizement, and to control the people, lest they catch on and rise up against the politicians. Individuals in a marketplace have a different impetus for action: They seek fame and fortune, or at the very least, the satisfaction of their wants, and thus are pressured to respond to what others in society demand, while creatively employing one’s talents and hard work to do so. The American combination of creative minds operating in freedom, risk-taking investors, the forces of mass production, and an interconnected marketplace utilizing mass transit and communications, has proven to be the formula for a powerhouse of productivity and want-satisfaction unmatched in world history.

If an American takes a look around himself, he sees that he is surrounded by marvels that could not have been dreamt of three decades, let alone a century ago, let alone two hundreds years ago. The American’s world has been transformed over time by countless inventions: from Benjamin Franklin’s ingenious contraptions, such as the Franklin stove and the bi-focal; to Henry Bessemer’s design of the blast furnace, and the development of steel; to George Stephenson’s steam locomotive and the building of the Transcontinental railroads; to Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, Singer’s sewing machine, and Levi Strauss’ creation of denim; to George Bissel’s discovery and development of crude oil for heat, fuel, and lubrication of machinery, and Edwin Drake’s innovations in oil well drilling; to Thomas Edison’s work in electricity and the invention of the incandescent light bulb; to Alexander Graham Bell’s invention of the telephone; to Marconi’s demonstration of radio communication; to Henry Ford’s advancements in mass production of the automobile; to countless other improvements to human life such as derived from gas ovens, Hoover vacuums, televisions, microwaves, commercialized flight, Apple computers, high-speed cable, satellite TV, cell phones, iPads – does the list really need to go on?

The statists’ record of war, slavery, and colonialism, is put to shame by the track record of free market capitalists, who indisputably have advanced the greater good, selfishly and independently, of course. But the power of capitalism as it is coming at the direct expense of the statists,’ the machinery of the state is devoted to the endless demonization of capitalism: by conflating it with direct imperialism; by blaming it for market crashes that arise most often from central bank policy; by arguing that the mere life necessity of work is akin to enslavement. In this regard, the Marxists, and contemporarily, the Cultural Marxists, come in quite handy for the progressive-statists. Since doctrinaire Marxism failed to predict the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system and its historically automatic replacement by utopian socialism, the Cultural Marxists instead attacked capitalism morally, in the realm of values, employing “critical theory” to try to rip apart the assumptions of the capitalist system on the foundational level. They engaged this war utilizing a variety of media, employing technology developed in the capitalist system itself, of course, such as music, movies, and art. They also infiltrated and exerted influence over institutions of communication and upward social mobility: such as universities and schools; news media; courts; unions; and the government bureaucracy. Meanwhile, under the guise of ensuring “safety,” and providing “security,” the statist-progressives worked to suppress capitalism through endless meddling, extortion, and market interference, and whose predictable disruption of economic relations was then blamed on “capitalism” itself. For this purpose, the Fabian socialism of Keynes provided enormously useful for progressive ends; and thus no amount of failure in economic practice of Keynesianism succeeds in deterring statists. The goal is not economic success, but economic control.

As a counter-factual, we can use a hypothetical imagined history to illustrate what might have happened if statist-progressives had been entrenched as they are now in America and Europe centuries earlier. The steam engine was developed by Thomas Savery, an Englishman, who spent huge amounts of money perfecting the technology. He patented it and made a good deal of money on the product, although the initial models had the deadly flaw of lacking pressure release valves. The explosions of several engines killed and maimed many workers. If progressives had been alive in Savery’s day, they likely would have sued him into financial oblivion, revoked his patent, branded the invention too dangerous for operation, and that would have been that. The development of the steam engine and thus the locomotive would have been put back decades due to the meddling of so-called “progressives.” This is not to say that I advocate the employment of dangerous technology, simply that ‘caveat emptor‘ provide heady warning to any individual utilizing unproven technology. This rule should be sufficient in a civilized society to allow individuals to innovate, to suffer the consequences of their own actions, and to reap the rewards of their own successes.

But the proliferation of unfortunate deadly accidents in the industrial era is blown out of proportion and all instances are used as morality tales to illustrate the dangers of the “unfettered marketplace.” Psychologically, the effectiveness of this “black PR” technique is predicated on the immediacy that is presented by mass, nearly instantaneous communications. Non-coincidentally, international terrorists have learned quite a bit from progressives about how to terrorize massive audiences by making illustrations out of a handful of victims. Yet the infinitesimal probability of such horrifying attacks occurring to the audience member doesn’t resonate; he is often more than ready to turn over hard-won liberty for the illusion of security the statist promises to provide. But the power the individual turns over to the state rarely, if ever, results in security; the more power accumulates in the centralized state, the greater the tendency for terrorism of the populous; this time, undertaken much more systematically, and oftentimes, on a much, much larger scale that international terrorist organizations could ever dream. One might say, in passing, that terrorists will win against the West simply if they undermine the civil liberties that the governments of free nations are designed to uphold.

We have already noted that centralized states can and do produce humungous marvels that benefit relatively small numbers of people. But centralized states, especially those that accumulate significant power, produce something else: Mass misery and poverty.

By centralized states, we are referring to the model of government that has persisted since the days of Sargon I of Akkad through FDR’s Great Depression America to Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. Of course, there is the matter of the divergence in the relative scale and power of centralized governments throughout history, but suffice it to say that for our purposes, the modus operandi of centralized governments is to accumulate authority and wield it over a population in an extended territory outside the locale of the government’s capital itself. The underlying driving impetus, or essence, of the government is what defines it.

Thus we see impotent centralized governments in unfree, non-capitalist nations in Africa unable to guarantee contracts and private property, due mainly to a lack of social understanding of the concepts by the people there, and thus there remains a dearth of a sufficient number of people to organize in order to found governments that can preserve free nations.

In Europe, there has long been a tradition of elitist-directed societies that has outlasted the imperialist policies that allowed the respective states to get away with it. Confusing democracy with freedom, the masses instituted governments that promised to give them whatever they demand, thus avoiding the economic reality that they themselves have to satisfy those demands. This has produced little but extremely daunting amounts of debt, mitigated only by the subsidization of Europeans’ collective security by the United States via the Cold War-era institution known as NATO. Americans not only built the engine of the world through free market capitalism, benefiting its trading partners in more regressive parts of the globe, it harnessed its engine to pull the dead weight of outdated regimes. While the folly of the Europeans’ quixotic endeavors to obviate economic reality has begun to sunk in, the United States has elected a man to high office who has set off tilting at dilapidated windmills.

But what happens when economic orders crumble completely? Nothing good. The chaos of hyper-inflation has ushered in brutal, dictatorial regimes in Germany and Zimbabwe. Widespread starvation brought people to their knees in China and Ethiopia. Central governments have used its control over economies to reward the loyal and obeisant, and to punish the unruly and defiant. This should provide warning to the American people, whose statist regime is putting its economic order at grave risk.

Ultimately, unopposed statism results in mass murder. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Archetypes of these cases vary from the explosive national model, which leads to futile, self-destructive wars; to the implosive, internal decay model of socialism, which demoralizes a people and leads to the collapse of societies and economies; to the paranoid death cult model, which is just vigorous enough to sustain itself – for a while. Whether it be megalomaniacal exploits such as Napoleon’s ravaging of Europe, the hand-to-mouth existence of the impoverished state of Castro’s Cuba, or the collectivization and purges of regimes such as Stalin’s Russia, the life-styles of people in state-dominated countries go from bad to worse to unspeakable.

The question remains for those impervious to reason and history: Could it happen here?

What made America exceptional in human history and spurred its incredible rise to preeminence in the free world was not a history of imperialism, colonialism, and plunder. The United States did take part in the slave trade, and did immorally gain from slave labor. The Constitution of the United States, however, banned the importation of slaves before many of the supposedly “enlightened” European nations. America ended slavery for good through a bloody war between the states at approximately the same time as other European nations ended the practice. It is important to note that the United States did not lag behind the rest of the world in coming to realize the hypocrisy and the inhumanity of slavery, nor did it trail appreciably behind in ending the barbaric institution.

What made Americans great was their pioneering spirit, rugged individualism, and the willingness to earn an honest living. Neither desiring others to run one’s own life, nor trusting the government to tell others how to live, most people avoided getting involved with the government. They preferred to work, raise a family, be left alone, and leave others alone. Unfortunately, a fatal seed lay in this passive resistance to government involvement. At one point, the seemingly infinite expanse of private property began ran out. There was no where left to run. Politicians schemed to “bring the state back in,” and slowly fixed a loose noose over the country.

Meanwhile, federalism, the political architecture of the nation, was assaulted under the rubric of “democracy,” which no serious political thinker in world history has ever endorsed. An anti-states rights agenda was driven along by an ever-meddling central government in Washington D.C., which finally found its justification to effectively eliminate the foundational assumption of the ‘Union’ under the pretense of eliminating slavery. While economic slavery is an unforgivable wrong, in no wise does it justify political slavery.

While the central government expanded its reach, progressives hastened to end the availability of private property, and thus the ability for people to escape the control of politicians. Progressives accomplished this both by restricting land with humongous “public” parks and acquiring huge blocks of federal lands, now a mainstay of the “environmentalist” movement; and then by perverting the concept of private property beyond all recognition with absurd interpretations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and later with affronts to the concept itself, such as “eminent domain.”

The Jeffersonian vision of an America filled with self-ruling freemen in heterogeneous, self-organizing communities was being throttled, seemingly by design. The Hamiltonians had perverted the capitalist system with the introduction of a central bank, a flagrant violation of the explicit prohibition of the institution by the Continental Congress. The Whigs had picked up on Hamiltonian thinking by restricting free trade in the “national interest.” Nearly every modern-day economic analysis undertaken using rigorous scientific standards suggests that protectionism is a self-defeating practice, which jibes with the general tried-and-true theory that freedom leads to prosperity.

This is not to say that free market capitalism is perfect, but it is superior to state-manipulated capitalism, the intermediate stage on the inevitable path to socialism, because the former disperses risks in an economic system. While some businesses in a free market system fail, at least the entire economic system tends not to fail at once, which we see in states where central banks command the money supply by setting interest rates. Where free market capitalist systems do run into problems is with huge influxes of specie currency, such as gold and silver, which is being used at the time as capital. But in the modern era, the risk of such huge influxes of gold and silver grows more remote. In sum, there is a reason for the growing tendency and frequency of recessions and depressions; the purposive influx of capital via systematic inflation of the currency by a central bank rewards the administrators of the banks themselves, and punishes those further along in the money supply chain through currency devaluation. In practice, this means working more, gaining less, and being more dissatisfied with the economic system. The invisible hand of the central bank, and not the market, is seizing the wealth of the people, while those of the economically ignorant perceive it all as “theft” by the greedy, who are driven by evil “profits.” This lays the preconditions to sell socialism to the gullible masses.

The final ingredient in disenchanting a people with “capitalism,” that monolith of the left whose notion apparently cannot be twisted enough beyond recognition, is progressive taxation. While the left bemoans the “maldistribution” of wealth in the nation, we must ask ourselves what it is that the left finds so repugnant about those who produce the best goods and services making the most wealth. It is very simple. In a free country, meaning the freest in accordance with true human nature, the economic, political, and societal spheres are divided. In an authoritarian state, politicians covet the economic power of the businessmen, and we should add, the social power of influential artists and commentators in the marketplace of ideas. In the corrupt state, politicians want to control everything, and thus all spheres of human activity tend towards “convergence,” using the instruments of lies and coercion.  We would be remiss to note that for world communists, this “convergence” does not end at the state level; but rather it is an international goal driven along by powerful factions in such coalitions as the European Union, the United Nations, and the (former) Soviet Union.

The point is that the United States is in danger of ceasing to remain the land of the free, and indeed, we find ourselves chasing the steadily moving shadow of the totalitarians, who are forging ahead almost faster than we can keep up. We must seize the high ground in the realm of ideas, and to do this, we must shine the truth on the would-be tyrants. This would at least vanquish the lies, and prepare us mentally to resist the coercion the potential subjugators are designing for us.

Mobilize for action, be of good courage, and defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We are in a war for the hearts and minds of the Republic, and as foot soldiers, we must never waver.  Sound the bell of liberty so that it rings loud and true! Though it be broken, it shall not fail us in the fatal hour.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

The awesomely intelligent and vivacious Kira Davis is away on business, so CDN blogger extraordinaire has the high honor of guest-hosting a sprawling, fast-paced and informative show. From Paul Ryan’s veep positives and non-negatives to Obama’s increasingly vicious and boring attack ads, we’ll hit everything that happened in the last week worth knowing and what to expect in the week ahead.

Tune in tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Hey girl, don’t miss it!

Kyle Becker is a frequent OTNN talk radio commentator.


The Government Owns Us

We pay taxes on property. We pay them on income. We pay them on sales. We pay them to live. We pay them when we die. Let’s face it – the government owns us.

What the people of the United States have is not a government of, by, or for the people. Ronald Reagan’s dictum — “We are a nation that has a government not the other way around” — has been placed on its head by condescending elites who know neither self-restraint nor common decency.

Government, whose production consists of coercive regulations, unnecessary wars, exorbitant taxes, and absurd inefficiency, exists for the benefit of those in power and at our expense. Its machinery is given life by capital, which represents our blood and sweat. It is driven by power and lubricated by greed.

The government is clearly its own interest as is any for-profit corporation.  Yet a corporation must create and produce desirable goods and services in order to remain in business. The government has no such constraints. It has guns and fiat money to forcibly sustain its unwanted operations.

This nature of government was not lost on those who founded this nation. Precautions were taken to forestall the government’s transformation into a weapon to be wielded for the benefit of an exclusive political elite.

But a government is ultimately made up of self-interested men, who may narrowly pursue personal power at the long-term expense of the conditions that provide them such power. This is the root cause of the rise and decline of civilizations. Self-interest, when unguided by reason, is corrupted.

What is government? At its best, it is a resource that promotes the conditions that allow men to freely lead their lives – to create, to produce, to trade the fruit of their labor in kind facilitated by capital. The conditions of a free people are entirely encapsulated by the security of persons and property.

At its worst, government is a tool of men to force people to do or not do particular actions. The more particular the law, the more liable it is to be the instrument of particular interest. Over time, corrupt politicians tend to enact laws that benefit their personal interest, and to suppress behavior that threatens such interest.

The laws proliferate as the government becomes more corrupt. It has been estimated that there are now over two million laws in the United States. It is such a time, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, that it is impossible for a good man to live without being a criminal. As Frederic Bastiat observed:

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim – when he defends himself – as a criminal.

If government is a tool of men, then which men are most fit to rule? This is the question on which the fate of a people rests. Only the elites and their dependents believe that the answer is an aristocracy. The great majority of the American people believe the answer is the people, in other words, a democracy. These are wrong answers. Self-government, or government of the individual, is the most superior form of government. But this is also the most precarious form and the most difficult to maintain, as it requires reason, morality, and self-sufficiency. Unsurprisingly, these qualities are enemies of the corrupt government.

The symbiotic relationship that perverts a society arises when the people’s capacity for self-government deteriorates as politicians abuse the law to paternalistically accrue power and glory. The capacity for a system of laws to be sustained is undermined, and eventually the entire rotting edifice of the structure collapses.

Crisis provides social engineers the license to complete their reconstruction of society to their own benefit; and indeed, one finds that the authoritarian kernel of the transformative state had been embedded in the society generations before, like an acorn that grows ever-so-slowly into a mighty oak, and whose branches are clipped to form the fasces of despotic power for a tyrant.

A complete despotism is rarely, if ever, imposed against the will of a people. The sad fact of history is that authoritarian governments arise when people are prepared by the government to desire subjugation and are driven by necessity to beg for sustenance at the feet of their masters.

The hallmark of a government that is undermining the capacity of a people for self-government is the altruistic claim that the people must be saved from themselves. Such a government, through taxation and welfare, remedies victimhood by creating more victims. By siding with the failures of the society over those who succeed on their own, the government incentivizes and multiplies failure.

A great civilization filled with great men is thus overtaken by those of the mob, who have surrendered their lives to the state. Those whose lives are empty are filled up by those whose lives are overflowing until the life-blood of a society is drained. A free people is corrupted from within and then enslaved.

It may be said in Biblical terms that the devil does not destroy, he desecrates. Lucifer takes that which is beautiful and puts it in the service of evil. Just as the devil has no capacity for creation, those who seek to undermine our nation are not destroyers, they are corrupters. If shot through that prism, only the light of truth can vanquish them. And only morality, reason, and adherence to principle can sustain us.

The Art of Subversion

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. – Sun Tzu

Grand strategy is a term familiar to generals and statesmen; it conjures up visions of smoke-filled rooms and military officers crouched over world maps moving armies like chess pieces. Yet there is another kind of grand strategy — one familiar to politicians and philosophers: It is the grand strategy of political subversion.

Political subversion is typically when you demoralize, destabilize, economically and societally shatter a nation in order to put the pieces back together in a configuration more amenable to the subverter. Contrary to popular conception, it is not a formless art conducted in the shadows. In free societies, it can easily be carried out in the open.

It has been the goal of authoritarian countries like Russia and China during the entire post-World War II era to facilitate (not necessarily orchestrate) the ideological subversion of the United States.

Why? Because both countries acknowledge freedom and capitalism to be superior to dictatorship and command economy; but neither want to relinquish authoritarian control over their peoples. Both states have used world bodies, and particularly the United Nations, as a means to erode the sovereignty of America in the world and Americans’ influence over their own government. All the while, they have undermined the economic and military strengths that make America so formidable.

The “communists” (who call themselves anything but communists) have sought to achieve this end through  aiding and abetting self-destructive political ideology. The subverters of America, as it was founded, can be referred to as the political left.

What are the goals of the political left? To capture the Democrat party; to neuter, destroy or co-opt the Republican party; to turn the United States into a single party socialist democracy; and to implement a “global transformation” from a capitalist order to an internationalist-fascist “new world order” where America can be sucked dry like marrow from a bone.

Why do I say “fascist”? Because fascism feigns to acknowledge “property,” but it commands how it is utilized (as in the name of the “greater good”). Some believe communism and capitalism to be anathema to one another. This is an illusion. Communist countries throughout history have always used capitalist devices such as currency, banking, and trade to run their economies. The crucial difference between communist countries and free market capitalist countries is who controls the economy.

A country can be capitalist, in other words, it can use capital for economic transactions; yet the state can control the labor, the wages, and the goods and services available to the “worker.” A free market capitalist country must have the characteristics of private property and other individual rights, such as free speech and personal freedom. It lets the citizens who comprise the economy run the economy, negotiating amongst themselves for the trade of goods, services, and labor.

In essence, all nominally communist and socialist countries are fascist; and to anticipate an objection, there are no truly “internationalist” regimes — only regimes that are more or less nationalistic in their preferred forms of propaganda. Russia and China have indirectly formed ideological alliances with leftists in the United States, who unknowingly (and rarely, knowingly) cooperate with their designs. Both countries are nationalistic, but in the past have spouted cosmopolitan rhetoric. American leftists bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Why do leftists in the United States knowingly and unknowingly cooperate with the plans of these “communist” countries? Because leftists believe that the collapse of “capitalism” is inevitable. To bring about the left’s imagined socialist utopia (or dystopia as some of us would have it), the strongest capitalist country, the United States, must be destroyed.

The United States is too powerful a country (ironically due to the same capitalist system that the leftists condemn) to directly attack. Indeed, this is not only pointless but counterproductive. As Sun Tzu noted, “In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is the inferior way.”

Deception is therefore a key for the leftists. There is no lie a leftist won’t tell, no moral bridge he will not cross, in order to accomplish his goal of the complete destruction of the old, whether the old be Western “civilization” itself.

Indeed, after the Frankfurt School arrived and set up shop at Columbia University after World War II, it helped to devise critical theory, historical revisionism, and post-modernism to inculcate in the students that all aspects of the culture were negotiable and truth was purely a subjective matter.

The floodgates were thrown open for the type of unabashed lying we see today in our culture. The left has enacted the Gramscian grand strategy of capturing the institutions of popular culture and promoting democracy (while relegating the Constitution to nothing more than a dusty museum piece).

The Frankfurt School scattered like a prism the cultural marxist program into dozens of fracturing agendas: Gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, animal rights, world peace, environmentalism, the list goes on and on.

It is key to recognize that the United States has been declining as a world power for decades; and this is despite its potentially high levels of skilled labor, population growth, natural resources, technological prowess, industrial capacity, real economic growth, and military expenditures.

Instead, America has been weakened due to a campaign carried out by the political left to demoralize Americans culturally while creating as much economic inefficiency and chaos as possible.

The left has targeted America’s work force by:

  1. raising corporate taxes to the highest in the world, forcing companies overseas;
  2. draining the treasury for public education, and then producing minds ill-suited for superior performance in a high-tech, industrialized economy;
  3. effectively importing tens of millions of underskilled illegal aliens, who undercut wages and deplete (morally repugnant) social welfare programs;
  4. fostering an entitlement mentality that deteriorates productivity, especially for manual laborers;
  5. promoting unions, which generally create more inefficient and more costly laborers by design; and
  6. incentivizing joblessness and laziness through mandatory unemployment insurance and public welfare programs, which are routinely abused and create a drain on the economy.

The left has sought to curb population growth in the United States by:

  1. promoting the practice of abortion, through groups like “Planned Parenthood” (a leftist organization that veils its agenda though its deceptive label);
  2. promoting gay, lesbian, and transgender causes; including gay marriage and adoption of children and
  3. overpopulation alarmism (recently tied into the “global warming” agenda through the suggestion of incentivizing the practice of forgoing children through non-child credits, similar to carbon credits).

Relatedly, the left has sought to destroy healthy families by:

  1. providing incentives for divorce
  2. promoting the idea that women should work rather than raise children, leaving children in the hands of state-run child care centers
  3. making it easy for children to be removed from families for numerous reasons, even if unfounded
  4. the sexualization of youth, which is linked to early rebelliousness
  5. the promotion of lawlessness and drug use and
  6. the subsidization and even encouragement of single mothers, no matter how many children she has out of wedlock.

The left has targeted America’s use of its natural resources by:

  1. enacting laws to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas by American companies (not Chinese ones, apparently);
  2. the creation of strict environmental regulations, to the point that no oil refinery has been built in the United States since the 1970s
  3. the fear-mongering over nuclear power, even though countries like France receive much of their power from uranium
  4. global warming and climate change hysteria, which impacts all fossil fuels, from coal (one of America’s most abundant resources, and one that Obama specifically targeted) to shale to oil and natural gas and
  5. the creation of giant wildlife reserves where many of the best natural resources are located.

The left has greatly reduced America’s potential technological prowess by:

  1. providing extremely substandard mathematical and scientific education to American students; and
  2. compromising secrets to countries like China (supercomputer technology, for example, which was compromised directly by President Clinton).

Industrial capacity in America has been greatly reduced by the left due to:

  1. numerous environmental regulations;
  2. punitive lawsuits, replacing the legal concept of caveat emptor with a nanny state mentality;
  3. economic zoning and restrictions; and
  4. the promotion of tedious and expensive trade unions, all making American companies less competitive abroad.

The U.S.’ economic growth has been impressive, but not nearly as impressive once you factor in that:

  1. seventy percent of the American economy is consumption
  2. consumption is mainly debt-driven, the average household having about $100,000 in personal debt
  3. the Fed’s inflation of the money supply makes the economic numbers bigger (on the stock market for example), but the numbers may not reflect actual added productivity, or additional goods or services provided (in fact, money supply is so huge a factor once can almost chart one to one charts of money supply and stock market gains side by side); and
  4. the national debt, much-financed by China and Japan, is in the order of trillions, and financial obligations of the U.S. government, all told, on the order of several tens of trillions of dollars.
  5. Obamacare will effectively crush one-sixth of the U.S. economy, load Americans with immense amounts of debt.

Military expenditures since 1970 have been robust in terms of actual dollars, but not nearly as much so in terms of percent of GDP (the early Cold War era was nearly twice as high). Nevertheless, the U.S. military is well-funded. But it is also overstretched. The U.S. has military bases across the globe, and is currently engaged in tedious wars and skirmishes.

The drain on the military is real. How is the political left involved? Nearly every Democrat voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan, and the great majority voted for Bush to carry out war in Iraq. Of course, the Democrats now feign that the now-ended Iraq War was all Bush’s idea and fault. In Afghanistan, leftists can have their cake and eat it too: They can stretch the military thin and erode its morale; all the while pretending that they are the “party of peace.”

The manner in which the political left demonized Bush and lets Obama completely off the hook for pursuing the same military policies or worse is a testament to the effectiveness of the left’s brainwashing program. Another sign is the fascistic reaction to the pro-marriage statements of Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy, which is a reflection of the left’s cultural marxist plan to undermine Christianity and capitalism; or in Gramscian terms, the cultural superstructure and the economic base.

One litmus test to gauge how much the U.S. has been weakened due to the policies of the Democrats is to assess the United States’ raw war-making capability. This is a rough statistic America’s ideological enemies abroad would be interested in. The Correlates of War data-set, second edition, carries such data up to 2001. The statistic that we would be interested in to assess how much the U.S. has been damaged by Democrat policies is the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC).

Upon investigation, the U.S.’ CINC declined from .3838 in 1945 to a startling .149 in 2001. The CINC is derived from a number of statistics, including: Energy consumption, iron and steel production, military expenditure, military personnel, total population, and urban population. It is an imperfect statistic, yet one that buttresses the overall point: The U.S. has been subverted from within.

The Art of Subversion

The greatest form of subversion is ideological, because once you implant the seeds of such corruption in a nation, it becomes a conspiracy with no identifiable acting conspirators. It acts of its own accord; it takes on a life of its own.

The key for the agent of subversion is to demoralize a people, to get them to choose “self-sacrifice” as a virtue, and altruism as the highest ideal – once this is accomplished, you are well on the way to causing the nation’s collapse. The plausible deniability is nearly infinite because the damage becomes self-imposed.

Thus the trouble with Joseph McCarthy is that he saw communist corruption everywhere, and conflated willful treason with philosophical corruption. The communists had indeed infiltrated the U.S. government, but through legal means; several red professors from Russia and Germany intoxicated British and American professors and students with their socialist criticisms of Western civilization in the early twentieth century; and the education system, the news media, and the court system simply came to sympathize with socialist causes (though perhaps not always in the name of socialism).

It is an undeniable fact that the Democrat Party adopted much of the socialist program under the false flags of liberalism and progressivism. The Marxist recommendations for destruction of “capitalist” countries of ushering in a central bank, a graduated income tax, the destruction of private property, and the promotion of democracy were incrementally taken up by Democrats over the course of decades.

Our society, which is tolerant and embraces freedom of conscience, thus became the fertile soil for growing an enemy that one can only fight with words and ideas. If your opponents are liars, are intellectually dishonest, and systematically deceptive you have a slight problem under our Constitutional system. But if you have a majority faction that rises to power with access to unconstitutional machinery like a central bank, with no design to adhere to the Constitution, and with the strategy of impoverishing the country through destroying its purchasing power and fostering welfare paid for with imaginary money, then you have a serious problem. The country will be pulled ahead to collapse by people who think collapse was “inevitable” to begin with.

Those who are the greatest threat to America are mostly dead and gone; pragmatists like William James and John Dewey; socialists like Norman Thomas and Earl Browder; transcendentalists like Immanuel Kant; ultra-statists like George Hegel; philosophical corrupters like Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, and Chomsky; revolutionaries like Marx, Gramsci, and Alinsky.

To claim that such men are destroying the country in a myopic culture with conditioned attention deficit disorder is often akin to feinting at ghosts. As John Maynard Keynes wrote, “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Most men are not apt to believe that ruin is impending until the foundation is buckling, the support beams are cracking, and the roof is splintering above their heads.

In many ways the modern leftist sucks the oxygen out of such claims that the nation is indeed on the verge of economic and moral collapse by fabricating fake crises out of whole cloth and justifying them in their minds as Platonic noble lies, Goebbelesque big lies, or Sorelian/Nietzschean myths.

When Khruschev banged his shoe on a podium and garbled out, “We will bury you!” in Russian (“Мы вас похороним!” or My vas pokhoronim!), note that he did not say he would destroy us. Khruschev was more accurately saying that he would “shovel dirt over our graves.”

Once you corrupt the nation’s moral system at the foundational level of ideological assumptions, then you have successfully defeated your enemy, as Sun Tzu lauded, without going to war. Those who care about saving freedom in this country better know the left and know themselves in order to seize on the shifting information terrain and exploit it to maximum effect.

Cultural Destroyers, Cultural Creators

The dissolution of our Republic has been a play in many acts, and diverse players have strutted and fretted their hour upon the stage. We sit as an audience witnessing our nation’s destruction, only vaguely aware that the direction of our demise is being orchestrated at a higher level of awareness. The actors seem replaceable, the drama unfolds in the most predictable of ways, and so we feel powerless to stop what is transpiring before us. Our nemesis is invisible, ubiquitous, and relentless. It shapes our actions, reactions, perceptions, and beliefs on what is real, true, and good.

Politics nowadays seem like a bad movie, and here we are gobbling popcorn, only stopping to throw a few unpopped kernels at the screen.

What if we could change the story?

In philosophy lay the script for our nation, the journey from darkness to freedom. It is the weapon to dispose of the superficial manipulators of our conscience, to relegate them to the annals of infamy and then obscurity.

When philosophy ceases to edify human life, and wars against knowledge itself, it is time to take mental and spiritual arms against the usurpers of our civilization. We must return to the roots of what it means to be human, to associate with our fellow man, to know and act in the world around us, and to re-lay the foundations for vibrant society and just government.

Our culture is the means of transmission of our philosophy, knowledge, and values from one generation to the next. Yet now we tend to view culture as something anomalous and free-form, able to be creatively molded like clay into whatever our hearts desire. This is a false notion of culture; rather, culture is the means by which we sustain, preserve, and improve human life. And it not only matters, it is absolutely vital.

In order to pierce the cultural smog that clouds our vision, we must each of us understand that our culture is not merely sick, it has been poisoned. The enemies of free will and forthright association have set their task as no less than societal dissolution, preying on the natural tendencies towards entropy particular to the legacy of The Enlightenment.

Thus unreason has been masked in the trappings of Reason, science is made but the maidservant of power, and open discourse has been perverted into mockery, ridicule, and shameless fallacies.

Such is the state of affairs in our society that men are at a loss at how to spontaneously relate with one another. Social trust is dissolved in an atmosphere of coercive mutual claims upon the life and labor of one citizen upon another. The desire for dignified autonomy and earned respect is replaced by resentment and animus. Injustice begets petty recrimination and at the extreme, vengeance. Civility dissipates and suspicion, corruption, and apathy reign.

It is in such times that men search for the meaning behind their unhappiness and the causes of injustice within their society. It is through disruption and crisis that the reason is activated from the slumber that ensues from the lagging and diminishing gains of cultural success and is put in the service of rational self-defense.

The ultimate source of philosophical tension that is exploited by the enemies of The Enlightenment is inherent in its vision of progress and the retention of the basic principles that animate Western Civilization. To reunite the Enlightenment notion of progress with its concordant views of human nature, reality, civil society, and government is thus a fundamental task to re-establish a political and social order that is harmonious and successful. We must reinvigorate our shared culture.

In order to ascertain the ideas that mitigate against the ideological foundations of our civilization and their originators, we must take in a brief panorama of recent philosophical history. Three separately identifiable but interdependent strains of thought comprise the cultural monster that is sucking Western Civilization down like a giant vortex: the Hegelian-Marxian, the Nietszchean (although the philosopher did not advocate nihilism), and pragmatist.

Both the Hegelian-Marxian and the Nietszchean strains are aspects of neomarxism or “cultural marxism.” To understand cultural marxism, the progenitor of political correctness, we must appreciate the historical context in which it arose. Capitalism animated by the actions of rational individuals trading labor and property to accomplish their own ends is the hated enemy of totalitarians. But as much as Marx despised it, capitalism, in such specific terms, was inexplicably prosperous and more resilient in the face of the predictions of its collapse than its detractors anticipated. Thus the need arose to precipitate the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism, even if that meant destroying every institution, tradition, norm, and indeed, every mind the malcontents could reach.

The great strategist of the cultural marxists was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, whose contributions to the grand strategy of the cultural destroyers cannot be overemphasized. Suffice it to say that Gramsci’s view of capitalism, and all its “bases,” which is supported in the main by the cultural “superstructure,” is the master key that unlocks one’s understanding of the milieu in which the Westerner is near totally immersed.

In conjunction with Gramsci’s grand strategy is the undermining of the capitalist economic base, which is accomplished primarily by the Cloward-Piven strategy of using welfare to overwhelm the public finances, while fostering economic and political dependency, as well as Lenin’s dictum to sell corporations “the rope to hang them with.” The organizational and propaganda tactician to carry out the left’s necessarily destructive program is Saul Alinsky, whose advice is summed by assassinating the character of anyone that dares stand in the way. Alinsky referred to himself as a “radical pragmatist,” which brings us to the third strain.

Pragmatism in the philosophical sense is derived from the thinking of William James and John Dewey, among others. Pragmatism’s views of reality and change are informed by clumsy adaptations of the findings of particle physics; in particular, quantum theory. In light of the tangential nature of such a deep discussion, we may conclude that pragmatism provides justification to bureaucrats to meddle in society ad hoc without a deeper view of human identity, a proper interpretation of reality, the temporally dependent nature of causality, and the necessity of implementing public policies in the context of ongoing historical processes.

Why is this important? Because the true nature of reality provides the philosophical justification for identity and therefore individualism, and thus why this philosophy is consonant with a harmonious state of human affairs. Men are not ephemeral entities that are reconfigured as the properties of atoms when recombined with other atoms, as the social chemists of our day would like to believe. Properties of people, as atoms, are manifestations of their identities, and change is the result of their actions and reactions. They have identities: A = A.

Men are thus unique individuals, and have an internal drive that motivates them to change their actions in response to specific times and environments. Thus people’s actions are internally-dependent and motivated by their specific natures. They seek autonomy and are self-interested, in accordance with the raison d’etre of their existence: To survive, to thrive, to reproduce, to live in full. For men, life requires action of both the body and the mind.

Undermine the activities of the mind and you remove man’s ability to support his life. He becomes a dependent being, vulnerable to the self-interests of others. Philosophical corruption is a threat to man’s ability to morally sustain his life in a civil society.

The surest way to oppose the statist leviathan that seeks to devour the individuals of our society is to coalesce around the cultural values and the principles that lead to the prosperous and just society. Such ideas have been forth by the philosophers of Western Civilization, and navigated by such adept minds as Edmund Burke and Ayn Rand, as presumably opposed as those thinkers may appear. For it is in Burke that we find an expression of Western values with a mind towards their intergenerational transmission in the long-term; and in Rand the moral justification for Western philosophy, the edification of the individual and the voluntary basis of society and economy.

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!

How the Left Sees Us

Sick of being treated like sheeple instead of people? Well, start thinking like an individual human being instead of a member of the herd.

Each individual is his own person with a universe of thoughts, emotions, biology, and experience unto himself. Each person is a miracle who will not be replicated in the history of the universe.

Joy, love, sadness, and even anger, all are legitimate emotions that each person possesses. Each person has a psyche, which is the Greek term for both a mind and a soul.

When I look into the eyes of a child, I see a unique person blessed with a special set of gifts. A little boy or girl adventuring out into the world, someone who is irreplaceable and precious. I want him to do the most with his life that he can, well-provided with opportunities to learn and grow, with the maximum amount of personal challenge and the necessary support to develop into an intelligent and self-reliant adult.

But leftists see a child as yet another dependent, someone to be molded and created in their own image, someone to be brought up to be yet another member of a group: the “community,” the “tribe,” even “the nation.” All children equal, none individual, none struggling to be excellent and therefore none superior or inferior. Faceless, nameless people to be managed from a centralized government far away.

The more centralized and bureaucratized the government, the more abstract the individual becomes. He becomes an instrument of the elites to perpetuate their own power and advance their political causes. His will, his self-interest, becomes pitted in a zero-sum game with the ruling class, with ever-creeping coercion stealing away ever more of the individual’s right to self-rule.

Collectivism and individualism are the most fundamental dueling ideologies of our age. Whether it be nationalism, socialism, or any other form of collectivism on one side, and a Constitutional government sanctifying the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property on the other, the dilemma is the same: Who decides the course of the individual’s life?

Democracy, the great political watchword of the West, is a form of majority rule that suppresses the minority, especially whom Ayn Rand called the greatest “minority” – the individual.

When combined with increasing social engineering, through state-run education, “non-profit” agencies, and influence over media, “democracy” becomes transformed over time not into an expression of the collective will, which is bad enough; but a slavish extension of the rulers’ will over individuals.

As collectivist government seeks to impose its will on a people, it insists that all individuals are rigidly members of “groups,” and attempts to isolate and alienate those who do not conform. The individual who expresses himself and endeavors to live his life in pursuit of truth and excellence, regardless of group esteem, eventually becomes ostracized; if not socially, then legally. Those who challenge the group or the government are termed “radicals” or “extremists” for wanting to live their own lives without interference.

Autonomy is something the group cannot tolerate. The individual belongs to the group and its enforcement arm – the state.

The country’s turn to collectivism has profound consequences, as we see with the socialized healthcare bill ridiculously upheld by the Supreme Court. The individual becomes a mere tool of “society” to advance the goals set by the leaders.

Over time, an individual’s behavior can “justifiably” be micromanaged in any way the ruling class sees fit; whether or not he smokes, what he eats, what car he drives, and how much soda he is allowed to imbibe. For the individual in a collectivist society, there is no limit to manipulation by the government.

Ultimately, whether or not politicians violate our individual rights depends on the culture, and how we the people hold elected officials accountable. Politicians who fear the citizens’ wrath are far less liable to provoke it.

Obama Campaign Orders Reporters to Limit Bidenism Tweets

The Obama campaign is seeking to mitigate the damage that human gaffe machine Joe Biden can do in an increasingly tight election. The Vice President has demanded that reporters in all press conferences and conference calls embargo their tweets until the session has ended and the campaign has had a chance to respond to questions.

Why would the Obama campaign request reporters can their Bidenisms?

Oh, this.

In a presidential campaign that has Obama reeling from his “you didn’t build that” disaster, the last thing Obama needs is Gaffemaster J coming out and trying to fix it.

When States Turn Evil

Evil states aren’t suddenly thrust upon a people, with a madman declaring his intentions to brutally enslave the populace. Although evil states don’t appear announced, there are warnings that such regimes are impending, despite all propaganda slogans of the party’s admirable intentions.

One can tell that a state is becoming evil when there is a moral separation of means and ends. If evil acts are advocated by a major party to accomplish the utopian good, and there is insufficient political opposition, then events are put into motion that lead inexorably to misery and even bloodshed on a massive scale.

The historical examples of ruthless parties attaining dominant power through the use of genuinely benevolent slogans are legion. The Bolsheviks, who murdered tens of millions of people, came to power touting “Bread, Land, and Peace.”

Instead of Bread, the Russians would experience famine in the 1930s, and the Ukrainians would even be purposefully starved under Stalin, leading to millions of deaths.

Instead of Land, farmland was stolen from the people and made state property through collectivization, expropriation, and arbitrary redistribution, along with the extermination of kulaks or petty landholders.

Instead of Peace, the ending of the war with Germany, on unfavorable terms at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, commenced a new war against the Russian people themselves to force them under the Soviet yoke.

Instead of “Freedom for oppressed nationalities,” as was promised to the Soviet people, the Georgians, Ukrainians and other minorities were slaughtered by the former Commissar of Nationalities Joseph Stalin.

All the while, the Soviet people were indoctrinated into the Bolshevik version of “class warfare,” presumably justifying such massive bloodshed. It should be noted that the United Nations allows no definition of genocide for such mass slaughter if it is carried out on class warfare grounds.

The Maoists also had their fair share of blowing sunshine up people’s rears before sticking a boot in them. The slogan “Serve the People” or “Service for the People” (more accurately, “Service the People”) became popular in China prior to the “Great Leap Forward” (off a cliff). The Serve the People slogan would later become adopted by The Black Panthers and aspiring yuppiecrats across America’s fruited plain during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Nazis, for their part, even had their kindler, gentler side, when they weren’t deriding the evils of “the Jews.” The slogan “Strength through Joy” was adapted by the Hitler Youth, a vigorous expression of the “Let’s Move!” variety.

The Nazis were also staunch anti-smokers and health nuts, following the arbitrary preferences of the Germans’ eccentric diktator Adolph Hitler. The Nazis had universal healthcare, following the practice of Otto von Bismarck; and though it is not being alleged that the institution of universal healthcare causes unfettered warfare and genocide, it cannot be denied that it is an institution of state-collective control.

The Italian fascist ruler Benito Mussolini once wrote, “For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism, it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and, hence, the century of the State.”

The connection between the state and collectivism is inextricable; as the State uses collectivism to achieve its ends, collectivism feeds a warped logic that sees human beings as disposable – that is collectivism’s ultimate and most radical conclusion. It can be summed up no better than the Leninist regime Khmer Rouge: “To keep you is no gain, to destroy you is no loss.”

Socialism, communism, fascism — the only substantive difference between these ideologies is the scope of their purveyors’ collectivist ambitions. Communism is fascism taken worldwide. The end of socialism is communism.

It’s all evil, no matter what you call it. And there’s no justification for it.

The antidote to state-sanctioned evil is two-fold. The first is individualism, which is the creed that every human being has the right to defend himself, to support his own life, and to act and speak in accordance with his own conscience, provided he does not infringe on the rights of others.

The second is a code of conduct holding that moral means are commensurate with moral ends. There is no “higher cause” that calls one to commit an act of evil against his fellow man. The way to spread good is by being good.

It should be noted here that the ideology guiding the current administration is, tacitly albeit obviously, Alinskyite. Both President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are self-admitted Alinsky disciples. Why is this important? Because Alinsky taught the ends justify the means; and even more disturbingly, that the end is power.

Check out my new audio podcastRogue’s Gallery” for a fast-paced rundown of the day’s events with my incisive political analysis.

1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama: Mitt Match-up Edition

  1. President Obama is a cigarette smoker who has failed to quit. Mitt Romney is not a smoker.
  2. Obama visibly drank alcohol on several occasions while in office. Romney does not drink alcohol. Or coffee. No one is quite sure what he drinks.
  3. In one of his many biographies, Obama confessed to using pot and a little blow. Mitt Romney does not like it when his neighbors smoke pot on the beach. And get off his lawn.
  4. Mitt Romney was once said to have hired illegal immigrants, but he only hired a landscaping company that employed illegals.  Barack Obama directly hired hundreds of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense.
  5. Mitt Romney was slammed in a Washington Post hit piece for hazing a student who turned out to be gay. Barack Obama admits to having shoved around a girl while in school.
  6. Barack Obama confessed to eating dog in his biography Dreams from My Father. Mitt Romney likes his steak medium rare.
  7. The Obamas enjoy attacking fast food chains. Mitt Romney enjoys making fast food chains profitable.
  8. After berating Americans about unhealthy food habits, Michelle Obama ordered a cheeseburger, french fries, and a chocolate shake from the Shake Shack, while Obama scarfed down wieners at a sausage fest. Mitt Romney doesn’t like cookies.
  9. When throwing out the first pitch at a major league baseball game, Obama noticeably threw like a girl. At age six, Mitt could already hit a baseball further than the current president.
  10. While throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game, Obama wore both a White Sox hat and a Nationals jersey and drew unmistakable boos. When Mitt Romney wears a Red Sox jersey, he wears only a Red Sox jersey.
  11. When throwing out the first pitch at an All-Star game, after being warned by Albert Pujols “not to bounce it,” he decides to wear mom jeans. On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney wears Dockers (and he requires his staff to do likewise).
  12. During an interview with Bob Costas, Obama mispronounced Comiskey Park as “Kaminsky Park.” Romney not only goes to Fenway Park, he knows how to say it.
  13. It is not clear whether or not Barack Obama knows how to properly throw a football. Mitt Romney not only knows how to play football, he doesn’t wear shades and a baseball cap while doing it.
  14. The president bicycles with a helmet that would make Urkel blush. Mitt Romney digs motorcycles.
  15. Barack Obama goes shirtless as he takes long walks on the beach. Mitt Romney has magic underwear.
  16. Obama likes to pick NCAA tournament brackets. Romney likes to pick winning stocks.
  17. Obama can be shown to dye his hair black and gray as desired. Mitt Romney has an immaculately manicured coif that shines with the sheen of a silver fox.
  18. The president has played over 1650 holes of golf while in office. Romney doesn’t go to the golf course often, because one time he did and he was arrested for sliding on big blocks of ice.
  19. No one even knows Mitt Romney’s golf handicap. Barack Obama’s handicap is he doesn’t know how to create jobs.
  20. When Mitt Romney goes bowling, he rolls strikes. Obama bowled a 37 over seven frames before quitting.
  21. Barack Obama cracked an insensitive joke about the Special Olympics. Mitt Romney helped turn around the actual Olympics.
  22. Obama gets pizza chefs delivered from St. Louis. Romney delivers pizza to firefighters.
  23. President Obama holds beer summits. Mitt Romney holds jobs summits with small business owners.
  24. Mitt Romney will likely get the vote of Chuck Norris. Barack Obama will get the votes of the kinds of folks Chuck Norris used to kill. Just by thinking about them.
  25. Mitt Romney’s wife is a hard-working, cancer-surviving mother of five children. Barack Obama’s wife once got paid a six figure salary for a mail-in job on a hospital board.
  26. Barack Obama’s VP is Joe Biden. Mitt Romney’s VP will not be Joe Biden.
  27. When Barack Obama does a speech, he uses a teleprompter. When Mitt Romney gives a speech, he uses Brylcreem.
  28. Mitt Romney’s real first name is Willard. Barack Obama’s middle name is “Hussein.”
  29. The name of Mitt Romney’s mom is Lenore. The name of Barack Obama’s mom is Stanley.
  30. Barack Obama’s father was a womanizing Kenyan marxist. Mitt Romney’s dad was a union-friendly governor of Michigan.
  31. Obama’s idea of community service is shaking down banks and agitating for radical causes. Mitt Romney’s idea of community service is doing charity work overseas.
  32. Mitt Romney’s idea of missionary work is promoting the faith of the Mormon Church. Barack Obama’s idea of missionary work involves Mrs. Obama and won’t be discussed on this blog.
  33. Barack Obama cracks lewd jokes about Michelle Obama “doesn’t go all the way down” on her pushups. Mitt Romney doesn’t think there’s anything funny about not going all the way down on pushups, and if anyone on his campaign does it during morning PT, he has to sleep on the campaign bus.
  34. Mitt Romney gives away pocketfuls of cash to jobless campaign volunteers. Barack Obama gives away presidential medals of freedom to known Marxist leaders like Dolores Huerta.
  35. Barack Obama’s idea of “change” is turning a prosperous free country into a hyper-regulated basketcase. Mitt Romney’s idea of change  is the wad of twenties in his pocket.
  36. After his father died, Mitt Romney gave away his entire inheritance to the BYU scholarship fund. Barack Obama gave away a bust of Winston Churchill that was a gift from England.
  37. Barack Obama once gifted a boxed set of DVDs to Prime Minister Gordon Brown that was not even formatted correctly. Mitt Romney has never seen The Wizard of Oz, due to its hidden socialist undertones.*
  38. Obama gave an iPod to Queen Elizabeth loaded with his “greatest” speeches.  Mitt Romney’s iPod doesn’t have his own speeches; more like country rock and Americana.
  39. Barack Obama likes to give shout outs to politically motivated and foul-mouthed gangsta rappers. Mitt Romney doesn’t listen to hip hop.
  40. When he was younger, Barack Obama’s idol was Saul Alinsky. Mitt Romney’s idol was Jesus Christ.
  41. Barack Obama holds onto politically partisan hacks like Eric Holder too long because he doesn’t like to fire his fellow Democrats. Because he lives in the world of reality, Mitt Romney likes the ability to fire incompetent workers.
  42. Say what you want about Mitt Romney’s vacations, at least they don’t cost America’s taxpayers millions.
  43. Obama’s slogan “Forward” has a rich history of socialist usage. Mitt Romney’s slogan “Believe in America,” despite MSNBC’s idiotic assertions, has nothing to do with the KKK.
  44. Mitt Romney rightly called the Occupy Movement “dangerous” as it piled up over 6,000 arrests. Barack Obama called it “the reason I ran for office.”
  45. Barack Obama “empathizes” with the Occupiers. Mitt Romney empathizes with the unemployed looking for a full-time job.
  46. Mitt  calls the auto bailout “tragic,” as it has led to a $16 billion loss for taxpayers. Obama claims that the auto bailouts “worked.”
  47. While Mitt slams Obama for the disastrous economy, the president thinks the private sector’s “doing just fine.”
  48. Mitt Romney warns America about a “government-run economy.” Barack Obama fears a market-run economy.
  49. The last time Mitt Romney dined with the Chinese was at Szechuan Palace. The last time Obama dined with the Chinese, he begged the commie-run government to buy up more of our debt.
  50. When Mitt thinks of “AAA,” he laments the decline in our S&P credit ratings. When Obama thinks “AAA,” he recalls an auto club he once joined.
  51. Mitt Romney sometimes forgets the keys to his Ford Mustang. Barack Obama “sometimes forgets” the magnitude of the recession the country’s been in.
  52. When Romney hears about the “New Black Panthers,” he intuitively thinks about booking a family trip to the Franklin Park Zoo. When Obama hears about the New Black Panthers, he checks his dayrunner to see if he has time for a speaking engagement.
  53. The in-the -tank media are investigating if Mitt Romney gave away free subs to court voters in Wisconsin. The same media could care less if there were free subs patrolling the waters of the Atlantic seaboard.
  54. Barack Obama’s Secretary of the Navy named vessels after disgraced Democrat Jack Murtha, civil rights champion Medgar Evers, and leftist labor leader Cesar Chavez. Mitt Romney obviously named his son Taggart for an Atlas Shrugged character.
  55. Mitt Romney once defied the state of Massachusetts by insisting he can put whatever stickers on his boat he wants. Barack Obama’s wife wants to “sponsor” an all-female boat in the Navy, whatever that means.
  56. Contrary to popular misconception, Mitt Romney’s favorite game is not Etch-a-Sketch, it is Monopoly (with real money). Barack Obama’s favorite game is crushing the hopes and dreams of small business owners.
  57. Under Mitt Romney’s governorship with the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts legislature, it became more expensive to go ice skating, register a boat, or get a duplicate driver’s license. Under Obama, it became more expensive to breathe.
  58. Barack Obama’s idea of “stimulus” is to blow hundreds of billions on an economic program that fails by its own measures. Mitt Romney’s idea of “stimulus” is to cut taxes and expenses for businesses so people can get back to work.
  59. When Barack Obama gives a speech, he stops to listen to his “God echo.”  Mitt Romney has never heard a “God echo” — perhaps one time in church.
  60. As head of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney advised struggling companies to lay off a few thousand workers to keep afloat. As head of the United States, Obama’s economic policies have seen through the loss of over 5 million jobs.
  61. Mitt Romney supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Obama supports sky-high gas prices.
  62. Barack Obama believes in fairy tales like manmade climate change and supported taxing the world economy via cap-and-trade. Mitt Romney opposes regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as ThinkProgress laments.
  63. Mitt Romney concedes that liquid coal is a viable form of energy. Barack Obama’s approach to coal is to destroy the industry.
  64. Romney withdrew Massachusetts from the carbon-regulatory regime RGGI. Obama’s science czar John Holdren would like to see such a scheme implemented on a “planetary” scale.
  65. Obama collects Spiderman and Conan the Barbarian comics. Mitt Romney collects struggling businesses before turning them around.
  66. Barack was known as “O’bomber” in high school (thankfully, for his basketball shooting skills).  Willard “Mitt” Romney has affectionately been called “Mittens.”
  67. Barack Obama won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of Dreams from My Father. Mitt Romney has a Grammy – her name is Anna.
  68. Barack Obama has read every Harry Potter book. Mitt Romney has read every known book on executive management.*
  69. Obama kept a pet ape named TaTa while in Indonesia. Mitt Romney has never owned an ape, and certainly wouldn’t name one for a part of the women’s anatomy.
  70. Before going more with an everyman’s look, Mitt Romney used to don suits from Nordstrom’s. Barack Obama wears suits from some designers, including a guy named Marx.
  71. Barack Obama’s secret service codename is “Renegade.” Mitt Romney’s codename is alternately “Javelin” or Iceman.
  72. Obama has his hair cut once a week by Zariff the barber for $21. Mitt Romney has never cut his hair, it always remains perfect.
  73. President Obama owns four identical pairs of size 11 shoes. Mitt Romney owns 400 pairs of identical shoes, matching black jacket, black pants, and starched white shirts.*
  74. Mitt Romney’s favorite novel is Battlefield Earth, a novel set in 3000 featuring aliens with bad breath and intergalactic bankers who collect on a bad debt. Barack Obama’s favorite novel is Moby Dick, a tome about a mad fisherman’s quest to slay a white whale.
  75. Mitt Romney’s favorite film is O Brother, Where Are Thou?, which is based on the Odyssey and set in 1930s southern America. Barack Obama’s favorite film is One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, a film based on a borderline crazy man’s experience in an insane asylum.
  76. When Obama likes a musician, like Bob Dylan, he gives him a presidential medal of freedom. Mitt Romney buys their CD.
  77. Barack Obama stands 6’1. Mitt Romney is 6’2 (6’4 if you count his hair).
  78. Barack Obama can’t stand ice cream. Mitt Romney personally scoops ice cream for his supporters.
  79. For Mitt and Ann Romney’s first date, they went to see the soaring musical The Sound of Music. For Barack and Michelle Obama’s first date, they went to see Spike Lee’s racial tensions flick Do the Right Thing.
  80. Barack Obama applied to appear in a black pin-up calendar in college, but was turned down by the all-female panel. Mitt Romney looks too perfect to be an Abercrombie & Fitch model.
  81. Barack Obama switched to a Ford Hybrid from a Chrysler 300 C during his campaign (before his presidential ride became The Beast). Mitt Romney owns many cars, including a Ford Mustang and a number of SUVs, and he doesn’t apologize for them.
  82. Obama said he would liked to have been an architect if he were not a politician. Mitt Romney would have liked to have been a successful businessman.
  83. Obama said, ““Like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning.” Romney would like it.
  84. Barack Obama said “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” Mitt Romney thinks that when you get off your behind and work, it’s good for everybody.
  85. Obama actually said, ““In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” Mitt Romney has warned repeatedly about the ruinous course of the European welfare state.
  86. President Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…” Mitt Romney actually thinks you can.
  87. Mitt Romney was almost arrested in Utah for merely saying  the f-word when he insists he said “H-E-double hockey sticks.” President Obama once blasted his staff after an unsavory meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu by yelling, “What the f*** was that?!?”
  88. Mitt Romney took no salary as Massachusetts Governor or president of the Olympics in Salt Lake City. Barack Obama took no salary for all those jobs he didn’t do.
  89. Mitt Romney is the author of No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Barack Obama is probably the author of a children’s book.
  90. Romney promises to “rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation.” Obama will fail to build our nation’s future on the backs of our children with unlimited government spending, unending debt, and rampant corruption.
  91. On Mitt Romney’s campaign site, he states that he wants to cut red tape and cites that, “Regulations function as a hidden tax on Americans, with the federal government’s own Small Business Administration placing the price tag at $1.75 trillion annually.” Barack Obama has exploded regulations in the nation, leading to tens of billions in additional bureaucratic burdens.
  92. Governor Romney expanded gun rights in liberal Massachusetts and is an NRA member. President Obama has been hostile to gun ownership and on a questionnaire supported the ban of handguns and assault rifles.
  93. Candidate Romney has said straight up that, “Producing more domestic energy would create good jobs and bolster local economies.” Before becoming elected, Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Even without cap and trade, they have anyway.
  94. Mitt Romney believes Russia is a “destabilizing force on the world stage.” A concessionary Barack Obama once assured Dmitry Medvedev that “after my election I will have more flexibility” to yield to Russian interests.
  95. Romney advocates “smaller, smarter, simpler government.” Obama wants to hire even more government employees.
  96. Governor Romney once signed off on the individual mandate to carry health insurance. President Obama signed legislation that would force a similar program onto all Americans, regardless of what their state legislatures vote on it.
  97. Mitt Romney says unabashedly that “Israel is the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East and a beacon of democracy and freedom in the region.” Obama’s mixed record on Israel has left many Jews questioning if he’s really “got their back.”
  98. Mitt Romney believes it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. Barack Obama did nothing to promote a benign democratization push in Iran at the most opportune time.
  99. On the jobs front, Mitt Romney supports “free enterprise, free choice, and free speech.” Barack Obama supports what Mitt Romney calls the “government-centered society.”
  100. Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama.

This is the ninth in a ten part series. Continued here.


*That is a complete joke.

Barack Obama — America Wants You to Just Go Away

Freshly arriving to the presidency, the first historic black leader of the country was an inspiring figure. An eloquent and ambitious man, he was driven to impress his mark upon the annals. National excitement produced pent-up energy — people were eager to follow the man who would be king. The leader unveiled his bold plan to save the nation from itself — vast amounts of spending.

And yet the economy remained stifled. Big talk led to more talk. And mind-boggling amounts of spending. Every so often, the president would appear in our living rooms, attempting to soothe us with mellifluous words. Perhaps he would relate a few anecdotes. Smile jovially, backslap, give a few shout outs — all was well in the president’s world.

But the combination of braggadocio and massive amounts of fail bedraggled the messianic figure. Over time, Obama became akin to the loudmouthed uncle who rode into town on his motorcycle, musty sleeping bag and whiskey breath in tow, regaling us of his marvelous plans. After months of hanging out on our couch, snoozing off his post-election hangover and hitting the bars anytime the going got tough, Obama morphed into the unwelcome guest in our living room.

At first charming, and then, shall we say, a little “off,” we barely batted an eye when he started going through the fridge unannounced. Then, there was the ransacking of the cupboards at 2 a.m. Then the missing credit cards. Money taken off the bedside table. Change jars emptied. And before long, the whole house smelled like pot.

The relationship, needless to say, got awkward. The man’s coolness turned out to be a ‘total Monet’ — a façade to mesmerize the politically clueless that dissipates upon closer inspection. Every time his soaring, insipid voice came on the living room television set, day after day, month after month, year after year, it became a cringe-worthy event equivalent to Chinese water torture. What we found beneath the man’s thin skin is a cowardly and narcissistic man whose main reaction to opposition is to lash out. Temperamental, self-absorbed, and loud-mouthed — there’s nothing much cool about this fraudulent braggart.

Barack Obama became the president who just wouldn’t go away. Mercifully, Americans likely won’t have to worry about that for much longer. What we are witnessing before our eyes is a political sea change in the left’s fortunes.

As frantic Democrats throw the flotsam and jetsam of their warped imaginations into the political waters in a vain attempt to save their sinking ship, many flinging themselves overboard like the rats they are, one gets the sense that an iceberg looms: an electoral comeuppance that would sink the party’s chances for a state-dominated society.

The presidential incumbent is a walking testament to the left’s penchant for cheap talk and failed policies. Americans are sick of hearing it. The organized left have been droning on about imaginary wars on this, that, and the other for a hundred years. And the national situation has gotten proportionately worse according to how much power it has attained.

President Obama’s term has been a kind of progressivism on speed, and thus an encapsulation of the ideological movement’s failed policies accordioned into one spectacularly failed presidency. The rise and fall of Barack Obama is worth reliving, before turning to what one hopes is his dystopia’s final chapter.

This is the man, after all, who called tea party activists the foul epithet ‘teaba**ers,” and yet claimed that the gaggle of criminals, freeloaders, and miscreants known as the Occupy Movement are the reason he ran for office. This is not presidential, it’s hooliganish.

The broader significance of the election of a 1960s radical throwback preaching an 1860s gospel is that people across the political spectrum are coming face to face with the outright oddness of the modern left. As an Atlantic article recently pointed out, Obama is simultaneously the first black, female, Jewish, Asian, and gay president. Cosmopolitanism is one thing, but come on.

As this author pointed out in an article on the left’s “founding fathers,” Obama is the culmination and walking embodiment of neomarxist “Critical Theory.” In other words, Barack Obama is intended to be a “composite president,” fragments of the fractured mirror of America whose sharp edges are wielded to bloody Lady Liberty until she knuckles under.

Citizens are now staring into this shattered mirror of a man and see not a wonderful iridescent prism, but an erratic and divisive figure who knows not how to lead. Aloof and arrogant, the president seems otherworldly, leading us into a through-the-looking-glass America where the nation’s freeloaders are rewarded and the hard working and responsible are punished.

The closer the New Left’s professional agitators get to the center-right majority, the weirder they appear. While Alinsky advised budding radicals to shed their long hair and tie-dyed t-shirts and trade them in for suits and ties, this is no longer enough to camouflage their transformational agenda. The jig is up, and all the smokescreen jargon in the world about being “progressives,” rather than socialists or liberals or whathaveyou is not enough to veil the statist plan. We know where this is heading and we don’t care what you leftists call yourselves.

The fun house circus sideshow of the president’s re-election campaign is no longer distracting potential voters. The nauseating whirlwind of random images, scattered memes, and never-ending turnstile of media stooges repeating well-worn talking points has citizens heading for the exits.

America is closing her eyes, and just wants Obama to go away.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker, Misfit Politics, and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk shows at OTNN.

The Relevance of Race

The lovely and whip-smart host of “The Dark Side with Kira Davis” recently published an article here on Conservative Daily News making the contentious argument “Yes, Race Matters.”

This subject has been a running dispute between us regarding the “relevance of race,” and whether or not we as a country should seek to ‘move beyond race’ or to preserve a healthy deference for cultural differences within American society.

Kira Davis’ central point is that racial differences, as an extension of cultural differences, are obvious, unavoidable, and even desirable. As she wrote in her post:

So…does race really matter?

As a Black conservative woman, my answer is “Yes! It does.” Understandably this will make many conservatives feel uncomfortable. Conservative America has been the butt of blatantly cruel and false accusations of racism for decades now. Their words are routinely twisted and misrepresented in the media and Hollywood complex. The meme of “racist conservative” has led many of us to shy away from uncomfortable conversations about race. But I fear that in our attempts to pull our society away from the “race first” hysteria of outlets like MSNBC, some conservatives have pulled too far in the other direction. We completely discount the role of race in our society in our attempts to be “colorblind”. I think race does matter. I do think it’s important. In this world race is intimately tied to culture, and culture is what gives the human race it’s flavoring.

Kira Davis takes what I would characterize as a traditional conservative approach towards multi-culturalism, or to be perfectly clear, she has a praise for diversity in a non-leftist permutation. Certainly, America became a diverse, multicultural society over its scant centuries of existence due to its ability to attract immigrants around the world, particularly those fleeing from tyranny or seeking a fresh lease on life. But America became that way because it was a beacon of liberty, a manifestation of an Enlightenment vision that held out the possibility that all mankind would someday be free.

The Constitution, as such, held out a pathway toward the eradication of slavery, through the scheduled ban of the import of slavery in one generation after the document’s ratification, and through the three-fifths clause, which weakened the representative power of the southern states over time. The key architect of The Declaration of Independence, the slave-holder Thomas Jefferson, condemned the practice in the original draft of the document, a clause that was ratified by eleven of the thirteen colonies.

But unfortunately, there were some not sufficiently enlightened to permit the article to pass unimpeached. Therefore, the eventual compromise, the deal with the devil that forged this nation, made murky the power of the vision of a freed humanity, though it yet shone through the milky ether of universal oppression that had been the record of humanity unto that point in history.

What we citizens should seek is an America where men and women share the values of liberty and independence without respect to race, gender, or other differences. This is not a mutually exclusive argument to Mrs. Davis’, though I imagine it to be one of a vast difference in emphasis.

I do believe it is possible, someday, for mankind to look at one another as unique individuals, whose differences in ascriptive features, such as skin color, are received with the same impression of irrelevance as hair color, eye color, or other such variables. This is not to say that one cannot appreciate skin color as an aspect of an individual’s beauty, but I see arguing over differences on the basis of melanin content to be as objectively specious as brunettes arguing that they are in an interminable conflict with “gingers.”

Skin pigmentation is one human DNA variable out of billions, and thus our individual variability lay about 99.99% elsewhere. Even though skin color is not the sum whole of racial variability, for example, sickle cell anemia is more prevalent among African-Americans, there is far more individual variability than racial variability, genetically speaking.

The overall point is that aesthetic differences between races should not be conflated with moral differences between individuals.

This is not to say that American history is irrelevant in framing race relations or that one can simply ‘wish that away’ by refusing to see racial differences. It should be said, however, that allegations of racism according to the mere circumstance of one’s skin color is morally grotesque. Neither I, nor anyone I know who can be characterized as ‘melanin-challenged’ has engaged in slavery, nor is anyone I know supportive of racial bigotry in any shape, way, manner or form.

And it should be noted that evaluating people’s character on a person-by-person basis, without esteeming difference of appearance as morally significant, has won me many friends of diverse backgrounds. In my view, racial categorization elides the many significant and even wonderful differences that make us unique human beings.

With this disposition in mind, I find the notion that I belong to a ‘white community’ laughable, because assuredly, somewhat less than half of this imagined community is certifiably crazy in that it continues to vote for a radically left-wing party. Why would I want to deny my fellow Americans the same opportunity to denounce members of their own supposed “race” for their insipid views?

Instead, let us take sides on the battlefield of ideas according to those ideals we hold dear. Let us not be weighed down by the chance of our personal characteristics, as much as we may revere those familiar cultural surroundings that flavor our unique life-worlds. Let us aspire to what is noble and magnificent in each of us, and to put forth a vision for humanity where our arguments are based on ideas, and not incidental differences.

The human spirit should never be underestimated; we are not helpless creatures born in need of state provided privileges, but are rather tremendously powerful beings who needs only be given the opportunity to shine in a nation that holds aloft the promise of liberty.

The End of Climate Change?

The scientific community is buzzing with a question ripe with tremendous implications: Can climate change be ended?  President Obama’s crack experts at the Environmental Protection Agency believe it already has been. Momentarily.

The president was on the campaign trail when he announced the exciting news that climate may no longer change in the foreseeable future. A transcript from the press conference follows below:

For decades, mankind has witnessed all manner of unprecedented weather phenomena never before seen in history.  Bizarre, twisting powerful gusts of air called ‘tornadoes’ wreaked havoc throughout America’s heartland.  Huge, whirling tropical storms referred to in the scientific community as ‘hurricanes’ unleashed their fury on the country’s coastline.  Torrential rain leading to the accumulation of massive pools of water known as ‘floods’ submerged immense swathes of the nation. Never before has weather seemed so capricious, or so changeable.

That is why the Environmental Protection Agency formed the top secret task force TBECCAWKNI (The Battle to End Climate Change as We Know It).  Formed from the elite ranks of the world’s top climatologists and highly esteemed bureaucrats, the team was responsible for devising a strategy to end climate change as we know it.  And it looks like they came up with a solution.  But it’s going to cost you.

Several months ago, people may have noticed that at exactly 2:42:31:06 a.m. on October 21st there was a split second when there was no climate.  By using ‘lasers,’ scientists ionized the molecular magnetic field of a plasma stratum in the lower troposphere, thereby blocking the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide, which every scientist knows controls all aspects of our climate.  Yes, that’s right ladies and gentlemen. They ended climate change.

These special ‘lasers’ are not cheap.  They run on a secret fuel that is made in a laboratory and is worth more than its weight in gold or platinum.

Defeating climate change, therefore, won’t be easy. It will take a lot of money and a lot of research.  And did I mention it will take money?  Our first and most important task is to convince the global community that climate change is a problem and that we can win the fight.

But before we get too excited about investing our hard-earned money in this groundbreaking development, there is something that should be known.  Natural disasters still plague the land and will continue to do so until we can perfect this new technology.  That is why we have come up with a plan for National Natural Disaster Insurance.  No longer will Americans wonder while they are wandering outside, ‘Will I be hit by a hurricane today?’ Or, ‘is that tornado over there going to impale a board in my forehead?’ With National Natural Disaster Insurance, Obama and the Democrats have got you covered. You can show your gratitude by re-electing me.

Now where was I? Telemprompter please. Okay.

When I was running for president, I made a solemn pledge that if I became your beloved leader the oceans would begin to recede, and the climate would cease to change.  And we are now on the verge of that magnificent day.  So if you make your ‘thank you’ check out to Obama for President 2012, I’d be much obliged.

Don’t make me remind you that there were many haters. There were many doubters. And there were many racists. And there were many hateful racists who doubted me.  They said I could not live up to my pledge made during the campaign.  Let us set the record straight now: Promised delivered.

Of course, we could have went the messier route of ending climate change by simply ending mankind.  But being as beneficent as we are wise, we spared you.  Actually, we considered turning the lasers on you all, but Dr. Tomaknussen, clutz that he is, slipped and knocked one of the beams awry. Improbably, it hit the lower troposphere and ionized the carbon dioxide molecules, somehow deactivating them.  Sometimes bureaucratic ineptitude works in our favor. (Laughter.)

By joining together, we can all do our part to fight climate change.  It will take shared sacrifice.  Forbidding oil drilling is but one small way to do that, but there are other ways, such as only using those curly q lightbulbs, and riding kick scooters to work instead of driving cars.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to fly to Arizona for a round of golf.  Thank you.

Although it’s a shame that we have to actually say it – this is satire. These events have not occurred although plausible.

Recent Entries »