For too long, it has been common knowledge in our society that leftist political philosophies contain within them the ingredients for an ideal state of affairs in the world. The perceived “humanism” and liberalism (in the classic sense) of the leftists emerged from the stark contrast between their ideas and that of the “establishment.” History is riddled with examples of how the “establishment” has wronged mankind, held back the spirit of progress, and led to countless atrocities. From religious wars to despotic rule to exploitative capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, the Old Order seemed to keep us all in a dark age where the few ruled over the many with an iron fist. In general, revolutionary forces tended to be “leftist” while Old Order proponents were called “rightist,” terms originating from the French Revolution. Yet as leftist philosophies matured in the 19th century and the vestiges of the Old Order of monarchies and all-powerful Churches subsided, the leftists started to refine their concepts and better define the future ideal societies they had in mind. This refinement led to schisms among the leftists and today we have socialists, communists, anarchists, social democrats, progressives, and so on. In the United States, the characterization of the Left as the progressive, common-man political ideology has firmly established it as the idealistic philosophy… but modern Leftism in America is very far from idealistic.

From its foundation, Leftism and Progressivism in the United States is an ideology that focuses on a peculiar type of equality: equality of outcome. In itself, this may seem to contain an idealistic character, but that is only on the surface. From matters of race to gender to economic status, the progressives wage war on any sort of inequality that they are conscious of. They aim to shatter distinctions in gender, reform public expression to make it more palatable for people of all backgrounds, institute racial and ethnic quotas to make the distribution of power, wealth, and influence more “equal,” and use government as a means of preventing any one individual or group from acquiring an “undue” share of wealth. Underlying this philosophy is the idea that man, when left to his devices, will always wage war on others, will always try to take from others, and must be told what is right and what is wrong. It is a philosophy that takes away from people the freedom to make their own decisions and empowers a central authority to redistribute all capital, be it economic or social, as it sees fit, all for the good of the whole. The progressive does not assume that people will act in the best interest of society on their own but rather that they will inherently do evil things and must be stopped. Leftism is pessimistic about the nature of humanity. To them, human beings are children who need constant supervision otherwise they will steal all of the other children’s toys and resort to bullying. This is evident in their approach to most social, political, and economic issues. They address gun violence with abolishing the right to bear arms. They address economic inequality by taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. They insist on price controls, market intervention, strict regulation, and are almost religiously opposed to making profit of any kind. Given this reality, the fact that Leftism is regarded as the “idealistic” ideology seems to be more a matter of tradition than a matter of careful analysis.

In America, there is another political philosophy which takes a different approach to the question of how society should be arranged. Specifically, this philosophy says that society should not be explicitly arranged, just allowed to live and prosper in freedom. This philosophy is Conservatism. While not as extreme as libertarianism, which advocates for even less power to be given to the state, conservatism advocates a sort of middle way where there exists a government limited to a certain role. In the United States, the Constitution provides a political framework whereby the government can operate through the consent of the people. The underlying principle of conservatism is freedom… and ultimately that human beings can and should make decisions for themselves, be responsible for those decisions, and be entitled to the fruit of their labor without heavy government interference. This idea is revolutionary in modern-day America where the continual expansion of the size, scope, and power of government is the paradigm. Not only is this idea revolutionary but at its core it posits that human beings have the capacity to run their own lives. It is a philosophy that is optimistic about man, while at the same time being realistic about the need for some sort of agreed upon authority to enforce contracts and rules. It is an idealism based on real conditions. The equality that conservatism guarantees is equality of opportunity, not outcome, because to enforce a uniform outcome is to deny the right of a person to benefit from or be held responsible for his or her actions. Modern-day conservatism represents the hopes and dreams of all Americans, to be free, to be successful, to have a voice in our government. This is why conservatives emphasize respect for state’s rights and the separation of powers in government, because history has shown that central authority has the propensity to abuse power. This is why conservatives demand that judges be neutral arbiters of the law and not activist “re-interpreters” of the Constitution. This is why conservatives are opposed to increasing government interference in the economy and in our everyday lives. Conservatives are the new idealists. We believe that a better society is possible if we free the creative and productive powers of human beings. We do not merely believe that we should be free, we believe that we have the fundamental right to liberty. There is no limit to this right. It is absolute. And if we fall as a people in our exercise of this liberty, then we will learn and we will do better… and by iterations, our society will move forward, will improve, and our world will be better off for it.

So when I hear people in positions of power explain to me and my fellow Americans that we need to be guided by the gentle hand of government bureaucrats, that our rights need to be limited for the common good, and that we cannot reap the rewards of our own sweat, I do not consider them idealistic in the least… I consider them despotic. Leftism has become, not a total repudiation of the Old Order tyranny, but as an alternative, more acceptable New Order tyranny. This is neither “progressive” nor ideal for any society. I hope that new idealistic souls will rise up and declare the old ideas over and done with. The sad part is that these idealists are attacked and portrayed as being part of that Old Order by the leftists, for they convince their followers in true Orwellian form that when we conservatives say “freedom” we mean slavery and when we say “individualism” we mean racism and class-ism. For the moment they control the major means of communication in our society, so revolution will be slower than we would like, but with new technology the message of optimism in our fellow man will breach the wall of disinformation that currently exists. To those conservatives out there who believe that we can live in a better world that is free, let everyone know that we are indeed the last idealists.

-AG

Since the passage of the Health Care Reform bill, my approach to political discussions has changed in a fundamental way: I no longer allow lies to prevail. My style though, like so many other styles, is unique. First of all, I’m not an overly nice guy, I mean “fake” nice smiling at everything people say. In other words, I’m not a politician. What I do emphasize is two things: respect and factual accuracy. These two basic approaches are devastating to the leftists who tend to base their arguments on gross distortions of the truth and emotional appeals. Here are some examples of how this has worked in practice:

- Discussing education with a teacher, one of her arguments for why education in this country is not doing as well as it should was that this “The US is committed to education for all children of all people to the limit of their capacity. This idea is unique, no other country has had either the vision or the resources to undertake this task.” Note: this is a teacher in charge of teaching our children. As many people know, most if not all industrialized countries in the world have a system of universal education at least from K to 12 with the same “vision,” in fact, all of the countries that rank ahead of ours have such a system. Without facts, this discussion would have been based on a false premise and I would have been at a disadvantage. This underscores the importance of independently researching topics that matter to us as a society. It also shows that our teachers need to be better educated before they infect our children with such drivel.

- Recently, I posted a comment on an article written by a conservative and received an email from a liberal who had a problem with what I wrote. He wrote: “I do not go the a website (i.e Huffington post) to read posts that I agree with….I do not need affirmation of my liberals beliefs…..unlike u dittoheads and Beck worshippers who only seek affirmation of your racist and narrow minded views.” We see here clearly that the liberal uses his oft-repeated accusations of racism and stupidity/ignorance laced with other assumptions. My reply was lengthy and so I won’t post it here, but to paraphrase I explained to him my multiracial background, the fact that I read articles from different perspectives, and I suggested that he practice more of that liberal “tolerance” that they preach before he starts accusing people of things he knows nothing of. At the bottom of my email I wrote “God bless you.” This final part was the most important for various reasons, first of all he seemed very very angry and possibly needed to be reminded that though we may disagree, we don’t have to be nasty. Second, the far Left gets even more incensed when conservatives wish them well or invoke God and I wondered if he was that type. If someone is an ideological enemy, it does not mean that they are our mortal enemy (though often the converse is true) therefore we must remember to retain civility in discussions since this is far more powerful that foaming at the mouth (as they tend to do). Respect your opponent and never underestimate him.

- Discussing an article by Newt Gingrich with a liberal, instead of debating the content of the article he went on attacking Gingrich personally, calling out bullet point after bullet point of why he is a terrible person. Here’s one of his gems:

“Considering that he cheated on his wife while she was dying of cancer at the exact same time he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton, I’m betting it’s that he’s a lying sack of shit.”

For those paying attention, this accusation is false (his marital problems took place more than a decade earlier) but that won’t stop this guy. Another interesting part is that he, in an episode of projection, called Gingrich’s article “intellectually dishonest.” My reply was “you attack the man not the message, THAT is intellectually dishonest… Shame on you for debating things outside this article.” Only after this, did the liberal realize that he was getting out of hand and promised to “tone it down.” Fortunately, we were eventually able to discuss the actual content only to have him misrepresent data and force me to, again, correct him. This is what many on the Left do, especially the more extreme ones, they choose to sidestep the argument completely in favor of pointing out something distasteful yet unrelated. Whenever you see someone opt for attacking a person or thing related to the topic instead of discussing policy head-on, it shows that either they cannot intelligently discuss policy or have opinions that are based on whether they personally like someone or something, as opposed to analyzing the benefits and risks of the policy in question. Having a clear head, pointing out when they are being cruel or dishonest, and having facts on hand is critical to refuting the near-constant barrage of disinformation that liberals spew during debates.

These are just some of my more recent encounters with the Left, all of them show the shallowness of their arguments and highlight the importance of both respect and factual accuracy when engaging them. On the national scene, this becomes more pressing… but I say that the conservative revolution must be from the bottom-up and in the microcosm that is our everyday lives we must make sure that we blast away the silly leftist ideas every chance we get, but do it with respect so that the liberal can back away with dignity. Who knows, we might even convince a few of them in the process.

-AG

I often read and listen to those whose view of the world revolves around some shadowy organization that is planning to… TAKE OVER THE WORLD! From those who claim that the Earth is under the control of Reptilians from an alternate universe to those that believe, more realistically, that an international cartel of bankers drives every human event with calculated precision, there are many, many, MANY different types of conspiracy theories out there. While I thoroughly enjoy reading and listening to their arguments, I subscribe to none simply because many of the claims are outright unbelievable and also because I believe that most of these can be reduced to a common factor. Let’s take the most popular one at the moment, one that fuels the anti-establishment, “libertarian” movement and has propelled Alex Jones and others as major figures in conspiracy-theory-circles: the insidious hand of international bankers is behind everything that happens in the world for the goal of securing a [cue dramatic music] NEW WORLD ORDER!

I have serious problems with these theories for a few reasons, one of them being that they attack every single action taken by banks and corporations and string together facts in very creative ways (I will get into this some other time). What I wish to talk about here is the paradoxical nature of the conspiracy theories, namely that if the entire world is run by international bankers through government control, propaganda, war, terrorism, false-flag attacks, etc. then how can we say that the very conspiracy ideas being espoused are not also a form of control? This is similar to the movie “The Matrix” where ultimately (spoiler alert!) Neo discovered that his very existence and his destiny, to lead humanity to freedom, was actually a planned part of the “matrix” of control. How can the conspiracy theory proponents assume that their ideas are somehow immune from the near-omnipotent puppet-masters? They can’t, at least not accurately. Where does this leave the conspiracy theorist, unsure even of his or her own immunity from the conspiracy? It leaves them where the rest of us are, trying to create a world that is more just and more free without absolute knowledge of everything. This is a good thing because instead of having to devote oneself to an exclusive model of reality, one can instead try to come up with solutions that cover all bases, solutions that make such conspiracies impossible.

Here is where an emphasis on establishing a free society comes in. So many of the conspiracies simply shatter once we start working towards a more free system. Just think, if we limit the power of government as described by the Constitution, the international bankers, corporations, satanists, aliens, etc. cannot control our people. One down. If we treat all people equally like human beings, not blacks, whites, browns, gays, etc. just people, then there can be no “divide-and-conquer” strategy by the masters of the universe. Two down. If we allow the existence of a free enterprise system where any company can compete in the market with any other without government intrusion, then the evil capitalist ruling class may find themselves under attack by smart businessmen and women with innovative products and services, banks included. Three down. If we start holding politicians and their respective parties accountable for not promoting all these things and start voting for candidates that make a real difference, thereby wresting political power from the entrenched “oligarchy,” then down goes the entire new world order. So why the need to believe in the hidden absolute power of the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and the like? There is no need. Believing in the irredeemable nastiness of bankers or CEO’s or a shadow government plays into the hands of one group, blindly supporting them plays into the hands of another, it seems that conspiracy theorists fall for the conspiracies just as much as everyone else. What Americans need is to realize that once government power is limited, the Constitution is adhered to, free competition is allowed to thrive, and people are treated as free, independent individuals, no power can subdue our liberty.

-AG

This strategy was suggested by CNN political reporter Candy Crowley on “The Joy Behar Show,” one of the many shows on CNN with a leftist bias. This is telling for it shows that the Left is not going to be gearing up for a policy fight, an ideas fight, but instead will opt for a name-calling match, something that they have excelled in for many years. On the same program, Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff suggested that the Democrats try to throw the focus off of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrat-controlled Congress and instead focus on Sarah Palin and “the lunatic fringe” in the Tea Party. Again we see the left grasping desperately as straws, trying to throw anything and everything at their political opponents while they use their majorities to impose their agenda. For the conservatives out there, be prepared for the onslaught, thicken your skin for the vile invectives to come, and polish your rhetorical guns for battle… here comes the crazy-conservative meme.

Think, for a moment, about how both Hollywood and the Mainstream Media has been fixated for more than a year now on Sarah Palin, slamming her day after day after day for being stupid, for being greedy, for being anything negative that they can think of. What is the motive behind this? She is not the leader of the Republican Party. She is not an elected official. She is currently simply a political contributor, an actor on the national stage, if you will, but this does not stop the media machine that plasters her name and face in articles, newspapers, blogs, etc. on a near daily basis. The reason behind this is clear, the Democrat strategy is to ridicule, attack, and tear down people personally instead of on a substantive basis. The same goes for the Tea Party movement which has been accused incessantly of being racist, homophobic, and insane by the mainstream media. Why not turn their cameras around and focus on the real internal dangers to America, the ones who are piling on national debt, the ones who are issuing mandates, increasing taxes, and taking over free enterprise piece by piece? Ultimately, Palin and the Tea Party have no official power in this country, yet. It is the Democrats who are currently wielding the sword of government and using it to get their way no matter the cost. There is absolutely no doubt that the mainstream media is in bed with the Left, pushing forward almost every policy that comes out of the crooked mouths of Obama and his cohorts.

This reality means that independent thinking Americans must look to the media with a skeptical eye. We must educate ourselves, in essence “arming” ourselves, so that we can navigate through the mass information being spewed by the Left’s mouthpieces. Most importantly, though, we must not be afraid of speaking truth to power. Many times throughout history, the people who spoke the truth were branded as crazy, and today’s America is, sadly, no different. So when the Lefties say “let’s just call them crazy extremists,” we will reply with truth. When they try to drown out opposition with cries of racism or homophobia with no proof, we will reply with truth. And when they try to distance themselves from their damaging acts against the American people, we will continue to reply with truth. It is of utmost importance to arm ourselves with knowledge, to recognize when the media says outright “we won’t debate substance, just call them crazy,” and to be able to explain our positions to others. Most Americans do not have the time or energy to invest in researching for themselves, they rely on soundbites from the mainstream media to form their opinions, this makes it harder for wisdom to prevail, but we must not let up. Ideas about freedom, responsibility, and opportunity are, in themselves, more powerful than the Leftist demands for collectivism, wealth redistribution, and perpetual dependence. It is the leftists who are the angry ones, the ones that tear down the bonds between our fellow citizens, the ones who try to pit one against the other and, after wreaking so much havoc, throw their hands up and say “ONLY GOVERNMENT can take care of us now.” We are the optimists, the ones who believe in human potential, in human achievement, and the ones who do not see color or religion or class… we just see human beings, friends… and if that makes us crazy, then lock us in the loony bin!

-AG

I was listening to Dr. Ron Paul’s speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference that took place in New Orleans this weekend and believe that the doctor misses a very important point when it comes to the question of socialism in America. Specifically, Paul said that Obama is not a socialist but is, in fact, a “corporatist.” He is wrong. He is wrong for the same reason that liberals who defend Obama and who also believe he is not socialist are wrong. The argument goes that the president has actually not done anything truly socialist and that he has only helped corporations and defended the status quo. This argument is fatally flawed, not because those that believe it are ignorant or stupid, but rather because the socialism of the 19th and 20th century is radically different from the socialism of the 21st century.

Those who do not have firsthand experience with communist totalitarianism tend not to understand the inner workings of the communist and socialist movement (unless they study it thoroughly). Socialism is not an American idea, it comes from abroad, and to only focus on socialism in a national sense makes it impossible to see how the threat is evolving and what it has in store for us. While socialism did not begin with Marx and Engels, it is mainly because of them that socialism becomes a truly dangerous idea as seen from its implementation in the former USSR, China, North Korea, etc. To understand the current manifestation of socialism in the world, we need look no further than to Latin America where we have the old socialist model suspended in time in Cuba and the new socialist models rising in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Ultimately, China is the only communist country that has made the transition from old-style socialism to modern socialism, the other ones have either discarded socialism/communism or have become mired in poverty. The new expression of socialism is no longer as explicit in its forms of control as in the past, for example nationalization of private enterprise is done piecemeal, rollback of freedoms is done in the name of fighting the United States, dissidents and political opponents are now actually charged with (usually fake or unjustified) crimes, propaganda is more sophisticated, and the centralization of economic, political, and social power in the hands of the government is masked. This brings me to Paul’s comments and to a something that has been circulating for some time now, the anti-corporatist sentiment.

Often in this blog, I refer to Corporate Socialism, which I believe is the brand of socialism that has emerged in the United States, but it is a brand that is not uniquely American. In other countries, where capitalism has been less developed, it was always easier for the socialists to simply nationalize the few companies that operated in their countries and create a government monopoly. In industrialized nations such a practice would be suicide and so, the only way for the socialists to create a government-run economy is through corporations themselves. This is the way in which the neo-socialists can masquerade as people who care about freedom and people who believe in the free market while being full-blown socialists. This type of socialist is what we have in Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. These are the types of socialists that are enacting “free market reforms” in China. And this is the type of socialist that we see in Barack Obama. The end result of corporate socialism is not a society where corporations rule, it is a society where the few corporations that are allowed to exist will be run by government directly… a government oligopoly. So when Paul says that Obama is not technically a socialist, he is wrong. He is a modern socialist. Obama has an extensive record of advocating for government-mandated wealth redistribution and during his presidency he has done just that: repeatedly taxing the rich, regulating private enterprise, funneling taxpayer money into big corporations, overseeing and enabling huge bank mergers while thousands of private banks are nationalized, expanding entitlement spending, taking over the health care system, and the list goes on. To call Obama a “corporatist” feeds into that anti-corporate sentiment that exist in America, a sentiment that was created by the Left. There exist many corporations in America, most of them being small businesses that get incorporated. These small businesses are increasingly going extinct because of Obama’s agenda. The problem in America is not the private corporations, it is the government that intervenes in the economy. Paul-ites point to the Federal Reserve and say “look, it’s not a government entity, but a private one” while ignoring the most important part: the power it has over monetary policy was given by government and is regulated by government. Had government simply created a central government bank, it would act exactly the same as the Federal Reserve. The label “private corporation” means nothing, the fact that the government has given it official power is everything. Same goes for “big corporations” which tend to be favored by the state. What would happen if the government stopped sponsoring these corporations? They would end up competing in the market like everyone else, subject to being “beaten” by smaller companies that offer better products. It is this type of free market competition that is stifled by an increasingly socialist government.

The facts on the ground get muddled by the rhetoric that gets thrown around. It is not the nameless Wall Street executive or faceless corporate boards that take away our freedoms, it is an overly powerful federal government. When the government enters the marketplace and favors one company over another, it is easy to blame the company, but it is actually the fault of the government. Notice how every regulation imposed by the government hurts businesses disproportionately, with the small businesses getting hurt the most and the larger corporations surviving. I say that this is not a mistake on the part of government, it is by design. Nor is the government a faceless organism, we know who the socialists are. They’re the ones who propose big government programs for every minor and not-so-minor problem in America. Right now, Obama is the standard-bearer of the Corporate Socialist movement. To call the president a corporate tool or dismiss the claims that he is socialist only helps the Left assert more control. Ron Paul should take another look at history and realize that the socialism of the past is slightly different from modern socialism in that nowadays the socialists use big corporations to advance their aims. Corporate Socialism is like the black widow, it copulates with big business until it gets what it wants, total control, and then turns around and eats its mate.

-AG

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been under fire for most of his tenure as leader of the Republican Party and he attributes that to his race. This is ridiculous. If anything, the convenient fact that he became the face of the Republican party in January 2009, the start of the age of Obama, may have had more to do with race than the criticisms against him. Let’s be real for a moment, the Democrats are the ones who specialize in using the race card, they specialize in reducing an argument to an accusation of racism claiming that every legitimate policy argument against them masks violent hatred based on the color of one’s skin. And now we have chairmen Steele taking a page right out of the Democrats’ playbook, crying that the standards are too high, the margin of error too slim simply because he is not white. He should run into the Democrats’ arms where he can get sympathy because he is “different.” Now, for me and for all the conservatives I know, he is under fire specifically because he is not different, he has a job to do and that job is all that people care about. He has a tough job, I give him that, and the pressure is high because the GOP is down right now… what does he expect? Flower petals to fall from the sky when the press got wind of Republicans using donor dollars on strippers?

While it’s good that they did damage control, recovering the money from that event, an event that was not sanctioned by the RNC, it’s much more damaging when Steele comes out on ABC’s “Good Morning America” saying that his race is making his job harder. These statements make it clear that the RNC is trying to be like the DNC, to use race as a weapon, as an excuse. His missteps have been exceedingly plentiful and he should thank his lucky stars that Obama is around. Imagine how it would “look” if Michael Steele were fired during the age of Obama, the charges of racism from the Left would be deafening… but this is exactly the problem with America today. We are moving backward, to a place where race trumps qualification and merit. I want to be “progressive” in the sense that I want our society to progress to a point where we are all truly equal, where charges of racism are reserved for real-life racism, not for the appearance of racism.

The first political party in the United States to adhere to the principles of freedom and equality espoused by our founding fathers in our founding documents will save this nation from the ruinous path that we are on. If the Republican Party wants to be that party, then it must stop acting like the Democrats, it must start treating people like people, not as props. Steele is making himself a prop, a talking face constantly on television, on talk shows, an entertainer instead of a leader. He does not represent conservatism, especially when he utters nonsense and plays the race card. Once the Republicans embrace personal responsibility instead of an entitlement society, embrace individuals for their merit not their race, and embrace freedom instead of the endless expansion of a central government, they will become the majority party and they will truly represent what America is all about. A good first step toward this goal can be to ask for Steele’s resignation, not because he is black, but because he is not mobilizing voters, because there exists a vast movement of conservatives that are impatiently waiting for a champion of freedom and the Republican Party under his leadership has not heeded that call. Americans must treat each other fairly, no matter the color… the American Dream is the ability to benefit from one’s own hard work despite class, race, religion, or any social “distinction,” anything that undermines this is Un-American and brings us closer to tyranny.

-AG

I was recently thinking about history, as it relates to leaders and great political upheavals, and remembered one defining moment that made crystal clear to me how demagogues attain power.

It happened during the 50’s… something called “revolution” in the streets of Cuba, in the mountains, in the fields, everywhere. Cuban freedom-fighters sacrificed life and limb against a corrupt dictatorship, another oft-repeated chapter in Latin American history coming to an end. The story started like so many others in this hemisphere: a popular figure, a coup de’tat, a dictator, brutal repression of political enemies, and a revolution. There were many groups fighting for freedom, almost an entire nation up in arms fighting for democracy, but there was one group that stood out in the press, the “bearded ones” fighting for freedom in the mountains led by one Fidel Castro Ruz, a man who declared himself pro-democracy and anti-tyranny. He was the people’s hero, idolized by millions, saluted by the United States’ press as the George Washington of the island nation.

What he becomes is something born of nightmares, a relentless bloodthirsty machine of repression seeking to secure power through body counts, chasing down anyone who disagreed on this isolated island in the middle of the Caribbean. Were there signs of this prior to his betrayal of the Cuban people? Many ask this question and today we know the answer is “yes.” The lesson is visual… it happens in this video below at 0:44 or so. Take a look:

This one moment summarizes the lessons we can learn from that nation’s history. It is something that is seen in recent history… moments when a human being, flawed, ambitious, and arrogant, uses props to make himself seem supernatural. The example of a dove “spontaneously” landing on the shoulder of the Cuban butcher is just one… in the United States we have a different example. We have people hyperventilating and fainting over the sight of one peculiar politician. Here’s a compilation of people fainting:

We can assume that the dove landing on Fidel Castro’s shoulder was staged (or was guided by the hand of Satan). Can we say the same thing about Barack Obama’s fainting females? Or do we assume that people simply faint at the sight of him? Now that he has assumed power, where are the people short of breath?

Barack Obama was raised to the status of near-deity by the media and his handlers… but we have seen this story before. It was written in Cuba, in North Korea, and other countries like these where miracles have been ascribed to human leaders, especially brutal, murderous ones.

What I saw during the 2008 campaign was unlike anything I expected from my fellow Americans. A blindness, a hypnosis, a total lack of independent thought gripped millions of people disillusioned with the previous administration. It makes me wonder if it was all staged… if the statists put up this charismatic politician with ridiculous props, an adoring media, and a mountain of cash so that the American public would be taken for a ride. America did fall for it… but the shiny new-ness is now dull and reality is setting in. We are now a one-party state that issues mandates on individuals and ignores the will of the people.

Now that the Republicans are gaining traction from the Left’s overreach, I worry that they too will put up some shiny politician and try to pedal him/her to the American public so that they can continue their own big government agenda. Make no mistake that there exists a huge faction within the Republican ranks that is pro-big-gov’t though most of them masquerade as conservatives. As a good friend of mine said “beware of slick talking hucksters selling ‘ism.’” Our fight should not be necessarily for “liberalism” or “conservatism” but for freedom… and we must never forget that whenever politicians seem too good to be true, they absolutely are.

-AG

Due to the recent arrests of militia members in the Midwest, I find it necessary to comment on these events. For those who expect me to talk about how the militia movement is the single most dangerous threat to everyday Americans, sorry, I plan to be rational. There are many out there who have gone on a tear about how these “right wing extremists” are sprouting up all over the country, saying that the election of a non-white president is fueling the rise of these groups, pointing to a racist element, and in the process indicting the entire right side of the spectrum. I do not deny the fact that lately there have been a number of individuals who have lashed out against the government, some because they felt betrayed by the government, some that are clearly anti-government, some racist, and some that believe in world-wide conspiracy theories, but the truth is that there is no single common factor between these people… other than some anger against someone or something. Looking at the history of US, people from socialists to anarchists to fascists to just plain old crazies have made threats against the US government for centuries. Some have actually carried out attacks, some have been stopped and arrested, while most have just fizzled and died off.

Let’s take a good look at the Hutaree Christian militia group, which had 9 members arrested by the FBI. Some facts first: they sprung up during the Bush administration, it seems probably in 2007. Wikipedia notes that the group started in 2008, yet looking at their youtube.com account, one sees that the “hutaree” account joined youtube on Dec. 31, 2006. In fact, their first video posting of a training exercise was on March 31, 2007. Don’t trust Wikipedia, guys. Because of this, we can scratch off the election of Obama as the reason behind the organizing of this group.

Second, they are a self-described “Christian” survivalist group that is preparing for the arrival of the antichrist and not part of the larger militia movement in the United States such as the Michigan Militia. Prior to the arrest of Hutaree members, militia groups had rejected them and tried to keep their distance because of the central religious component of this group. So we see that they are not part of some larger movement in the US, just a relatively isolated phenomenon. Third, they were infiltrated by the FBI. This final fact proves the most crucial to understanding the threat that this group posed.

They are accused seditious conspiracy and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction for their alleged plot to kill police officers. The weapons of mass destruction were just home-made bombs and their seditious conspiracy was that they allegedly planned to wage war against the US government. The FBI seems to have recorded conversations of their plot… but there lies the rub. It seems that they did not have a specific plot, it also seems that they had no clue as to how to make bombs, in fact, the group had to be helped by the undercover FBI agent so that their explosives would be more effective. Their “bombs” were made from cardboard and had no shrapnel, just some explosive material. So the whole “weapons of mass destruction” thing seems a bit exaggerated. Here’s a video from CNN that shows that these guys were pretty incompetent:

It seems that without direct assistance from the FBI, the Hutaree would still be playing with guns out in the forests and making improvised fireworks. Now, that they discussed some terrible things is without a doubt true, there are recordings that they did talk about killing others. For that fact and since they had access to weapons, the FBI did their job in taking these guys down. There was potential, however limited, and planning, however limited, to commit crimes. I think that all Americans should denounce the use of violence as a political tool. I know I do and I know that all of my conservative friends do too. This event shows how important this dedication to our country, our core principles, and our freedom is. Those who wish to kill, for political motives, fellow Americans are not patriots… nor are they in the least Christian.

What this event does not show is that there is a widespread far-right violent movement out there conspiring to destroy the government… but this has not stopped the mainstream media from painting the right as extremists. From the Dept of Homeland Security report that characterized right-leaning people and veterans as potential terrorists to the near-constant demonization of the Tea Party movement, the mainstream media outlets and the government have been waging ideological war on the right. Imagine yourself a member of the right, in case you are not, or someone who attends Tea Party rallies where the call is for limited government and common sense, not for taking up arms against the state, not for killing anyone, not for hating anyone, not for racism of any form, and then when you turn on the television or pick up a newspaper, you see that the mainstream media has associated you with terrorism, with racism, with hatred, when in fact you only care about the future state of this great country. This would make anyone mad. This is why I sometimes take time out in my writings to make the clear distinction between your common everyday liberal American and the extreme leftists that I tend to criticize. I know that Joe six-pack liberals believe in many of the things that I believe in, we simply differ on what we think the best path is, on whether the government knows best or whether the government should let us make our own decisions and our own mistakes (in a nutshell). The mainstream media does not make this distinction most of the time. Take, for example, this article by Eugene Robinson, who writes for major newspapers and appears on television, where he links the Hutaree to conservatives. He writes “the vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day – and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies – is calibrated not to inform but to incite.” There they go again. Without a clear example, with a blanket statement like this, the Left weaves a fantasy of how the “far right” incites violence. Yet nowhere in the Tea Party movement do you hear that people take up arms, go to the forests, and prepare for the antichrist. If we did hear this, it would be playing on loop on CNN and MSNBC for weeks. This has not happened.

This attempt at discrediting conservatives and libertarians does not stop or start with Robinson, it is a broad based attack that is delivered through shocking headlines designed to capture the attention of an increasing ADD (ADHD?) American public. From opinion articles on CNN to Keith Olbermann painting conservative bloggers as sympathizers of the Hutaree to Rachel Maddow talking about the connection between Republicans and “far right terrorists” to Paul Krugman in a New York Times article accusing Republicans of hinting at violence and being unreasonable and irrational, the list of how the mainstream media is painting conservatives as lunatics and terrorists is exhaustive.

I say that these people stop smearing and start presenting all of the sides of the issues. Every time that there is a shooting incident in the US or some militia movement I hear the media go on the offensive against anyone who believes in limited government or the Second Amendment. Every time one person says something negative about the president or the left they are smeared as racists, extremists, or morons. If politics has become polarized in this country it is because one group is painted as extremist while the other is upheld as the model of refined intellectualism.

While the Hutaree story was circulating and fears of homegrown terrorism were being whipped up, people were dying all over the country due to gang shootings, drug-related violence, and terrorists detonated bombs on subways in Russia. People are dying while the media sensationalizes and smears. This is a disgusting practice and it needs to end… until then the American public will continue to be victims of a skewed presentation of reality.

-AG