What this has to do with liberals is simple. It was the strong anti-war opposition of the Left during Bush and the strong pro-defeat attitudes of the Democrats in Washington who claimed that the war in Iraq was lost a few years ago, that soured the public mood and the political atmosphere when it came to questions of military intervention. I, for one, advocate minding one’s own business as much as possible, but not when existential threats to either our allies or ourselves emerge. Liberals don’t care about American security. The media has celebrated the current administrations actions when it comes to Iran, but the American people aren’t fooled. The clock is running out on the Iran issue and Obama’s government seems dead set on not letting anything stop Iran’s Islamic Republic from reaching their goals of nuclear-armed power. It is on issues like these that Obama’s love of Islam comes to the forefront. It is on issues like these the liberal’s tolerance of foreign dictators and terrorists comes to haunt us. The liberal agenda has only given extra time for America’s enemies to rearm and prepare their next attacks.

This inaction is intentional. This is part of the Obama agenda so eagerly embraced by the powers that be in our government. They (the media and far Leftists) saw how easy it was to convince the American public that our military policies were terrible, but they could only sell their case in the face of worsening conditions on the ground, by printing body counts in their headlines on a daily basis, and by smearing supporters of the war effort as hawks, imperialists, and just plain old bad people. In other words, the only way to disarm America is to make people want to disarm themselves. This cannot happen if it looks like the United States is winning, it cannot happen if the Taliban continue hiding in caves or if Iraqi insurgents are beaten back by the surge or if Iran is prevented from having nuclear weapons. Liberals point to a dangerous world as proof that we must retreat. They point to the devastation of nuclear weapons as proof that we must disarm, even if everyone one else is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They want to mentally and physically disarm the American people so that we are more complacent, so that when they take away our Second Amendment rights we do nothing, so that they can keep the American public brain-dead simply accepting as truth their statements and the media’s “honest” reporting. It’s part of the plan. In this way, Iran’s rise as a nuclear power is part of domestic policy for the Democrats. The same Democrats that sat back and did nothing as the brave Iranian people rose up against their totalitarian rulers last year, only to watch them get massacred by the Islamic Republic’s goons. The same Democrats who branded Bush a failure in Iraq only to [implicitly] claim victory for themselves (if Bush’s gains hold) and withdraw during the Obama administration.

At this point in our history the goals of Global Islam and the liberal agenda coincide and will inexorably lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by our most dangerous enemies. Obama and his ilk are at peace with this fact because a world with strong enemies means that they can focus on dismantling America as opposed to protecting America. Notice that the advance of the welfare state occurred mainly under Democrat presidents and Congresses during the Cold War, a time when our enemies were strong. On the flip side, the revival of the conservative movement and the end of the entitlement mindset started after Reagan won the Cold War and our enemies were on the run. Freedom is closely linked to security, for only when we feel unsafe are we willing to surrender our freedoms. This is precisely the liberal left’s plan for all of us.

-AG

When I refer to Obama’s affection for Islam, I mean that Obama loves Islam, in the political sense of the word love. From the beginning of his candidacy, Obama has made it a point to highlight certain elements from his childhood for political gain and hide others. While mentioning his Indonesian upbringing as some sort of qualification on foreign policy issues, he does not mention the fact that he was registered at the schools he attended as a Muslim and therefore was subject to the Islamic religion class as were the other Muslim students (the majority, at least in the public school he attended). In other words, Obama sat through class being taught about Islam, Mohammed, and the Koran while in public he omits any mention of these experiences (though he writes a little about them in his books). Here is a video that talks about these things, it has been around for a while but it is as relevant as ever given today’s headlines:

He professes that the sound of the Muslim call to prayer is one of the “prettiest sounds on Earth,” and that his time in Indonesia was filled with fond memories. His love of Islam starts at an early age and only grows with time. From his immersion in the writings of Malcolm X aka Malik Shabazz, his association with an alleged member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, his shady links to Dr. Khalid al-Mansour who helped him get into Harvard, his apology speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, his deep bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, all the way to his recent comments giving a figurative nod to those wanting to build erect a mosque near Ground Zero, is it any wonder that so many Americans consider him a Muslim? According to the poll, 10% of Democrats think he is Muslim. His own party doubts his claims of being Christian, especially when one sees how Obama practices his supposed Christian faith.

In addition to the points made in the video above, about Obama’s view that Jesus Christ is not the savior of humanity, in an interview about his faith he artfully dodges a question about him always being a Christian, and I quote:

“[Interviewer]:
Have you always been a Christian?

OBAMA:
I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.”

Since he did not answer the question, we can only speculate as to whether he was Muslim before and later converted, was Muslim and never converted, etc. The lack of clarity on the question of faith, made crystal clear by the recent White House statement that Obama “doesn’t wear it on his sleeve,” gives rational obervers the impression that he is not a Christian and if he is, then he is not a practicing one. His cancellation of the National Day of Prayer event at the White House further chips away at the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country. On the other hand, the president observed the start of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, hosting a dinner and delivering a statement. The question is, why ignore an interfaith national day of prayer while actively participating in a specific faith’s (Islam’s) start of their holy month?

This behavior by the president makes it unclear as to whether he is Christian or Muslim. Ultimately, his actions show such a strong affinity, such powerful affection for Islam, that regardless of his actual religious beliefs, we can continue to expect Barack Obama to favor Global Islam over the United States of America.

I close with a video from the infamous Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi where the dictator says same very troubling things about our current president, not limited to the fact that he is Muslim but that Obama’s plans are in fact more sinister than he lets on.

-AG

I am not one of those who immediately dismiss this as a machination of the xenophobic far right since I am keenly aware of the ticking time-bomb that the immigration problem poses. What I offer here are my thoughts and/or suggestions as to how best this law can serve the citizens of Arizona and ultimately all Americans. If the Arizona law leads to widespread civil rights violations and requires all citizens to carry proof of citizenship everywhere, then this law cannot stand. This is what opponents of the law, ranging from liberal to libertarian, charge that will come to be. I am not so sure. On the first count, racial profiling, one needs only to look at the demographic make-up of Arizona to realize that it would be practically impossible to implement such a policy. Arizona’s population is more than 30% of Latino origin which means that if the authorities decided to detain people on the basis of race then they would flood their police departments, sheriffs’ offices, and prisons with legal and illegal Latino-looking people. Not to mention that this practice would be wrong and would lead to a total breakdown of trust between the community and the authorities. This would be a nightmare scenario. When people say that racial profiling will be the norm, they can rest assured that the countless lawsuits brought against a racist police force will put an end to this law exceedingly quickly. This is why I do not think that Arizona will opt for a race-based rationale for determining “suspicion.”

The second count is more possible, but from my reading of the law it seems that Arizona citizens are not explicitly expected to carry around proof of citizenship at all times. Federal law already requires that non-citizens carry around proof of their legal status, so this law simply allows state authorities to enforce this law. The problem is with regular US citizens who are not required to carry such documents and whether or not they will be unreasonably searched. This problem is trickier. The only solution to such a problem is to concretely define what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” and to carefully train law enforcement so that they follow such criteria very, very closely. No police department will want to have to suspend or fire officers that violate citizen’s rights, not the mention the inevitable lawsuits that would immediately follow such a violation. On another note, a government requirement that we carry identification documents everywhere we go would be outright unamerican.

But these are all big ifs that depend on how the law is enforced. While these are probably the biggest negatives, the positives are immediately clear: giving law enforcement more tools in helping rein in illegal immigration, penalizing companies that hire illegal immigrants, and filling in where the federal government refuses to do its job. Just last Friday, a suspected drug trafficker shot an Arizona deputy with an AK-47 assault rifle. How did they get into the country with these weapons? Why should we keep our borders unguarded if this is the threat that exists? With Mexico’s drug war raging south of the border, it makes no sense to continue our present “porous-borders” policy for two reasons: 1) we are the primary market for the Mexican drug cartels and 2) this violence could easily spill over into the United States. We already see some of the effects of the Mexican drug war on our own soil, with Phoenix becoming the city with the second highest number of people kidnapped in the world behind (surprise!) Mexico City. As of yet, the actual drug violence seems to have kept mostly to itself in Mexico, but leaving the door wide open for them is not making us any safer.

The liberal response to the Arizona law was the usual high-pitched shrieking about the law’s supporters being xenophobes, racists, Nazis, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary. Not surprisingly, the president had negative things to say about the law which is in itself ironic given that Arizona stood up specifically because Washington has repeatedly laid down when it comes to securing our borders. The reality is that everyone is hurt by illegal immigration, from the Hispanic communities that become havens for Latin American gangs to working people’s wages that are depressed by the large pool of unskilled laborers. We need a sane and orderly immigration policy so that when new, legal arrivals get here there will still exist an America where their dreams can come true.

-AG

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

- 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 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

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

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

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

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

Moving on to the what I consider to be a real dirty trick: Obama proposed opening areas off the east coast and potentially areas off the Alaskan coast for oil and gas drilling. Personally, I welcome this as an opportunity to become more energy independent as we have seen what reliance on Middle East oil can lead to. Regardless of the merits, we must take a look at what is happening in Washington and understand why Obama is proposing something that he adamantly opposed and ridiculed during his campaign. See video:

Of course, in politician fashion, he made some indications that he was willing to change his mind, trying not to lock himself into a position, but in speech after speech across the country he outlined in a professorial manner the reasons why he opposed offshore drilling. He even said that he would keep the moratorium in place around the country. This pleased his base. It pleased environmentalists. But now we see that Obama and McCain agreed on this major issue, they both wanted to expand offshore drilling… sometimes it makes me wonder if there are any real differences between these “establishment” Republicans and the Democrats… in many ways they agree (see: Obamacare/Romneycare). I think that they tend to agree, not because their ideologies are the same, but because they do not stick to their guns, they retreat on their own principles just for politics’ sake. And for those who thought that Obama was post-political I think by now they have woken up.

This concession to the Republicans on offshore drilling was something he talked about during the state of union address. In that same address, he talked about meeting with Republicans about health care so that they could reach a compromise on the bill. This is starting to look like a pattern. As I wrote before, it is clear that the president is using this concession as a political prop, something that he can point at and say “look, I tried to compromise with them, but they didn’t budge.” With the health care meeting, little to nothing was accomplished and the Democrats proceeded with their nuclear option: reconciliation. No Republican voted for it. Obscure Senate rules were used to pass the most sweeping non-budgetary legislation in years by a bare majority, something that Congress has never done before. Reconciliation has only been used to tweak the system, lower/raise taxes, extend or retract coverage, change qualifications and requirements for our old health care system, not ever for a top-to-bottom restructuring of one sixth of our economy, here is a list on page 9 showing that only budget related items were passed using reconciliation. The scope of this bill was too large and should not have been passed through reconciliation, which stifles debate and dissent.

Enough about that though. This new concession by the administration seems to be in the same spirit as the “GOP health care sit-down,” i.e. it is simply a political prop. This is the only way to explain this about-face by the president, who previously said that this would do little to end our dependence on foreign oil but now calls this decision necessary to ensure energy independence. Amazing. What will the administration use this prop for? Probably for a bill that is being worked on by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that is a revision of the cap-and-trade bill. It’s a bill already being called Cap-and-Tax and is being heralded as a job-killer and another huge burden on American citizens because of higher energy costs and taxes. Its aim is to reduce carbon emissions by a significant percentage, but ultimately this will do little or nothing to curb emissions. Primarily because the United States is not the top air polluter, that crown belongs to China, and China will not sacrifice its quest for economic dominance by becoming more environmentally friendly. In fact, China refuses international monitoring of its carbon emissions and calls on the US to provide more money to combat climate change. The top Chinese climate negotiator has said “there was still uncertainty about the causes of global warming… there are still two different viewpoints in the scientific field,” which shows their reluctance in slowing their economic machine by cutting emissions.

Ultimately, this means that the Democrats are now on their way to asserting more power over the energy industry in this country which ultimately will lead to higher costs, put small companies out of business, and higher taxes. Do we want to live in a country where only the large oligopolies can survive because of excessive government taxation and regulation? Do we want to make small businesses a thing of the past? Obama has admitted on the record that his proposals would bankrupt the coal industry, which provides the majority of electricity in this country (see video here). This is too extreme. Too many jobs will be lost. All Americans must come together and choose a path that is not so destructive to America’s middle class. The health care bill already increases the burden on the middle class through mandates, higher taxes (there are a few tax cuts and many tax increases, here’s a list of some), and cuts in Medicare. The Cap-and-Trade 2.0 version is part of the second wave of attacks on the middle class.

Already, the political gears are turning and trying to secure the votes by any means necessary, including symbolic concessions such as the offshore drilling proposal. Our government is tightening the screws on America. The Democrats have gotten punch-drunk with power and have betrayed their promises to the American people in order to pass a more government-centric agenda. This was expected though. We must fight to stop them or our present and future generations will be stuck with a bill too large to pay and we will no longer be the greatest nation on Earth. We can’t let that happen.

-AG

-AG

The way that the Democrats rammed this down the throats of Americans was shameful. They lied. They cheated. They bribed. A prime example is when congressman Bart Stupak, who was leading a group of anti-abortion Democrats to vote against the bill, hammered out a compromise with the president which would require Obama to issue an executive order banning the use of federal funds for abortion. Everyone everywhere knows that the executive order has no legal weight, so what is it that really made Stupak change his mind? In my opinion, they bought him. That, or they threatened him. Either way, through stick or carrot they herded the donkeys to vote on a bill that is so terrible, so dangerous to freedom that I believe that America’s superpower status will soon be over because of it.

There are many terrible parts of this new law, the individual mandates being one of them, but there is another part that is equally dangerous to our Republic. The law establishes something called the “Independent Medicare Advisory Board… a 15-person board of independent experts chosen by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and empowered to cut through congressional gridlock.” By design, it seems to be part of the executive branch and it answers only to the president (at least in terms of appointment). The powers of this board are near-absolute when it comes to health care (the government administered portion of it) because they make decisions that Congress cannot revise, ignore, or overrule. This means that the executive branch can now pass laws and reforms that Congress cannot easily overturn, a complete reversal of the ideas that our government was founded on. This board IS the death panel, ladies and gentlemen. These are the rationers, the people who determine which treatments are good and which are bad, and the people in charge of cutting Medicare which will inevitably come to cover a huge percentage, if not the majority, of Americans in the near future.

Now imagine if you live in an impoverished part of Latin America… wouldn’t the idea of emigrating to the United States, where not only can you possibly get a job doing some sort of menial labor but you also get FREE health care courtesy of the US taxpayer? In fact, wouldn’t public housing and public health care be an incentive for people to remain in poverty, especially in the US where poverty is nowhere near as bad as poverty in many places around the world? The US nanny-state that today exists will make immigration a bigger issue and will only perpetuate poverty. This is exactly what the Left wants.

So while the lefties of America are cheering over the passage of the health care takeover bill, most regular Americans feel like they have lost something valuable. They are right. We have lost some of our freedom. Losing that freedom gives many a feeling of emptiness, a feeling of emptiness that comes from realizing that tyranny continues tearing away at America, a feeling of emptiness that I share with those many. Despite that feeling, or rather because of that feeling, we as Americans cannot let up, we must push forward. The vote is still our most powerful weapon, even if in this instance our vote seemed to count for nothing. We can vote them all out. We must. The very existence of our free Republic depends on it. I don’t merely mean the Democrats, I now reserve special ire for the big government Republicans who during Bush inflated government and betrayed our trust. It was the big government Republicans who set the stage for today’s events, for the sheepishness of our people, for the demagoguery of Obamism that we are now subject to. I’m sick of it. It is high time for a renewed revolution in this country, one of ideas… the left’s utopic ideals are the mask of tyranny, the lemmings follow these ideas, and off the cliff we go… the real revolutionaries of today are the ones with common sense, the ones who believe in freedom, the ones who have the guts to stand up to these self-righteous, pompous fools who point their fingers at you, commanding you to buy their product of choice, to stop driving cars because it angers the “earth-spirit,” to not make so much money because it’s bad, to give up your paycheck for the welfare of some lazy leech, to hold your tongue because someone, somewhere might be offended somehow, to give terrorists more rights, to not be Christian while saying that Islam is just misunderstood, to not protest their agenda or else you’re a racist. I say we need these real revolutionaries to stand up and take our country back.

Peering into the abyss, the progressives’ agenda for America, for too long is dangerous and shortly after the health care vote I prayed that no one would take these feelings of powerlessness and turn them into acts of violence. We cannot afford that in our great country. That’s what these Leftists want, to push Americans into a corner and then have us react so that they can finally use our reaction as an excuse to take away the last bit of freedom we have. Don’t give them the pleasure. Vote them out. Call them out on their treasonous, incompetent ideas. Do not shy away from a discussion in public anymore. Speak truth to power. Don’t back down. They’ll call us racist. They’ll call us paid mercenaries. They’ll call us stupid. They’ll call us anything they can think of… but our Republic is dying. You don’t want to think back and regret not speaking up when the time came, and trust me, the time has come.

-AG

Ultimately, citizens must decide on how much government is best. Conservatives, true conservatives, believe that a society where government simply serves as an arbiter, as a protector of rights, contracts, and provider of national security is the best model. This belief stems from our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that provided our nation more than two hundred years ago with one of the most effective and free forms of government ever conceived. Mistakes were made along the way and mistakes are being made as we speak, but essentially, the dream of America is what made this country great and what, God willing, will make this country even greater in the future. Conservatives answer the question of the role of government by putting faith in a balanced idea of freedom and responsibility, faith in free market competition, and faith in the first principles upon which our nation was founded.

Other nations have answered this question differently. The extreme examples are the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba. Of these countries, most of them have teetered on the verge of starvation, one collapsed without a shot being fired, and one is growing because they have embraced a limited free market model. This is the (sadly) enduring legacy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the architects of the idea of communism, i.e. absolute central government power.

The modern liberals, since FDR, answer the question of government’s role in a similar fashion. They believe that the government should be placed in charge of things beyond what government was initially intended for and this belief makes them think of themselves as “progressives“… in charge of progress. They find disparity, in any sense, unnerving and therefore see government as the only vehicle to address such disparity. The answer to pressing needs, for liberals, tends to be “more government,” with the idea behind such a belief being: if it’s important, then government should be taking care of it. This is the liberal opinion of what government’s role is. Motivations and ulterior motives aside, I believe, as do conservatives in general, that such an approach puts us on the road to a more centrally planned society… a repudiation of the American Dream.

The idea of liberty is one that most Americans believe in. Most liberals I talk to are more put off by the “social issues” espoused by the right than the ideas of fiscal responsibility or limited role of government… but I often ask these liberals if we should ignore American culture outright? Is that the nature of our republic? To ignore the beliefs of a people and deny them their right to be heard? Whether the issue is abortion rights or prayer in school, shouldn’t American citizens get a say in these types of decisions? Theocracy is as terrible as communism and true conservatives do not believe in that type of society. Right now, with the leftward swing of government, conservatism is experiencing a sort of revival, a revival that does not necessarily include socially-based politics. This is a good thing. Politics should focus more on the political than on the spiritual especially because our founding fathers erred on the side of liberty rather than the side of morality when they thought up our great system. This also applies to the left, meaning we should not impose a particular secular moral code on America either. People can choose for themselves. Conservatives are reclaiming their political power in the wake of the leftist takeover of Washington and this is something that should be cheered by all parts of the political spectrum… if successful, conservatives will hold Republicans accountable for their mismanagement and for their complicity in the culture of corruption that engulfs both parties. Conservatives believe that the solution lies in reducing the scope and size of government, for if there is nothing for the special interests to pay for, no one will get paid off. Those that would nudge us in the direction of a Big Nanny State bring us dangerously closer to a society where government gives and government takes at its own discretion, where personal freedom gets taxed, mandated, and regulated, and where people start to lose the American spirit… this I call socialism, a society based on the collective that stamps out the individual, and those who advocate for “spreading the wealth around” I call socialists. It may seem extreme to those who think that socialism represents only those dictatorships with the goose-stepping military marches and large statues of stern-looking demagogues, but in truth many of those systems were put into place by people who thought that government was the answer for all their problems… until their own governments got so out of control that it became the problem. Socialism starts somewhere… and that somewhere is the minds of everyday Americans who place more trust in a central earthly authority than in the power and endless potential of human freedom.

-AG

Funny how at the end, the narrator talks about a certain “series of events that precipitate change” that take place in third world countries, I assume that he refers to violent communist revolutions. Interesting how far left-wing communists (I know I am being redundant) stand by a man described by the media as a right-wing terrorist… one begins to wonder if the mainstream media is misleading the public on purpose or if this is just incompetence on their part. I lean toward the former explanation.

-AG

-AG

I look to people like Ron Paul, even though I disagree with the man, who advocate for spending cuts across the board and at the same time his message really resonates with the youth. This makes me realize that advocating for a rollback of government may not be as politically costly as many politicians think. So here I outline a few suggestions for those running for office to consider, nay, to actually advocate:

- Use the stimulus funds to pay down the debt and stop the bailouts. This is a concrete policy that is almost unanimously agreed upon.

- Let people keep more of the money that they earn. Common sense.

- No government issued mandates about what people must buy or pay for.

- Allow for competition of health insurers across state lines. Competition keeps prices reasonable.

- Cut waste and fight fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlements, thereby actually cutting spending.

- Tort reform.

- No more short-term, gimmicky cash-for-anything programs or stimuli that only shift future demand to the present and have little long-term benefit while costing the taxpayer.

- Eliminate government agencies and programs that cost more than they help (most of them?).

- Reform the great Ponzi scheme known as Social Security by pushing back the retirement age (Americans are living longer now than when initially passed), allow for some form of privatization (only in a non-capitalist society can we say “allow” for privatization), and reform amount of benefits people will receive.

- Stop engaging in endless nation-building around the world.

These are just some ideas that would do a great deal in helping scale back the size and cost of government. In one form or another, I have heard of many of these come from the mouths of politicians but no one has acted on them. It is high time that conservatives in public office had the courage to take on the government, not just by trimming it but by reversing course completely. The liberals of the past have saddled our current generation with an awesome burden by creating absurd programs that use today’s workers’ incomes to pay for today’s retirees and today’s sick. This has made it politically unfeasible to untangle this mess and make a system where people can actually take care of themselves in the future, as opposed to having the government do so. Taking average rates of return on investments, the money that people pay for social security if invested soundly could have left retirees with much more money than they end up receiving from social security. But no, the government and the leftists do not trust people with their own money and so they take it from them and give them their two loaves of bread. The liberal motto: let them eat cake! The only way to change all of this is to cut, cut, and cut some more. The government is becoming more and more intrusive in the daily lives of citizens, somehow believing that throughout the years each successive generation is less able to take care of themselves… this is what progressives call “progress?”

Our media and our culture has eroded our trust in the ability of the market to offer goods and services to Americans… yet somehow nearly everyone has a cell phone, and not the cheap cell phones but rather the most expensive gadgets that can balance a checkbook, print out a copy of War and Peace, and cook a steak with plans costing more than one hundred dollars. Kids have this stuff yet we worry that people can’t afford health care? The only reason that they can afford phones, cars, and big-screen, ultra-thin plasma TV’s is because the free market allows companies to offer the products without government restrictions. Why are Americans distrustful of the free market when it comes to certain products? The “track record” of free markets with respect to health care has been horribly tainted by government control… in fact, the “track record” is not that of the free market, but rather it is the track record of what happens when we allow government to interfere with the markets. This is no invisible hand argument because there is nothing invisible about my Blackberry, my IBM computer, my Xbox, and my Ford truck. Conservatives politicians would do well to remember this… for only then will they have the moral clarity to confront the real problem with our modern government: there’s too much of it.

-AG

As expected, the Democrats’ assault on the free market is not letting up. Recently, his eminence Barack Obama unveiled plans to control the rates that insurance companies can charge as part of his new revamped health care initiative. This, of course, will reverberate through the entire health care system, pushing quality down across the board while allowing the government to control one sixth of the economy. The winners are the government and those big companies that are opportunistic enough to go along with the Democrat neo-monarchists, to quote Romney, who run this country. This is an acceleration of the new Socialist model in America, the one that uses corporations to monopolize power in the hands of the state, by enacting price controls, individual mandates, small business mandates, penalty fees, higher taxes, and larger bureaucracy. All this big government control in one fell swoop. Of course, the Democrats want to frame this recent proposal in populist terms, saying that recent rate hikes by certain insurance companies show that they need to be regulated, especially in light of the current recession. So here’s the logic: in order to alleviate the suffering caused by government intrusion into the economy through interest rate manipulation and government pressure on lending institutions we need another, stronger dose of government intrusion. Make sense? This comes from the Harvard law professor, the “Spock” (as our media christened him)… from the community organizer turned president. This man is either grossly incompetent for failing to understand the causes of our problems or exceedingly brilliant for pushing us along the road to socialism at a breakneck pace. Either reason is enough to throw this man out before he finishes destroying America.

-AG

So when the media uses non-conservatives and non-libertarians as the models of “right-wing” ideas, they are willfully trying to confuse Americans, especially those Americans who want to believe that Timothy McVeighs are organizing death squads across America. Those who undermine right-wing power in America, a positive force for change, are those use their bullhorns, newspapers, and television shows to spread disinformation about what type of people are actually engaging in violence. Furthermore, it is obvious that those people who consider themselves as right-wing and also engage in violence undermine the cause, primarily because they do not understand the cause. The vote is our weapon. Let’s be clear and condemn these people in specific terms, those that run around calling themselves neo-Nazis, or try to incite open race or class warfare, or try to use violent revolution as a means of changing society ARE NOT “right-wing,” they are LEFT-WING. Glorifying dictatorships is leftist, espousing violent revolution against our Republic is leftist, and the belief in the implicit superiority of one group over another is leftist. Furthermore, the best way to destroy freedom in America is by giving the government a perfect excuse, i.e. embracing violence, to become dictatorial. The government seems well-inclined to do so, just think back to the DHS report (initiated during the Bush administration and released during the Obama administration) that classified veterans and “right-wing” groups as potential terrorists.

Conservatives and libertarians constantly, constantly, constantly argue for the cause of liberty and limited government. The media distorts this, and those who know people who are on the political right or are rightists themselves recognize the media’s virulent leftism… but this makes sense, media is a business that wants more customers, so it makes sense that they adopt a strategy that focuses on “the masses” and not on the individual. They like controversy, they like to frame issues in a way that sells more newspapers or gets more viewers, and most importantly they oppose political philosophies that encourage people to think for themselves: right-wing ideas. Do I want to censor the media? Never. What I dislike is the monopolization of information, therefore I encourage people to find alternative media, to read blogs (like this one), and to educate their children well. Having free, independent thinkers is the best way to ensure the survival of our country… especially because they swell the ranks of the right-wing. Take that, lefty media!

-AG