Posts Tagged ‘limited government’

Why Liberals Are Modern NAZIS: The Death Of Thought And The Demise Of America Through Mindless Emotional ‘Liberal’ Outrage

December 5, 2014

As we speak, I am watching riots.  I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence.  All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been?  The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot?  I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted?  And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race.  It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Interestingly, “liberalism” is about as “liberal” as “ISIS” is “religious.”  Classical liberalism held to the following values:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

That’s from Princeton.  A strikingly similar definition pins it even better:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

… It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal.  I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual.  Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty.  Because rights without duties is moral chaos.  And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy,  they want the rule of law and they want private property rights.  The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left?  We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him.  That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people).  Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

  • “Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

  • “Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

  • I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ’em, but that was my opinion. ”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

  • “Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

There were people who saw or claimed they saw something different.  But here was their problem according to the Washington Post:

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,”  McCulloch said.

The New York Times acknowledges:

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence.  Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON.  Just no freaking way.  Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

In short, most citizens agree with something Charles Barkley said:

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race.  It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Rolling Stone set off a firestorm – which they breathlessly reported on after creating aforementioned firestorm – when it ran the following story.  I want you to note that the disclaimer was just added today as Rolling Stone all but refuted their own “reporting”:

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA
Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely | November 19, 2014

TO OUR READERS:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

What we find when we begin to examine the “victim’s” story is that there WAS no frat party the night she claimed there was a party, that there is no staircase in the house in refutation of her account, and numerous other details prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this story was a complete and utter lie perpetuated by truly vile, depraved, wicked “liberal” fascist Nazis.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative.  This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.”  Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts.  Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny.  And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized.  Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside.  As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right.  Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on  forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies.  Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars.  The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again.  But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Let’s remember this, also.  Let’s remember how a liberal fellow traveler, Meghan Daum, described the leftist mindset:

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
SHARELINE
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.”  Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name.  But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with.  It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil.  And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson.  I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting.  All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting.  So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force.  And of course there was rioting.  And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted?  ZERO.  And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset.  And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage.  But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism.  And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare?  Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

Two minutes is all you need to utterly destroy ObamaCare:

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple.  It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

It doesn’t matter that Obama himself personally refuted his own actions on at least 22 separate occasions.

That’s nothing more than a fact.  It’s nothing more than the truth.  And both are totally irrelevant to “liberals” today.

I’m watching another liberal protest going on now as leftist mindlessly chant, “We can’t breathe!” over and over and over and over again.

What they ought to be chanting is “We can’t think.”

They WON’T think.

Advertisements

Why Would ANY Decent American Want A Bunch Of Weiners Running Our Lives???

June 8, 2011

Anthony Weiner is a dishonest piece of slime.

He’s not merely a depraved serial sexual pervert and predator – which is vile enough.  He lied and broke all of his vows to his own wife.  He contacted a porn star with whom he had an internet sexting relationship and instructed her to lie.  He did all this on the people’s time and with the people’s resources.  He repeatedly lied to the American people in several press conferences.  He invited numerous reporters for interviews and then lied to them – and to all of their readers and viewers.

Republicans will bring up the Weiners and the Barney Franks and the Elliot Spitzers and the Charlie Rangels, and Democrats will bring up their list of Republican slime.

Fine.  For the sake of discussion, let us agree that all of our politicians are a slimy, vile group of people.  So with that, here’s my question:

Why on earth would we want to give these depraved, dishonest perverts our health care and our pensions (and so much more!) to people like this?

That’s what Democrats want, you know.  They want to entrust our lives to congressmen and congresswomen just like Anthony Weiner.  They want a bunch of Weiners to run our lives.  They want you to literally trust your LIFE and the lives of your CHILDREN to a bunch of Weiners.

Republicans want LIMITED GOVERNMENT.  They want to get the government monkey off your backs.  They want to reduce the size and power and scope of government to keep all these damn bureaucrats from being able to hump your leg and force you to take it.  As an example, Democrats shrilly demand that we end our subsidies for oil companies even as they also demand we INCREASE our subsidies to their beloved “green energy” boondoggles and INCREASE the crony capitalism that these subsidies create.  Republicans say, fine; let’s end ALL the energy subsidies!  But Democrats will never have that.  Rather, they want to punish the energy sources that actually GIVE US THE INEXPENSIVE ENERGY WE NEED and instead fund energy that is inadequate and inefficient instead.  They want to take away the Republicans subsidies and increase their own, is all.

Democrats want to give Weiners more power and control than ever; they want Weiners to be able to have more and more and more regulations; they want Weiners controlling a larger and larger chunk of health care with ObamaCare which they want to lead to single payer socialist medicine; they want Weiners to have a larger and larger chunk of our economy; they want Weiners to have the power to punish more and more businesses and punish them more and more harshly.

If you want a bunch of depraved elitest bureaucrat Weiners controlling every aspect of your life, then you vote for Democrats and Obama in 2012.  Because that is EXACTLY what they are promising to give you: more and more Weiners with more and more power to control your lives.  If you want to be allowed to have individual control over your own life, then vote for the Party of limited government.

Get the Weiners out of our lives.

On The So-Called Link Between ‘Rightwing’ Political Rhetoric And Violence

January 1, 2011

See my previous article, “On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate.”

Having documented that the left’s demonization of conservative “rhetoric” was nothing more than a hypocritical and immoral attempt to politically exploit a tragedy, I would like to go a little further and examine whether the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech should be denounced – as the Democrats have clearly tried to do in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting.

Should angry political rhetoric be suppressed?  Our founding fathers clearly didn’t think so.  And, truth be told, they freely let a fair amount of “rhetoric” fly themselves, during their day.  Furthermore, they codified that belief in the Bill of Rights.

But that isn’t the question I intend to examine.  Rather, I want to go further and ask, “Does angry political speech – call it ‘rhetoric’ if you want – lead to violence in a democracy?”

Let me repeat what I wrote when I first learned of this tragedy on Saturday, January 8:

Whoever did this terrible thing, and for whatever reason he did it, we have to be able to disagree in America without resorting to violence.  Or our entire system of government will collapse.  There can be no democratic republic in a police state.

Pray for Gabrielle Giffords.  Pray for her staff, some of whom were terribly wounded or even killed.  Pray for the safety of every single politician in America.  And especially pray for the safety of those politicians with whom you most disagree.

And later in that same article:

This event is something that should transcend the political arguments and the debate over which party should run America that constantly goes on.  Because ANY act of violence which accompanies a political statement of any kind undermines our freedom and liberty.

Because, like I said above, you cannot have a democratic republic in a police state.  And the more politically violent any group or individuals become, the more police powers become necessary to impose order.

All that to point out that I, as someone who can easily be identified by the pejorative “right winger,” would in fact NEVER call for acts of violence.  And I do not oppose political violence in spite of the fact that I am a conservative, but rather BECAUSE I am a conservative.

The fundamental tenant of political conservatism is the belief in limited government.  Conservatives are not “anti-government” any more than are leftists.  The far-leftist communists overthrew the current government in Russia in 1917; American liberals were opposed to the government of the Bush administration just a short time ago.  Conservatives don’t want NO government, but rather they want a federal government which is limited in size, sphere and power.  The debate isn’t between “pro-government” versus “anti-government,” but rather small government versus expansive government.  And my point is that as a conservative I don’t want a Big Brother state.  I don’t want the police on every corner.  I don’t want myriad laws restricting my freedoms.  I don’t want government imposing its will on me in order to “restore order” or impose “social justice.”  And frankly, if any political ideology in this country wants those things, it is the left.

I would further point out that the reason we do not need to resort to violence in our American democratic system is because we have the ability to use persuasion in place of and instead of violence.  But if you take away the ability to use persuasion to change society, all that is left is violence.

For the record, it is not conservatives, but liberals such as former SEIU president Andy Stern (among many others) – who have repeatedly said things like, “If we can’t use the power of persuasion, we will use the persuasion of power” – who have an unfortunate record of conflating persuasion with the raw exercise of “power.”

But let me go even further than that.  Let me take the most visceral political issue of all – abortion – and examine that issue in light of the possibility of rightwing violence.

Let me state my position on abortion clearly: it is nothing short of murder.  It is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being.

When President Obama gave his speech at the memorial service in Tucson, which shooting victim did he single out for the greatest attention?  It wasn’t Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; it was the youngest victim, nine year-old Christina Taylor.  What did Obama say?  “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.”

For someone who is pro-life, it is no surprise that the president would have focused on the youngest victim.  Because 9 year-old Christina had so much unrealized potential, so many dreams that would never be fulfilled, so much life that was taken away from her.  And it is precisely that deprivation of potential that makes her death so much more tragic and heart-wrenching than the 79 year-old victim – whose murder was obviously also a tragedy.

Allow me to consider the fifty-three MILLION innocent human beings who likewise should have had their entire lives ahead of them but instead had their lives violently and ruthlessly snuffed out.  Entire lifetimes of limitless human potential were ripped and dissolved away with surgical scissors and saline solutions.

Let me say even more: Adolf Hitler treated six million Jews as being “less than human” and ruthlessly exterminated them.  One of the greatest monsters in human history, and he is only one-NINTH as murderous as the Democrat Party in the United States of America.  There’s a term the Nazis used – Lebensunwertes Leben (“a life unworthy to be lived”) – that with all due respect is every bit as much an ideology of the Democrat Party as it was of the Nazi Party.

I think of Democrats who call themselves “Christians” celebrating Mary the Mother of Jesus’ “right to choose” to kill “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) in her womb, and I want to puke.  Your theology would murder Jesus in His mother’s womb; your “god” is abortion.

And I believe that one day Democrats will stand before a just and holy God, Who will send them to burn in hell for voting in election after election for untold millions of the most innocent of all human beings to be slaughtered for the sake of convenience.

I agree.  These are pretty strong words.  And yeah, they’re harsh.  Truth isn’t always warm and fuzzy.

And yet I’ve never killed anyone, or ever even once advocated the killing of anyone, who was pro-abortion.

Do you want to know why?

I earlier mentioned Adolf Hitler.  Let me return to him now for a thought experiment that will help me make my point.

Suppose that I could go back in time and assassinate Adolf Hitler.  Would I do it?

Well, first let me ask, would you do it?  Take a moment and think about it before reading any further.

My answer is yes, I believe I would do so.  I believe that I would kill Adolf Hitler.  Not for sake of revenge; but for the sake of all living things.  I would kill Adolf Hitler to save millions of human lives and prevent human misery and suffering beyond imagination.

Ah, you say.  So why not apply that reasoning to abortion doctors, and prevent the murders of untold babies?  Wouldn’t that be consistent?

And I would answer no, it isn’t.  Because in the case of Adolf Hitler, we have the benefit of 100%, 20/2o hindsight.  We have the record of Hitler’s entire life.  We know what he did, and we know what he intended to continue to do.

Now consider abortion doctor George Tiller, aka “Tiller the baby killer.”  He was murdered – in a church, no less – by someone who said that “preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger.”  And yet it is important to recognize that the pro-life movement immediately denounced the murder.

Let me tell you what I don’t know about George Tiller’s life that I did know about Adolf Hitler’s life.

Just like every single one of those fifty-three million innocent human beings who were murdered in abortion mills, I don’t know what George Tiller’s future would have been.

Would George Tiller have changed his beliefs on abortion if he hadn’t been murdered?  It certainly isn’t impossible that he would have.  Take the case of former head abortion nurse and former active member of N.O.W. Joan Appleton.

What would have happened if had I killed Joan Appleton while she was still performing abortions?

Think of the potential for good that she has since done with her life that would have been snuffed out.

And, neither I or the murderer of George Tiller or anyone else knows what would have happened in George Tiller’s life had he not been murdered.  Imagine the testimony that the world could have heard had the most notorious abortion doctor in the country come out condemning abortion.

In point of fact, the man who murdered George Tiller in his moral ignorance committed the very same crime that abortionists commit which makes abortion so evil; he failed to consider the very essence of what he professed to stand for.

In effect, George Tiller’s murderer committed a retroactive abortion.  He put aside Tiller’s humanity, personhood and Imago Dei; he dismissed Tiller’s “right to life”; he ignored Tiller’s “potential.”  And he killed him.

Paradoxially, all the murderer of George Tiller did – condemned as he was by the pro-abortion movement – was use the exact same mindset that the abortion movement employs every single day.

I point out in a previous article:

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

I’ve heard the Nazi argument that Jews weren’t human beings.  I’ve heard the argument that unborn babies aren’t human beings.  Wrong, and wrong.

I’ve heard the declaration that conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Michelle Bauchmann don’t deserve to live.  I’ve heard the declaration that babies growing up in their mothers’ wombs don’t deserve to live.  Wrong, and wrong.

So, yes, I will be a voice crying out in the wilderness about the vicious evil of abortion.  I will cry out in despair about the tragedy of millions upon millions of little Christina Taylors who were eradicated as if they were diseases before they got any chance to live out the potential that they should have had.  But I won’t kill.  Because I believe in human life.

Governments have what St. Paul described as the power of the sword to carry out justice (see Romans 13:1-4).  But I, acting on my own authority, don’t have the right of either vengeance or vigilantism.  Because vengeance is not mine; and because justice for criminals is not mine to carry out.  It is for God and for the governments which He has ordained on this earth to carry out those tasks.

Let me now also say that there is no connection in a healthy mind, in a healthy society, between rhetoric and violence.  None whatsoever.

And what of an unhealthy mind?

I made the point in a previous article that I once had a mentally ill woman literally come unglued on me as I held a sign that merely said, “YARD SALE.”  And I concluded then what I point out here: that if we’re going to ban or condemn “angry political rhetoric” for its possible effects upon sick minds, we’re going to have to condemn far more than just political speech.  Because literally anything can set off a sick mind.  Even a yard sale becomes dangerous.

If we banish everything that could set off a diseased mind, we necessarily must become the Big Brother totalitarian state which I earlier described fearing.  Because what couldn’t set off such a mind, which would then mean what sphere of life would the government not need to control?

I believe that I have explained why a consistent conservative would never employ violence to advance a political cause.  I also believe I have done so by employing a worldview and an argument that Democrats not only don’t acknowledge, but frankly don’t even understand.

Which is why it is the political left – and not the political right – which has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of global political violence.  Whether it be Marxist or Maoist communist socialist violence or Nazi fascist socialist violence, whether it be union violence, or whether it be radical group violence (in the 1960s the FBI nearly exclusively identified leftwing groups as being violent even throughout Democrat administrations).  The political hatred and violence that we have seen has almost invariably been leftwing.

[For those who would like to see more regarding the relationship between Nazism and the political left, see my article on the connection between leftist thought and fascism; please see my comment on the connection between “fascism” and American liberalism, and see my articles on the connection between postmodernism and fascism here and see also here, especially before you post a comment trying to argue with me].

So it is long past time for liberals to stop denouncing conservatives and finally turn their examination upon themselves.

Fearmongering Demagogue Obama Demonizes Prosperity

August 14, 2010

Here’s a story that presents Obama as he really is – a fearmongering, demonizing, demagoguing divider.  There’s no hope, there’s no change, there’s only Obama the Chicago thug.

And what is this evil man who is president of “God damn America” damning here?  Prosperity.  Because how dare you keep Obama’s money.  And the fact that you earned it does nothing to dispel the fact that you are greedy and selfish for wanting to keep more of it.

Obama: An American Against Prosperity
By Lonely Conservative

At a recent fundraising event, not only did President Obama state that prosperous Americans don’t “need” to keep so much of the money they earn, he also attacked the group Americans for Prosperity. It wasn’t just an off the cuff remark, either. He devoted several paragraphs of his speech to disparaging the group, trying to make them sound like the arm of shady foreign corporations out to destroy the American dream. He even threw in another dig at the Supreme Court.

Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

A Supreme Court decision allowed this to happen. And we tried to fix it, just by saying disclose what’s going on, and making sure that foreign companies can’t influence our elections. Seemed pretty straightforward. The other side said no.

They don’t want you to know who the Americans for Prosperity are, because they’re thinking about the next election. But we’ve got to think about future generations. We’ve got to make sure that we’re fighting for reform. We’ve got to make sure that we don’t have a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Hmmm. No mention by Dear Leader of the groups that helped get him elected, like Moveon.org, Center for American Progress, or Media Matters, to name just a few. He also never talks about the shady, anti-capitalism, exploiter-of-capitalism George Soros. He’s also full of BS, as it’s quite easy to find out who the Americans for Prosperity are – it’s all right there on their website, and there’s more at the website of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. But I’m sure whoever wrote Obama’s speech knows all that.

The President of Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips responded to the attack on its members:

“With his poll numbers dropping rapidly because of his big government agenda, the President is now making shrill, desperate attacks on Americans for Prosperity and our 1,200,000 AFP grassroots activists across the nation.

Expect to hear more of this rhetoric in the coming months and years. This administration loves calling out anyone who stands up for American traditions and capitalism. Judging from the way they’ve been governing, one could easily surmise that President Obama and members of his party and administration are Americans Against Prosperity. They should start a new group, maybe Soros can fund it. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it off to incompetence, there’s no doubt about the results of the policies they’ve implemented. So whether it’s intentional or not, they certainly are against prosperity for Americans. (Unless, of course, you happen to be a union boss or part of the ruling class. Then they’re all for it, they just don’t want the rest of us to prosper.)

Obama, the ugly liar and hateful demagogue that he is, incites his audience against Americans for Prosperity by saying, “We don’t know who these people are!  They might be foreigners!  Or worse, in the vein of Marxist rhetoric; they might be the bourgeoisie who hire you and give you jobs just so they can exploit you!”

Well, we CAN know who they are, if we set aside Obama’s naked hatred and Marxist class warfare rhetoric.

As an example, we most certainly CAN know Americans For Prosperity isn’t “a foreign-controlled corporation,” with all due respect regarding Obama’s vile lies:

From their legal section:

Americans For Prosperity legally describes itself as an organization that does not accept money from “any foreign source.”  Which would be hard to claim if they were themselves a foreign-owned corporation.

Obama is a liar and a slanderer.  He couldn’t care less about the truth, or about being honest.

What does AFP want?  It is an evil organization (well, it is if you’re a class-warfare-inciting Marxist) who want to “engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels.”

What could be more un-American than an organization that does not want a giant, controlling, fascist, freedom-sucking, totalitarian, nanny state government?

You can’t know who they are.  Unless you spend about 2 minutes looking into them.

Barack Obama – the Big Brother of our time – wanted to keep you from having that terrible responsibility of being able to investigate the truth for yourself.  He wanted his lies to become your truth.  But the evil U.S. Supreme Court prevented him from doing so.  So he demonized them in a speech the same way – and with the same lies – with which he demonized the Americans For Prosperity.

Let me tell you something.  Obama has some pretty giant resources.  The Department of Justice.  The Secret Service.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation, just for starters.  He knows who Americans For Prosperity are.  If there were a single illegitimate thing to say about them, he would have had and used that ammunition.  If Americans For Prosperity were a “foreign-controlled corporation, or a bank, or an insurance company, or whatever Obama falsely and maliciously accuses them of being, if he had any proof whatsoever, this liar and fraud could have and would have produced it.

The Americans For Prosperity is clean.  It is Obama who is just plain dirty.  He is a dirty slandering liar.

Read And Sign The Mount Vernon Statement

February 17, 2010

I hope that conservative Republicans come up with a modern version of their incredibly successful Contract With America that took the American political universe by storm in 1994.

The Mount Vernon Statement is not such a “contract,” but it provides the foundational premise for one.

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

The Mount Vernon Statement site encourages people to come on board and demonstrate their support by signing the statement.  As of my own signing, there are 6,000 signers.  I hope that becomes 60,000,000.

Real “hope and change” will come from returning to and embracing the timeless yet proven-time-and-time-again principles of our founding fathers; not by embracing Barack Obama’s failed policies which actively subvert those timeless constitutional principles.

We can make this country great again, by returning to and honoring the principles that made us great to begin with.

LA Times And NY Times: Be Less Like Founding Fathers, More Like Nazis

August 17, 2009

There’s a debate going on in this country that is far wider than health care.  Health care is the current battle; but the war is over the size, scope, and power of government over our lives.

Years prior to World War II, in 1931, Pope Pius XI denounced Benito Mussolini’s socialism as “Statolatry,” the idolatry of a worship of and dependence upon the state rather than God.  And less than a decade later it would be socialism – both fascist and Marxist – which would bring hell on earth rather than the utopias the socialists had so falsely promised. Today, the American left wants more government, and then more, and ever more.  Government as God, the State as Savior, meeting every need and demanding that it be the sole arbiter for determining what is right and what is wrong. And the American people are increasingly being compelled to abandon the free market system in exchange for one featuring increasing government control over every sphere of our lives.

The first of our two articles, from the Los Angeles Times, suggests that the vision of the founding fathers, particularly in the ideas of Thomas Jefferson for a small, limited federal government, should be cast aside as outmoded and anachronistic.

Them versus us

By Joseph J. Ellis, August 9, 2009

From the very beginning of our national history, Americans have been arguing about the proper role of government. Put succinctly, the dispute is between those who regard government as “them” and those who see it as “us.”

Our two founding documents embody the tension in its classical form. The Declaration of Independence locates sovereignty in the individual citizen, who possesses the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as Thomas Jefferson so lyrically put it, and the power of government is described as an alien force that must be put on the permanent defensive. The Constitution enshrines “the people” as the sovereign agent, with a Bill of Rights that defines a protected region where government cannot intrude, but otherwise identifies a collective interest best managed by a federal government empowered to make decisions for the society as a whole.

All of United States political history can be understood as a perpetual debate between these two competing perspectives, symbolized at the start in the clash between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonian position, with its emphasis on a minimalist government, prevailed throughout the 19th century and imprinted itself on the DNA of American culture as a quasi-sacred political creed.

By the start of the 20th century, as the United States became a more densely populated, ethnically diverse society, with an industrial economy dominated by large corporations, the Jeffersonian perspective grew increasingly anachronistic. It became abundantly clear that government power was necessary to regulate the swoonish swings of the marketplace, provide a safety net for poor and elderly citizens and protect the environment. Thus the Federal Reserve Board, Social Security, Medicare and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But despite these projections of the Hamiltonian ethos, which presumes that there is a collective public interest that only government can serve, the Jeffersonian ethos remains a potent force, and not just in the right wing of the Republican Party. It colors the conversation about all the major domestic problems facing the Obama administration in ways that stigmatize as socialistic what we might ironically describe as the self-evident solutions.

In the healthcare debate, for example, there is a national consensus that we have a broken and bloated system. But instead of replacing it with the kind of single-payer government-run system adopted by most of the developed countries on the planet, that option is ruled out of order at the start of the debate. As a result, the best we can hope for is modest reform of an inherently flawed and expensive system. […]

It should be realized that Joseph Ellis is hardly the only liberal who thinks in terms of moving away from the government or the ideas of our founding fathers.  Allow me to quote Barack Obama:

Obama: “I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

Obama talked about “the fundamental flaw of this country…”

Obama: “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”

Hardly an affirmation of the wisdom of our founding fathers, who created the greatest system of government the world has ever seen.

I would submit, first of all, that Alexander Hamilton would be just as appalled at the gigantic colossus our government has become as would Jefferson.  I would suggest that neither man, seeing the enormous and unresponsive federal bureaucracy, would view the gargantuan federal bureaucracy as “us.”  They would see it as an alien power running amok over the people’s lives.  They would see it as a far greater tyranny than the one imposed by the British king whom they had defeated.

To quote Mark Levin, from Liberty and Tyranny:

“The founders understood that the greatest threat to liberty is an all-powerful central government, where the few dictate to the many.  They also knew that the rule of the mob would lead to anarchy and, in the end, despotism” (4).

They understood government as a necessary evil, rather than as a desired goal.  In the words of James Madison, the most influential of the authors of the Constitution, in Federalist 51:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

And I would ask, what evidence is there that the federal government is in any way “controlling itself?”

First of all, we have growing by leaps and bounds what Alexis de Tocqueville described as a “soft tyranny“:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Secondly, the federal government has immersed itself – and the American people – into levels of debt that boggle the limits of human comprehension.  We now have a national debt of well over $100 trillion, if we count (which we should) our “unfunded liabilities” such as the Social Security and the Medicare which Joseph Ellis so praises.  And as for Barack Obama – the president whose policies Ellis is writing to defend:

“Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.  It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP).  And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.”

And that is before the huge costs of ObamaCare; it is before Cap-and-trade; it is before anything Obama wants to do for the remaining 3 1/2 years of his presidency. This is no government that is “controlling itself.”  Anything but.

Incredibly, Ellis ends his article with this:

No less an American hero than George Washington put it rather defiantly in 1785: “We are either a united people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation. … If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it.” And even Jefferson acknowledged that his anti-government vision would become irrelevant once we ceased being an agricultural society and that future generations — meaning us — would at some point need to throw off what he called “the dead hand of the past.”

Joseph Ellis doesn’t want us to think about what it was that Washington actually intended to provide us with “unity.”  Rather, he wants to import his own meaning of “unity” as one being imposed via a massive octopus of federal power.  But George Washington had a very different idea of national unity than does Ellis.  In his Farewell Address – considered one of the most important political addresses in American history – George Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

Think of the implications of that statement.  Our greatest founding father essentially said, ‘If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality.  If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all of the benefits and none of the curses of government, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life.’  And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism, arguing, ‘Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I will not allow them to call themselves a patriot.  Because they are trying to destroy the country.’

Think of George Washington when you contemplate that the liberal legal arm, the ACLU, is literally trying to put a high school principal and an athletic director for praying over a meal at an employees’ lunch.

So liberals do not want the limited government fought for and instituted by our founding fathers.  The founding fathers – Alexander Hamilton included – simply do not permit the Statism that the modern American left want.  What kind of government do they want in its place?

Now turn to the New York Times.

Stimulus Thinking, and Nuance

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 31, 2009

Every so often, history serves up an analogy that’s uncomfortable, a little distracting and yet still very relevant.

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

No sane person enjoys mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular importance this week. In the run-up to the G-20 meeting, European leaders have resisted calls for more government spending. Last week, the European Union president, Mirek Topolanek, echoed a line from AC/DC — whom he had just heard in concert — and described the Obama administration’s stimulus plan as “a road to hell.”

Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century.

Yes, stimulus works. […]

Incredibly, when you put the liberal Los Angeles Times together with the liberal New York Times, the message is: “Be a lot less like Thomas Jefferson, and a lot more like Adolf Hitler”.

David Leonhardt certainly did not want his readers to think of Barack Obama as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.  He tried to provide all the necessary caveats.  Nevertheless, this reminds us of a core truth of the Nazis that liberals generally don’t want you to think about; that the word ‘Nazi’ is an acronym for the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  And the fact that both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the National Socialist German Workers Party stand as grim reminders that socialism is ever an experiment that can go terribly, terribly wrong.

Socialism derives from a diametrically different philosophical and moral system than the profoundly Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment-oriented worldview from which our founding fathers established the United States of America.  Gene Edward Veith describes this fundamental incompatibility/hostility in his great work, “Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview.”  Linda Kimball addresses this dichotomy in shorter form in her article, “The Materialist Faith of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.”  Then there is the profoundly powerful Harvard address given by Alexander Solzhenitsyn entitled “A World Split Apart.”

Jonah Goldberg addresses how this massive demarcation between the intellectual traditions of the American right and left continues to this very day:

“No top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” (Liberal Fascism, 175-6).

American intellectuals might indignantly snort, “I’m not a fascist; I’m a neo-Marxist!”  But regardless, they share the same underlying moral, philosophical, and economic assumptions.  And either way, they are still socialists.  To quote Richard Pipes, both “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.”

Joe the Plumber heard Barack Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded, “That sounds like socialism.”  The mainstream media went ballistic in its denial that Barack Obama had anything whatsoever to do with socialism.  And then he won, and the liberal publication Newseek proudly trumpeted on it’s February 16th cover, “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.”

The “kind of single-payer government-run system adopted by most of the developed countries on the planet” LA Times writer Joseph Ellis describes is simply “socialized medicine” by another name.  Ellis complains about conversations that “stigmatize as socialistic”; the problem with that characterization is that they ARE socialistic.

There’s been this movement by the elitists among us to be more like sophisticated Europe dating all the way back to our founding.  Some say today, “What Europeans do with government is pretty good.  And what they do with civil rights is pretty good.  And what they do with health care is pretty good.”  And there’s this move to be more like Europe.  In our Supreme Court liberal justices routinely cite what Europe does in their law in order to replace what we do in ours.  Thomas Jefferson made a statement against the “Let’s be like Europe” that is every bit as valid today as it was the day he made it:

“The comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell.” — Thomas Jefferson

Whether health care, cap-and-trade, or anything else our modern Europe-envying elitists want to do, it falls in the face of the fact that America has dwarfed Europe in economic output, productivity, and wealth.  We’re constantly told that we need to be more like Europe and offer socialized medicine in order to be more “competitive.”  If that is so, than why is it Europe – which has socialized medicine – that has long struggled to be competitive?

In the health care debate Ronald Reagan had a warning for us.  Way back in 1961 he said:

“One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.”

It was a speech that could have easily popped out of a time capsule labeled, “Open in event of future threat from socialized medicine.”

Mark Levin said:

“The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution.  And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does – whether the Marxist promise of “the workers’ paradise” or the Great Society’s “war on poverty” – the Statist demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind’s existence.  Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist’s ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray!  He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings.  Failure is not a product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources.  Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority” (Liberty and Tyranny, 10).

It is time to end the advance of the good-intentioned-paved road to hell.  We have a government that is spending too much, taxing too much, and intruding too much into the lives of Americans.  It is time to be a lot less like Hitler and the socialists and a lot more like the founding fathers and the recognition of the fixed and non-violable constitutional limits they created.