I was discussing today with my father the conversation I had with the libertarian and the liberal a few days back and it took the usual turn with him accusing the liberals in America of being communists. For those of you who do not have Cuban parents, it may be a bit difficult to understand that everything gets related back to their experiences (actually traumas) back in Cuba under socialism, you know, the system that gets praise from Michael Moore for providing “free” education and “free” health care (and free oppression) for all.

I like listening to older Cubans (and younger ones too) speak with absolute clarity about American politics, for the movie we are watching they have seen before… but there is a small flaw in their thinking: ideas are mired in specific experiences and not fully applicable to our situation in the US. People who experienced communism/socialism in other countries have heard this rhetoric and have seen these actions before, so they know it is communism/socialism… they know what it is, but they don’t really know why… and the why is the important part. So, in the midst of the conversation, I asked who and what he thought was the reason behind it all, behind our movement towards a government-run society? His answer was a smattering of leftist personalities and can be summed up by saying the far left wing of the Democrat party. In a sense, I agree that this is part the who… but then again it is the why that matters. So I presented my argument, that went something like this:

There are three types of people who move this leftist “conspiracy” forward: the idealistic useful idiots, the power-hungry communists, and the corporate opportunists. As an aside, the term “useful idiots” while attributed to Lenin was also used amongst the underground anti-Castro movement within Cuba to deride those who actively participated in the organized mobs, in the “chivaton” culture (ratting out your neighbors for “thought crimes” against the regime, amongst other things), and those involved with the general repressive machinery of the state. I found this interesting.

Anyways, back to the three classes of Leftists. The first group is the easiest to describe for it includes those people who truly believe that the poor masses of people cannot make decisions for themselves and need a big government to run their lives for them. These are the people who believe that inherently man is evil, egotistical, and ignorant and that they need to be reformed and re-educated so that they will be happy living in a collectivist state. It is elitism that comes from their belief that “they” know best what is good for us. These people are everywhere in society and help push along this agenda. We can refer to them as “progressives.”

The second class of people that I believe drive this agenda furiously are the power-hungry communists, but unfortunately, communists is not a good term to use, because the actors in this class have different motives for advocating the mass redistribution of wealth. This group of people are the ones who actually set the agenda for the progressive movement, the type of people that make their way onto some sort of Glenn Beck list of pinkos. Most of the people who have met and shaken hands with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or any of these other sociopaths are included. The reason that simply meeting these people is indicative of their aspirations and worldview is straightforward: once you come into physical contact with evil, you know that they are evil. There is no way that the people who meet mass murderers somehow believe that they are innocent; I cannot believe that people are so stupid; I cannot believe that Sean Penn and his ilk have not seen that cold evil in the eyes of their “role models.” Those who actively support evil people, including Jimmy Carter, are part of this “conspiracy” not merely because they believe that only a well-engineered society, from top down, is the answer for humanity but because they want to be the vehicles for that change… they want history to record their names as the leaders of this abomination they call “progress.” In the name of progress they link any and every social cause they can think of, from climate change to immigration to the anti-war movement to gay “rights” to animal rights, etc. but in almost each and every case, they require that the state interfere in society and advocate some form of wealth redistribution. By state interference I refer to government-engineering of everything from economy to culture, that citizens can no longer choose for themselves but must be told what to think, what to believe, and what how much they can make. In the Cuban case, and the Venezuelan case, and the countless other cases, the oppressor was clearly identified as Castro, as Chavez, as Stalin, etc. but in America it is not so clear cut. This is probably part of the plan, so that we cannot ascribe this philosophy to ONE individual or one specific group, because it would be too easy for freedom-loving people to attack that one group and that one individual… just look at what concerned citizens have been able to reveal about ACORN. I ultimately wonder if they have conferences among the top actors, coordinating their plays in a dark room somewhere, setting the media talking points, planning how to generate crises and how they will take advantage of them. These are the power-hungry communists.

The third group is integral for the success of socialist agenda… but in a contradictory way. The Left in America has realized, since the days of the Soviet Union, that bucks are more powerful than bombs. The only way to introduce socialism into the United States is to do it by degrees and in a system that was once a free market economy, it cannot be done without business. So what we have in America is a government that takes capitalism and perverts it beyond recognition while still calling it capitalism. So when it was the Democrat-run government that flooded Wall Street with easy money, the Leftists did not hesitate in blaming the free market system for the crisis. So when it was the Democrat-run government that inflated the pockets of “fat cat” bankers, the Leftists did not hesitate in pointing their crooked, accusing fingers at banks for paying out huge bonuses. People do not understand that the Left’s war on the free market comes from two sides: the anti-business front and the pro-business front. The anti-business front is the open strategy, the one that they are proud of, the one where they raise taxes, fees, increase unnecessary regulations, and the like… of course, all of the penalties that they impose on business trickle down to the consumers who pay higher prices and have poorer quality. The pro-business front is the one where they favor some big corporations over small business, giving them implicit government guarantees, giving them preferential treatment, and giving them bailouts… this, until recently, was more secret than their anti-business policies. What is deceiving about their “pro-business” policies is the fact that they do not in fact promote capitalism, they handicap capitalism by marrying big business with government and giving a ridiculously unfair advantage to the “connected” companies. This is not capitalism. In capitalism, it is competition, supply and demand, and innovation that keep the economy humming and prices fair. In corporate socialism, the current system in America, the government picks and chooses the winners and loser and distorts the markets. This is part of the plan. The Leftists aspire to establish a society where the state controls all of the means of production, but since this cannot be accomplished through direct government action, they settle for propping up a few choice corporations. Once small business has been destroyed and few firms control all industries, then the government with step in and take control of these de facto monopolies. In the meantime, businessmen stand to make a fortune by cooperating with the Leftist pro-government policies. They raid the US budget, courtesy of the US taxpayer and the Leftists who hold the purse strings. Once government has grown large enough, they will have Scrooge McDuck-like vaults of money back at home and will be in positions of power in the newly established government-run monopolies. Who wins at the end? Pro-leftist businessmen and the power-hungry communists.

Unfortunately, the decentralization of the Leftist power structure makes it harder to fight them. For example, tearing down Al Gore will do nothing to stop the train, especially while George Soros is pumping hundreds of millions into that very cause. There are too many people who stand to benefit from the violent financial rape of the US taxpayer… and every day more are lining up for a piece of the action. It disgusts me. Government is out of control… taxes only go up. Locally, property values have plummeted while property tax rates have gone up across the nation. Imagine that, while the net worth of citizens falls, the government decides to tax them more, thousands more… so much for “tax cuts.” In the meantime, government bailouts have held gas prices at the same level (due to depreciating dollar and despite lower demand), car prices are comparable to years past, and home prices are still inflated. Corporate Socialism is in full effect and the current administration and Congress are cementing its position in our society. The triumvirate of forces that is pushing America into socialism can only be stopped by limiting the power of government and voting out the useful idiots who are making this all possible. This shows that the complexity of the problem in the United States cannot be summed up by saying “they are all communists,” some are communists, some are fools, and some are opportunists and the why stems from a combination of idealistic stupidity, thirst for power, and plain-old greed. It is telling that many of us would prefer the existence of some cohesive communist bloc under the guidance of some Castro figure instead of the spider web of special interests and groups that work towards the enslavement of the American citizen, because at least in the former case, we know who we need to stop… in our current system, it is not so clear. That’s why we need to reject their ENTIRE program for America and get back to rational policies based on our founding principles.

-AG

Many people believe that the Soviet Revolution took place in October and in a sense it did, according to the calendar that Russia was using at the time… but according to our calendar, the Gregorian calendar, the Soviet Revolution started in early November. So it was not all that surprising to us who follow the spectre of communism throughout history that 91 years later, in November 2008, another supposed “revolution” took place in America, a revolution of “spreading the wealth around.” The difference between Russia of its time and the United States in our time is that the latter country has a long tradition of freedom and we are, by our very nature, believers in the potential of the individual, not the power of the state.

That said, it is a relief to see that the cult of personality and the leftist hijack of America that started in 2008 (some say much earlier than that) began to subside in 2009. By 2010, a string of political defeats and the loss of the most left-leaning of our states to conservatives made it evident that the Imperial Democrats in control of Washington could no longer impose their agenda on their American people without consequences… at least not in the open. They forgot that, for now, we still have a Republican form of government where representatives govern with the consent of the people. So the Leftists shifted their strategy from more direct, accelerated socialism to slower bourgeois socialism (as described by Marx) where they will say that they are not anti-freedom, anti-business, anti-life, but in fact want to make this world better by sharing more of our resources without destroying free markets too much. The difference is mere tone and possibly the understanding that total transformation of American society, away from religion, away from personal responsibility, away from critical thinking, is still some ways off.

The change in strategy became evident during the Chairman’s State of the Union Address, something that, in itself, demonstrated the power of the everyman in America, the fact that our opinions still mattered, and I loved it. But now we fall into another stage of the battle…

People may not be cognizant of the fact that Waterloo did not occur when Napoleon was cornered militarily, he chose that time and place for battle… and he caught the powers of Europe somewhat by surprise (at least before they could mobilize). Obama’s Waterloo seems to be following a similar track. By Waterloo, I refer not to his signature legislative proposal, as did DeMint, the one that will force Americans to surrender yet another percentage of their income for health care coverage they may already have or may not need, but to the general battle being waged today in America between those who believe that overgrown government is the single worst part of “the problem” and those who believe that overgrown government is “the only solution.” The SOTU address gives us the blueprint for the Democrats’ future actions. The Chairman’s recent actions give us further clues. Specifically, I refer to the President’s new-found penchant for bipartisanship, something conspicuously absent during the first 365 days of one-party rule. Not only must we question their motives, we must assume the worst. Why assume the worst? Simple: these guys don’t play fair, from releasing a report that labeled military veterans as potential “right-wing” terrorists, labeling all tea party activists as extremists, brokering deals and bribes behind closed doors on legislation that affects all Americans, ramming bills through Congress without honestly working towards a bipartisan solution, the demonization of the ONE non-liberally biased news network on cable (FOX), and the non-stop barrage of insults hurled against any and every non-leftist personality, specifically Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Bush, McCain, Hannity, and the list goes on. Like I said, they don’t play fair. Instead of debating ideas, they smear, slander, and ridicule members of the other team, where the “other team” is anyone who is not on their team. Back to the bipartisanship issue…

With the 2010 campaign cycle upon us, Democrats retiring left and right, and a mobilized conservative and independent base, the Democrat party is scared. Now that they have failed to pass their bills in Congress and cannot simply push their agenda forward with the same vigor, they must either retreat or double down and fight. The Chairman seems intent on pursuing a fight rather than retreating. For that fact alone, he should be respected as a formidable opponent (of America?). What this means is that the Democrats may finally be willing to debate policy and not merely spew rhetoric and dismiss opposition. Of course, we expect their form of “debate” to be simply a PR war against opposing viewpoints. This may be their best idea yet, especially considering that the party that is associated with conservatives is the Republican party… and unfortunately, they may not be up to the task of truly leading. Just think back on the Bush years, when he handed out “stimulus” checks across the board like some triumphant guerrilla revolutionary who just toppled some oligarchy, that ain’t conservative. That stimulus, like the current stimulus, was a band-aid that was violently ripped off during the recession. Government only prolongs the pain. Year after year increases in deficit spending under Republican rule wasn’t conservative either (though some of it was absolutely necessary given our life or death struggle against terror). Republicans lost their way and failed to listen to the voters, their conservative base, and committed some major errors. They have not yet fully embraced the Tea Party movement and continue to toe the line on some issues. While today’s Republicans seem united in their opposition to the Democrats’ government takeover agenda, it is unclear if they are simply pandering to an outraged American public or if they truly will turn this country around once given power. Hence the talk of secession. Hence the talk of third parties. Hence the increased disaffection amongst all voters against both parties.

On their own, the Republicans will fail miserably and end up handing the Democrats even more power than before… if the Republicans can wake up for a second, just one second, and turn to the people, the American people, for support by advocating for a more rational approach, for less powerful government, for more empowered people, for a saner tax code, and for a balanced government that listens to the people, then a Republican victory is all but guaranteed in the next 500 elections. The young rebels of today flock to Ron Paul, a seventy-something year old Republican doctor whose message is clear: more freedom and more responsibility in government, but the Republicans have failed to see this. Around the country, minorities and majorities are tired of having to bubble in their race or ethnicity or social status when every citizen of the United States is an American and almost all are proud of it… but the Republicans have failed to see this. Today Americans of all stripes want to return to the sanity of a society where people are both free and responsible for themselves without an overwhelmingly powerful government in charge of everyone’s affairs but Republicans have failed to see this. They still toe the line, they still are afraid to speak truth to power for fear of offending some interest group out there whose existence is based solely on attacking the idea of freedom. Republicans were successful in aligning themselves with the anti-socialist sentiment of America, but that is not enough. Now Republicans must fight for the American people or be cast into the shadows of a Washington more akin to the Kremlin of old than Independence Hall on that fateful summer of 1787. This is the newest challenge that we face and the only way to affect it directly is to support the more conservative candidates of the Republican party. This alone will prompt those moderate Republicans willing to compromise American values and principles for the sake of having their names on shiny new pieces of legislation or in exchange for money, bribes, favors, or any of those corrupting elements ever-so-present in our government today to think twice. For the moderates, I say keep them if they advance the cause of freedom, but throw them out the moment they start to stink of Arlen Benedict Specter. Many of them already need showers.

Waterloo has just begun in earnest and the would-be emperor of our Republic will try to splinter our forces and drive the Republicans back into the sea. All the Republicans need to do is earn the right to be defended by the people, to earn our votes before the Imperial Democrat war machine pummels them into irrelevance. To do this they simply need to embrace the movement across America, fight the good fight for our freedom, and we the people will do the rest to ensure that our star spangled banner yet waves over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

-AG

Lately, I have been reading about and listening to the speeches of Malcolm X. I especially liked the Spike Lee movie where Denzel Washington does a fantastic job of portraying Malcolm or, as he comes to rename himself, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. I find that looking into historical figures like this helps understand the present so much more, specifically it helps identify the great divide between African-American values and regular American values. There is in fact a difference and there are reasons for that difference. To get some of the painful facts out of the way: the history of people of African origin in the United States was terrible… but I claim, in the strongest of terms, that slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional. This means that our founding fathers behaved unconstitutionally, but man is flawed. Man may, in his soul, know what is right and say what is right but ultimately sin. America was such a man. I know that many of you know what I refer to. Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were revolutionary for their time and in our modern time as well, but its application was not universal. It took a long time, but we have come to fix this problem, or at least we have made great progress. Which brings me back to Malcolm X, a person that president Obama says influenced him.

Before I continue, I will again make clear that the author of this post (myself) is not “white” in the racial sense. No one in my family participated in the history of the United States until the communist takeover of Cuba, prior to that my ancestors came from Italy, Africa, Spain, and other parts of the world. I do not feel that tinge of “guilt,” something liberals exploit, for the racism and slavery of the past, so in a sense, I consider myself free of the historical “baggage” that often clouds judgment on racial matters and racial history.

Hearing the emotion behind Malcolm X’s speeches and the ideas that he spewed made me realize that African-Americans today have inherited an ideology that is very different from what non-African-Americans believe in. From libertarians to conservatives to liberals to socialists, the narrative of how society got the way it is varies, and all of them vary from the “traditional” African-American point of view. The black point of view is based in reality. It comes from the fact that they were betrayed by the wielders of power in the United States, by the judges and public servants who did not carefully read the words “all men are created equal” (men in the universal sense, i.e. “humanity"). This betrayal justifiably turned many African-Americans against the system… but oddly enough, while Malcolm X was considered one of the most radical of his time, he in fact did hold up the founding documents of our country as being excellent ideals, ideals that America failed to live up to. To those who find it uncomfortable to point out any social/racial/anything-else-ial differences between Americans (I am in this camp), I remind you that it was Americans in times past that treated an entire race of people as “different,” so in essence we are now paying for the sins of our fathers. The sense of betrayal and alienation is what has defined the African-American experience of the past and it explains the anti-white, reverse racist, anti-American speech that we sometimes hear from people like Jeremiah Wright and his ilk. This is why the world-view of African-Americans sometimes tilts leftward, because to be a conservative to them implies conserving the status quo of yesterday, a status quo that not one of them wants to return to. They sometimes idolize the murderers of the world, the Castros, the Che Guevaras, and the Maos, simply because they represent the idea of destroying an old order in the name of “the people"… but this is not universal, in fact, almost every African-American that I have come to know personally (all 2 of them… just kidding, I’m friends with a lot) recognizes that these people were monsters. It is the inherited ideology of the African-American community, an ideology stemming from the rejection of explicit racism, that has triumphed in the black community. This is the problem and recognizing the problem helps address it better.

Some of Malcolm X’s ideas were genius, while some bordered on insane. He eventually softens his tone (slightly) but throughout his career believed that blacks must fight for their freedom. By using words like “black nationalism,” which brought to mind images of violent revolutions against colonizers in Africa and Latin America, and words like “by any means necessary” he was advocating violence… though he did say only in self-defense. We can understand this, though not necessarily agree, given the context of the times. The ideas that I did like, ideas that seem to have been lost, was that he believed that the black community must earn respect before they are given respect, that they must build themselves up first in order to gain the freedom that they desired. The loss of this lesson is tragic and the fact that many only remember the radical part of Malcolm’s message only worsens the problem.

Now, the realities that brought about the black community’s ideology have been swept away… but the ideology endures. Today, America is haunted by the spectre of old racism and old discrimination with the media on a witch hunt trying to find the most racially insensitive gaffes or comments, trying to highlight the difference between the races as much as possible. On the “establishment” side, this must change if we are ever to advance as a people, an American people. The near-constant identity politics played by the Left only make it less possible for us to be one united country. On the “black community” side, these old ideologies must be re-evaluated. Look at countries like Cuba, where supposedly the working man and the black man was freed, and try to count the number of black leaders in their parliament… better yet, black people should visit Cuba, where they will be frisked for simply walking into hotels (because Cubans themselves are not allowed to go to certain hotels, and most Cubans are black or mixed). The black community should take a good look around their neighborhoods and ask themselves whether the years of pandering by the Left has benefited them at all. For decades the Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency, are the results there? The black community should consider what would happen if they stopped referring to themselves as black or African-American, many already have experienced that liberation. One does not need to be trapped by history or by the color of one’s skin in modern America, for human rights apply to all humans. The inherited ideology needs to change because times have changed. Leftist policies restrict the rights of all and make permanent the problems of yesterday and today. The black leaders of yesterday were a product of their environment, but I find that the black “leaders” of today are actually the products of the reality of the pre-civil-rights era. Time to modernize. True conservatives value the humanity and the rights of all people, those who claim to be conservative and do not are not conservatives. The Constitution is the great equalizer and is a shield for all Americans. Conservatives often think that African-American leaders are anti-American, the case is that these leaders are stuck in old battles against white hooded monsters and have trouble accepting the progress that has been made. They will say things that hurt all Americans, like that 9-11 was deserved, like that white people engineered AIDS for the eradication of gays and blacks, and other conspiracy theories… these things only further divide us. These leaders seem to benefit most from the division of races rather than their unity. It is time to discard the old ideologies and come to realize that we are indeed all the same and we must fight for freedom together or lose it together. There can be no other way.

-AG

Recently, I was engaged in spirited conversation with two other individuals of different political philosophies. One was libertarian and one was leftist. I, of course, am a right-wing extremist. All the participants were college-educated and tended to back up their views with facts, hence it was an excellent discussion and it helped reveal to me what my colleagues think about the world and politics. At first, the conversation was between myself and the libertarian essentially talking about how we both agreed on the reduction of the size and power of the state and essentially giving more power to the people, aka “freedom.” Eventually, I moved on to a serious point of disagreement that I have with libertarians, the foreign policy issue. While I do believe that the United States would do better to stay out of the affairs of other countries, the reality we are presented with does not allow this. In a globalized economy, with a network of necessary alliances, the United States faces threats that it must confront… dare I say, even preemptively. In my part of town, I am bold to say these things… but too many times have I seen children fall into drugs because of parents’ live and let live attitudes, too many times have I seen known criminal havens allowed to thrive because of this very same “tolerance.” All politics is local and these things I have come to know locally have made me realize that sometimes the adage “no man is an island” rings true and what happens in a faraway country reverberates across the world. My family witnessed the mobilization of troops and nuclear missiles, pointed at the United States while their dear dictator begged Nikita Krushchev to launch a first nuclear strike against America. Why was that dictator in power? Because the world stood back and watched, saying “oh, that’s just internal Cuban politics.” Also because a president was hesitant to do what was necessary to stop a madman… the thousands upon thousands of Latin Americans who died at the hands of the Communist guerrilla movement were done a great disservice back then. Sometimes regime change can mean the world.

Of course, the libertarian and I disagreed on this salient point and I respect that. I respect it moreover because the opinion of not entangling ourselves in foreign affairs is not a new idea, but one that came from the founding fathers. But even then, in our early years, America’s leaders (when real leaders existed) understood that whenever European powers flexed their muscle in the Western Hemisphere, our own backyard, we could not sit idly by. And history shows that we did not. I could go on, but the interesting part was yet to come. Eventually, the leftist would join our conversation and he said, in a nutshell, that all of society’s woes were the fault of big evil corporations. In fact, he used those very words: evil corporations. He cited examples of certain companies that were monopolistic or oligopolies and played that old class-warfare game with us. At one point he asks me, “do you like it that these corporations are making record profits while wages remain stagnant?” While bashing companies, he described a glorified version of government, that he admits does not exist, that essentially is a dispassionate servant of the people. On this point, we mostly agreed, except that I pointed out that the excessive concentration of power in any body, government especially, is A) corrupting, B) inefficient and C) against democracy. He disagreed of course. The corporate-bashing seemed to be common ground for the libertarian and the lefty, where they both agreed that they were behind some of the more insidious things in our society. The difference was that every time that the libertarian mentioned anything negative about corporations, he actually did not mention the corporations the liberal was interested in hearing about. The libertarian mentioned the corruption of unions, particularly the teacher’s union, and of ACORN. The liberal jumped up and said “see, yet another corporation that is hurting society.” The problem with the liberal’s arguments is the fact that he believes that free will must be tamed, compensation must be limited, and that once a person becomes rich they can no longer have any civic participation. Specifically, he grew outraged over the recent Supreme Court decision over corporate contributions to campaigns. I rebutted that corporations have been funneling money to politicians with or without that restriction and furthermore that taking away the right of an association of people from contributing to political campaigns or causes seems to run contrary to the first amendment. I remind my reader(s) that our founding fathers were not mere paupers. Rich does not equal evil.

The most enlightening part of the conversation was the full-blown absurd notion that contracts, especially complicated contracts, were in themselves evil. I said that made absolutely no sense… yet he continued. He said that it was the banks, the mortgage brokers, the credit card companies, and any other corporation that issues contracts with fine print, especially excessive fine print, that were the cause of so much misery in this country and the world. What would the solution to this be? To allow people who claim to not understand contracts to get out of them? To ban excessive fine print? Who decides what’s excessive and what’s necessary? He railed against phone plans, Apple, farming contracts, adjustable-rate mortgages, etc. Now that I think about it, I am surprised I was even listening to him. Of course, the solution to all this is to READ THE CONTRACT. I do it, why can’t other people? His response was that we were intelligent but most people aren’t. Indeed, no elitism there (note sarcasm). People need to take responsibility for their own lives, what sort of advanced society would have to dumb down contracts for its citizens? I rebutted by saying this and also that this shows the importance of education in general and that the state needs to get out of the education game and let in private education or at least have higher standards, something that the teachers unions absolutely oppose. The lefty’s comments should not have surprised me, they truly and firmly believe that the vast majority of people cannot and should not be responsible for themselves and that they absolutely NEED a big nanny-government to chew their food for them and wipe their butts. This was not a foaming at the mouth commie I was talking to, this was an intelligent person who embodies the sort of sheep, educated sheep, that follow the Mao Tse Tungs into the abyss. Absolutely shocking.

Ultimately, the lefty believes that the world was now under the control of multinational corporations that have reduced us all to slaves (indentured servants) and that freedom was endangered if not extinct. I cannot dispute that there are huge corporation out there, nor do I want to dispute that. As of yet, the McDonalds conglomerate has not infringed on my God-given rights as a human being, so why must I declare war on them? Or restrict their activities? If I have a problem with them, as the libertarian pointed out, we can simply boycott them… and in all truth, I don’t really like McDonalds. These corporations out there are not the bogeymen, the true enemy of freedom is an overgrown state. Only an overgrown government can issue edicts like the upcoming healthcare individual mandates that will only benefit corporations and the state alike. Only an overgrown government can subsidize one business or business practice and create market bubbles that ultimately burst and wreak havoc. Strictly speaking, would we be in this recession if the government and the Federal Reserve did not adopt a loose monetary policy for political reasons? Of course not. Would the housing market still be nearly frozen if the government would not have been so generous with the banks? Of course not. Would the cost of health insurance be so high if we allowed for competition across state lines? Probably not. At the end of the conversation, I pointed out that the solution to the problem, even the exaggerated “corporations are taking over the world” problem, is to limit the size and power of government and allow for an open free market that fosters competition and innovation. Without an ultra-powerful federal government, “evil corporations” could no longer be evil because they would be restricted to following laws, respecting contracts, and competing in the market. Most importantly, without an ultra-powerful federal government, we will finally unleash the power of American innovation and have a more free country. The libertarians seem to like the sound of what liberals say, but at least have a firm grasp of what being free means… I found it odd that the libertarian would take sides against corporations, but then again, he did see them as part of the big government nexus that is chipping away at our freedom. The libertarian ended up not being anti-business per se but did believe that special interests from all sides make the situation worse. He is right, but what this shows that in the larger national discourse, a lot of people who believe in freedom, responsibility, and limited government somehow are convinced by the Left that it’s the corporations that we need to destroy. For conservatives to win this battle for the hearts and minds of independents, we must emphasize the importance of taking responsibility for oneself and the centrality of American freedom… because what the Left offers as a solution is a complete government takeover of every aspect of society to ensure that their brand of “fairness” is the order of the day.

It was a fun discussion.

-AG

With the rise of the Left in American politics, the Democrat powers-that-be have been passing record-breaking spending bills and trying to pass bills that put the federal government in direct control of free enterprise. Freedom has been taking a beating. From the Robin Hood budgets, which skew tax credits away from the people who pay the most taxes and give them to people who do not pay any taxes, to the Health Care Deform bill that burdens the American public with mandates, fees, additional taxes, and more government intrusion into daily life, the American Dream is being replaced by a Leftist scheme of American Dependency. When voters tried to send the president a message via Democrat upsets in three states (including, bastion of the Left, Massachusetts), he responded with empty rhetoric and promises that were broken before he even made them. On terror, he refuses to treat Al Qaeda like the enemy, instead insisting on giving them civil rights and having us think of them as mere criminals. In the meantime, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are embolden by the administration’s dithering and weakness on all matters national security (see Christmas Underwear Bomber and Afghanistan escalating violence). Right now, the state of the union is in dire shape… the results of one-party big-government rule have made America less prosperous and less safe.

Here I will quickly address the causes of the recession to those who are new to this blog, to everyone else you guys can skip this paragraph. From Clinton to Bush, the federal government’s emphasis on home ownership and low interest rates set the stage for a housing bubble. First of all, we needed the housing bubble, at least some of it, to get out of the post-Clinton and post-911 recession. For those that do not remember, recovery during that time was steady and sustained. Unemployment was low, consumption was high, the markets were healthy, etc. Nowadays, the Democrats and the Left are trying to rewrite history, calling the Bush decade a “lost decade” because wages were stagnant… if this was a lost decade, I would like to get lost in it again. It was only when the Federal Reserve failed to apply the brakes early on (a reason why the Fed may be bad for the economy, it’s a type of central planning), only when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being offered preferable rates for the issuance of bad loans by the government and the Fed, only when government policies interfered with the free market that the housing bubble got out of control. Does anyone seriously think that any of the banks that went out of business wanted to go out of business? The federal government’s interference in the free market is the direct and ultimate cause of the recession, it built the first ten floors of the house of cards that came tumbling down. Big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans alike were to blame for letting the government monster grow out of control. Moving on…

Now, we are at a crossroads. This year, the entire weight of voter ire will fall on those candidates closely linked with the shenanigans in Washington, both past and present. The solution to our problems comes not from increasing government size but from creating smart government, a government that is efficient, a government that is large enough to take care of necessities (like defense) but small enough so that it does not swallow the free market system whole. More importantly, we need a government that both unleashes American creativity (iPads anyone?) and does not help create an under-achieving underclass by subsidizing failure, e.g. excessive welfare, excessively extending unemployment benefits, etc. This reality has not been lost on voters who have been mobilizing via the Tea Party movement, a truly grassroots sort of Mom-and-Pop “uprising” that is being demonized by Democrats as being extremists, a laughable claim once one sees videos of older ladies and gentlemen advocating for less government, less taxes, and more common sense. Die-hard rebels indeed. While the conditions exist for a reversal of the big-government policies that got us here in the first place, what does not seem to exist is a viable alternative to the Imperial Democrat party. The Republican party has not fielded many attractive candidates and time is short. We would do well to remember that Obama was being groomed in 2004, during John Kerry’s campaign, and that Hillary Clinton was expected to run and win for years. During my time rummaging through news articles, blogs, and personal contacts, I know of a lot of local politicians who seem promising, but no one of national stature or who seems interested in the top spot which will be open in 2012. The Republicans I do see are a lot of these old-establishment types who contributed to the growth of the state and helped bring us here. Ultimately, some of these younger candidates, the ones with little to no experience, need to step up to the plate and let themselves be known. Otherwise, we will be condemned to another four years of this insanity. So I ask anyone and everyone out there, where are the viable candidates that can challenge Obama?

-AG

The 2010 State of the Union address was amazing. Hearing Obama speak made me realize that every single criticism of the president, from both left and right, is absolutely, positively justified. I was amazed by how he could lie, distort, and lie some more throughout the entire speech. The content was pure garbage, but its deeper significance, evident in how his tone changed from ultra-lefty to faux-populist and how he tried to pander to nearly every group out there, was that the American people’s call for sanity has finally shaken him up. I was amazed about how deftly he betrayed his leftist comrades by calling for spending freezes and offshore drilling (I thought McCain and Palin lost the election?) and, with equal agility, fired shots at the Constitution (the Supreme Court’s recent first amendment ruling) and called for more government intervention. It was a speech whose content only pleased the mindless minions whose mouths water whenever they see the first non-fully-white president in American history flanked by teleprompters deliver a speech punctuated with his trademark halting pauses. It is these non-color-blind liberals who would apply the death penalty on anyone who criticizes their Dear Leader if they could. In the words of MLK, Jr. I, and most other sane Americans, judge him by the content of his character not the color of his skin… and, I will also add, by the merits of his actions: more government, more debt, more unemployment, higher taxes, and less security. Only true sheep can honestly believe that a one-year record like this constitutes change, hope, or progress in any way. Even his supporters must admit that he has a lot of work to do if he is to live up the standards that he set for himself.

For everyone else, this speech was an insult. It reminded me of the orchestrated speeches given by dictators throughout history, the Lenins and Castros, whose every word was applauded by their one-party government officials/lackeys while their nations fell apart. For the Left, Obama promised little on his signature policy initiative, health care reform, and his promises to halt government spending and emphasis on lowering taxes only infuriated the big-state-lefties. For the Right, Obama’s pandering was seen as just that, calling his redistributionist policies “tax cuts” was like twisting the knife, the promise to be more bipartisan after breaking that promise multiple times fell on deaf ears, and attack after attack on the free market system, disguised as populist rhetoric against banks, revealed that distinctive Marxist underbelly of this administration. For centrists, who tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially “liberal,” do not know what to believe, the actions of the past year, with unprecedented government growth, bailouts (things they disliked about W. Bush), and broken promises about public finance for his campaign, about the “closure” of Gitmo within the year, about changing the culture of Washington, or his words now, similar to his words back then. The magic of words only last so long, just ask Hitler, Chavez, and Mao, who, after having immense popular support, secured their power through the brutal repression of their respective populations. The right knew this from the beginning and so the resistance to the mass-hypnosis of the presidential campaign was rooted in an understanding of history and gave rise to comparisons to the Nazis and the Soviets… the Left tried to spin this as being a manifestation of racism, but their logic is faulty, if racists glorify racism then why would they compare the Obamania to the Nazi regime, the epitome of racism of the last century? Regardless, the Left likes to use racism as a political attack instead of addressing why people are unhappy, the redistributionist rhetoric/actions, the anti-Americanism (yes, anti-Americanism) of going on worldwide apologizing-and-bowing tours, etc. etc. Today, America is more vigilant than ever, because we see that the administration has finally realized that Obama’s words have failed and, historically, repression is the next step. I personally doubt that he will take such drastic action, he is a weak leader, he is sly, he is calculating, he is profoundly cold, and he does not have the mettle to be a revolutionary… but there are forces and influences around him that believe that this is the moment to make America a socialist utopia and that this opportunity cannot be squandered.

I loved the State of the Union because it further emboldened me (to civic participation). The speech was a rhetorical retreat, a concession that he cannot act so socialistic in the open, and an affirmation of the fact that the Democrats’ string of defeats is sending Washington a message. So far, this year has been quite positive for independent-minded Americans but we are still under the thumb of an Imperial Democrat government in Washington that is trying to disregard the will of regular Americans. We Americans still have at our disposal a powerful weapon, our vote, and while they can try to ignore us, they cannot ignore the fact that we can throw them out of power… forever.

-AG

Wow. Truly amazing. After increasing spending across the board to historically high levels with very little to show for it, president Obama has announced a spending freeze on some discretionary spending to be put into effect in 2011. Obama is hoping that this will boost his approval rating among center and right voters, but for me, this move only means one thing: Scott Brown and the Tea Party movement have scored their a huge tangible win against the government, at least in the government’s rhetoric. Why else is Obama pretending to be a born-again fiscal conservative after all this time? Go Scott! Do we think that Obama will keep this promise, of course not. He did not even live up to his “first act as president” promise of closing Gitmo within the year, even with vast left-wing support. Ultra fail. Just like when he mentioned tort reform, received a standing ovation, and then scrapped it as soon as we weren’t looking, I expect Obama to find ways to increase spending despite his announced “freeze.” Remember, lefty liberals do not believe in “freezes,” they believe in “warming” and they also believe in spending money faster than the machines can print the stuff. Don’t believe me? Just watch as White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein practically begs (especially near the end) Rachel Maddow to support the president on this and how she rips the administration for trying to save money:

Very fun to watch. Maddow, veteran of the failed Air America experiment (they are filing for bankruptcy, in case you haven’t heard), is the quintessential leftist in this clip, accusing the Obama administration of taking a “big right turn” for trying to cut excessive spending. Crazy. I can see it now: Obama clinging to his guns (Biden’s biceps) and his religion (Reverend Wright-ism). If anything, this goes to show that the Left is more interested in making excessive spending more excessive as long as it is the government that’s doing it.

For the rest of us, this goes to show that this administration is trying to govern by the polls, the anti-Bush who reads the polls in order to know what’s in his “heart.” What does move mountains is bucking expectations, electing conservatives in liberal states, and voting against the socialist machine. They are trying to pivot now first by appearing populist by going after the banks, then by appearing centrist by announcing tax credits for the middle class, and now appearing fiscally conservative by claiming that he will freeze discretionary spending. None of this is real, it’s just for show. Expect the far left to lob grenades at Obama for his transgressions against Keynesianism and Leninism. Grab some popcorn, turn on MSNBC, and just watch the fireworks fly this week. It’ll be an early Fourth of July… and as an added bonus, all their infighting and failures may just end up making America more free!

-AG

If you’re a far left liberal that is. If you’re a regular American citizen, more invested in pragmatism than ideology, Obama has certainly put us on the road to tremendous change. The White House has defended its chang-y agenda, saying things like “we’ve seen is a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world.” Yes indeed, now our enemies think we are weak and our allies worry about our resolve. They say that Obama laid “a foundation for keeping America safe and making us a partner around the world,” comments made less than a month after the terror attack by the would-be underwear bomber, the suicide bombing of the CIA in Afghanistan, and the brazen Taliban attack on Afghanistan’s capital city. Security we can believe in.

Obama making friends with our “ally” Pakistan

Economically, despite spending trillions of taxpayer dollars, unemployment marches on, small businesses continue to go out of business, and the national debt is soaring. Not enough change? Not if you’re Dean, Kucinich, or the leftist anti-war fringe who have blasted Obama for not going far enough with his promise of change. I said this before, and I’ll say it again: “In Obama, we got exactly what he promised us: redistribution of wealth, weakness abroad, and more government intrusion.” The left, the rabid left that believes that this is their chance to somehow create a society where Marxism, environmentalism, defeatism, and atheism are the foundational principles is unhappy with Obama for not pushing harder, for not ordering the National Guard to arrest Congress for not passing his bills, for not outlawing opposition parties. The truth is that Obama is much smarter than the far far left gives him credit for because a too sudden move towards socialism and American people will revolt, so instead the president is giving us socialism by increments. The question should not be whether Obama has brought change to America, he has, but rather if the change he has brought has helped or hurt our country. Just recently, the answer to that question was given by Massachusetts and that answer will echo throughout the country later this year.

-AG

I was thinking the other day that far left liberals in this country have an odd view of the world, as if they completely rebelled against the things that they were taught as children. This is a general statement of course and is completely subjective, taken from my own experiences when I was a young child and the lessons that I was taught. I understand that there are many differences in the way that people are raised, but in general there are some values that are pretty widespread, dare I say universal, in this country. Let’s call these American values. I will enumerate some and give their leftist liberal counterparts.

“Work hard and you will be successful.” This was something that my parents instilled in me from a very young age and it applies to nearly everything in life. This was not a conservative viewpoint nor a political ideology, but a truism gleaned from experience… experiences such as the struggle against communism in Cuba where, despite having family members imprisoned for political reasons, my family earned a living, became educated, practiced their faith in defiance of the state, and ultimately came to this country against huge odds. What is interesting is that the leftist point of view is almost the polar opposite of this: “without government help, you can’t make it.” Just glossing through the Democrat party’s platform one reads thing like “giving people jobs,” “giving people health care,” and even a part where they say that they will “help” those who, and I quote, “no matter how hard they work - are seeing prices go up more than their incomes.” I always thought that the can-do spirit was part of the American character, not the idea that there is an upper bound to our success, a bound that only government can help you break through. Is it any wonder that conservatives sometimes brand liberals as un-patriotic or un-American when the left’s values are so out of sync with American values?

“Be your own boss” and “work in what you love.” These, to me, are related lessons that my family taught me. It affirms that one should seek independence, if possible, and that one should enjoy their vocation. It extols the virtues of owning a business, especially in an area that one loves. The leftists on the other hand believe that good jobs do not come from the independence of the citizen but rather through organizing unions to challenge companies. Don’t believe me? Just check out the “Good Jobs with Good Pay” section where, instead of talking about how entrepreneurship and innovation can spur job growth and good wages, they talk about ensuring the rights of unions. Their section on entrepreneurship was vague and probably the shortest in the whole document. This is because the leftists believe that “companies are evil.” No longer are businessmen considered “successful,” they are considered greedy and heartless… all of them. Democrats somehow believe that unions “pull people out of poverty” and “create a stronger middle class,” when in reality unions produce nothing, it is the entrepreneurs and a company’s employees that produce things, create wealth, and drive the economy. Unions only suck up membership fees from workers and make unrealistic demands of companies, making demands that do not reflect economic realities; just look at the auto industry. Furthermore, why is being a unionized worker the ideal status for Americans? Do we grow up thinking “man, when I grow up I want to be a SEIU member?” I, personally, am all for unions, I simply worry when they become big machines that usurp the rights of workers, instead of help protect them.

“Be responsible.” So simple and so true. It applies to everything, from the idea that one should not force others to take care of you (if possible) to facing the consequences of ones actions. Needless to say, the left finds this value to be complete nonsense. From their positions on health care to immigration to taxes, the left promotes a society where the few are responsible for the many. No longer is health a personal matter, all taxpayers, especially the wealthy, must contribute in order to “give” it to all. No longer is illegally crossing into the United States a crime according to the left, they say we must provide a path to citizenship… in essence rewarding them for doing something illegal. No longer are merit and actions important in our society, but rather the color of your skin or minority status influences decisions as varied as university acceptance or getting a job. The Democrats advocate the idea of “we will take care of you,” and whenever some political leader does not act like a nanny, they say that they are not doing their job, they are not taking care of you. Personally, I don’t want to be taken care of. I stand on my own two feet. I am an American and I will not be treated as a child. Sadly, not everyone shares this sentiment.

Just perusing through the Democrat platform, one finds a value system that seems alien and divorced from the American value system, as I was taught. To be fair, the document does say things like promoting competitiveness and the hard work is good and things like that, but these words ring hollow when you look at their entire agenda. Their brief mention of small businesses is drowned out by their tax schemes, emphasis on union power, and rich versus poor rhetoric. Their talk of the American dream is silenced by their insistence that only government can lead to a comfortable life, that no personal effort can achieve prosperity. They talk of “giving” Americans everything instead of letting Americans get it themselves, instead of freeing Americans… and dishonestly ignore the fact that in order to “give” something, the government must “take” something away, because the government produces nothing. There are many more examples of the disconnect between the far left and Americans in general, I simply outlined a few here. What I honestly believe is that regular Joe liberals do not agree with this stuff. I believe that they care about those who cannot do for themselves and worry that without some sort of safety net too many people will fail, many conservatives believe this too but they do not hold the opinion that government is the only answer. These regular Joe liberals ultimately flock to the party that seems to represent these views, when in fact the Democrat party has been hijacked by the far left and care only for power. If conservatives are to make a dent in the power and size of government, then we must make inroads among these regular liberals because many of them actually do share the American values that the Democrat party disdains.

-AG

After appointing banking industry insider Tim Geithner to manage the executive branch’s response to the economic crisis, the banks made out like bandits. Free market values were thrown out the window as trillions of dollars were simply handed to the financial industry in order to save them from almost certain collapse… courtesy of the US taxpayer, especially future ones. The result was expected, decline in the dollar, skewed market reality, and banks were saved. By saved I do not mean that they simply did not die, I mean that they got bigger, their bonuses got huger, and instead of using the money to rebuild the economy, they simply invested it in the market making record profits. I also do not mean that all banks were saved, the smaller ones continue to die to this day, only to be gobbled up by larger banks or nationalized by the federal government. In essence, Geithner, the bank guy, saved the banks. Not surprising.

What did surprise people was that Obama, the “agent of change,” seemed to be more and more in bed with Wall Street. The market has dramatically improved over the last year, primarily because the big market movers have been drafting off highly-public government bailouts and “stimuli,” but this has not “trickled down,” in fact, the bailouts and cash continue to “trickle up” under the Obama regime. Simultaneously, while Democrats have done their best to concentrate taxpayer dollars in the hands of government-regulated enterprises (as banks are), the American people have grown unhappy with the direction of the country. The charge that Republicans benefit big business disproportionately has been muted by the Democrats’ blatant redistribution of wealth from bottom to top. The victory of Republican Scott Brown in heavily liberal Massachusetts made it clear that the people were unhappy. Lucky for the Democrats, they had a plan ready all along.

Even the Lefties are sick of Obama’s bailouts

For months, Obama has been blasting “fat-cat bankers” for their arrogance (pot calling the kettle black) and struck a populist tone. This is a sharp change from most of last year, during which Obama was “spreading the wealth” as he promised. He even recently said that they would tax the banks in order to make back the money that they lost from the bailouts… of course, banks would simply pass on these extra taxes onto the consumer, making it so that we, the taxpayers, would end up paying ourselves back. But forget logic, let’s get back to populism. Now Obama says that he wants to enact stricter regulations on the financial industry, adopting the so-called “Volcker Rule” that aims to separate the investment and commercial banking operations of financial firms, including the provision and I quote: “banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds or proprietary trading operations for their own profit unrelated to serving their customers.” He railed against banks taking advantage of the taxpayer safety net that they enjoy… a safety net that the president eagerly employed in his quest to save the banks. He railed against the excess and abuse of greedy banks… without mentioning that it was the federal government that enabled, encouraged, and ultimately rewarded such excess and abuse. In sum, after building up the banks, handing them taxpayer dollars without oversight, and placing bank industry insiders as managers of the “recovery” efforts, he made banks the scapegoats… bashing Bush can only take you so far.

If you think that this was not the plan from the beginning, you are fooling yourself. Obama and his minions made it priority one to inflate the banking industry and then make them out to be the villains so that the Democrats could continue with their principal argument: capitalism is a failure and socialism is the only way. Some people say that the Volcker Rule will prevent any crash like this from occurring in the future, that may be so, but what we sacrifice is the growth of the American economy and any hopes of a recovery from this recession. The Volcker Rule may plunge us into a near-permanent recession. The reasons are abundantly clear. If banks cannot use the market to diversify their portfolios and reduce their risk, then they will be even more reluctant to make risky loans. This means fewer mortgages, which means that the real estate market does not recover. No real estate recovery means no construction jobs, fewer mortgage brokers, fewer real estate agents, more renters, less home ownership, slowed economic growth, etc. etc. etc. Obama is making the smart political bet that breaking up Wall Street will resonate with voters, I think he is right… but the intended consequence is not merely votes, it’s cutting the American economy off at the knees and making the most important sectors of the economy even more dependent on the federal government. Along with the fascistic health care proposals, the federal government will have almost total control over the American people.

Volcker and Obama

While I am no friend of the financial industry, I do understand that banks are a business. I, as a bank customer, would like my bank to be prosperous. The better they do, the better we all do. Do I care about their bonuses? Normally no, except in this case they are using taxpayer dollars, but what do we expect to happen if the government hands over the taxpayers’ wallets? What is most important to me is the health of the free market economy and what is being suggested by the administration is a direct attack on both the free markets and the economy in general. The real culprit behind the recession is not the fact that banks took risks, this is expected of them. The real culprit was the fact that these risks were under-priced, in other words, people were investing in things that they knew nothing of for unrealistic prices. If any regulations are to be enacted, they should focus on the cause, not focus on restructuring an entire industry and putting them under more direct control of the state. All we need is accurate valuation of securities, more transparency, and less of a government guarantee. The Volcker Rule seems to try to accomplish all these things while knee-capping the economy. This is because the Democrats have an ulterior motive, just like with health care reform, instead of a plan that is straightforward, e.g. reducing costs, tort reform, fixing the pre-existing conditions issue, we get a convoluted mixture of cuts to medicare, higher taxes, benefits that kick in after several years, company and individual mandates. and more government bureaucracy. This is the Volcker Rule, another way to impose a Democrat agenda in the guise of “fixing” a problem.

The Republicans should get on the ball and propose some common sense moves. Want more transparency? Pass legislation requiring full disclosure of what financial products are comprised of. Want the price of securities to reflect risk? Pass legislation that requires rating agencies to be fully capable of rating new financial products. Want less of a government guarantee? Require capital reserves on certain types of high risk assets or simply don’t bail out these firms like we did. The answers are not so difficult and do not require a top-down restructuring of the American economy… it seems like every time a Democrat tinkers with the economy, we get closer and closer to full-fledged communism.

-AG

John Edward’s, the two America’s, class warfare demagogue who sips chardonnay in his mansion while publicly asserting that he is the poor people’s candidate, is a master when it comes to media relations. No, I am not referring to his $400 dollar haircuts and parading his cancer-stricken wife in front of the cameras during his hopelessly failed presidential campaign, I am actually referring to the way the he leaked the news to the media that he did indeed father a love child with his mistress and was going to support the child financially. Of course, to remind the folks out there, Edwards was cheating and fathering love children while his wife was battling cancer. True class.

While everyone already knows that the Democrat presidential candidate is a hypocrite and a liar and an adulterer and a leftist and other more colorful words, what impressed me (yes, impressed) is how he timed his admission. He waited until the “Great Scott!” MA senate race, a race that had everyone’s attention in a headlock, to release the news. In a turn of more good fortune for him the distracting news kept piling on, unemployment numbers were higher than expected, the Dow tumbled more than 200 points on news of financial regulations overhaul, Obama’s one-year catastro-versary was taking place, and most importantly, the Haiti earthquake news was still on front pages. You may think of me as being callous for saying that he was waiting for disasters and whatnot to reveal the news, but ponder this: how long has he known about the love child, especially after he actively covered it up during his campaign? It is known that he has been sending money for about a year now, so why wait until the news was dominated by these events to admit it? The answer is clear: so that very few would notice. We should all take notice of the games that these politicians play with the media, timing is everything… and for a Democrat who decided to run for president at the same time Obama AND Hillary were, a Democrat who timed his affair for the period that has wife was fighting cancer and during a presidential campaign, this time he got the timing just right.

-AG

Update: I also forgot to mention that Edwards made this admission right before his aide, Andrew Young, was scheduled to give an interview describing how Edwards instructed him to fake a DNA test saying that he was not the father of the child. Like I said, Edwards’ timing is artful. This clip is also artful:

I am on a bunch of lefty mailing lists just so I can see what these nuts are up to. Here’s one that I received recently that I found to be pretty interesting; it’s from the Howard Dean group Democracy for America:

“DFA Member-

In case you haven’t heard yet, something scary is happening in Florida. Tea Party extremists have forced out the state Republican chair and are now free to nominate the most right-wing candidates imaginable to public office across the state.

We must not allow these extremists the power or legitimacy that comes with elected office.


That is why DFA is bringing some of the best political talent in the country to train Florida candidates and activists in 2010 to make sure progressives have the tools to win.

This is a critical year in Florida politics. There are huge statewide races with national implications as well as local races that hit close to home.

You may be disappointed by some so-called Democrats in Washington and, believe me, I am too. But the solution isn’t to throw up our hands and cede our country to extremists. The solution is to elect better Democrats, everywhere. And it starts in Florida. Join us.

Thanks for all you do.” [bold added for emphasis]

You’re welcome.

This email had three instances of “extremists,” one instance of “scary,” and one instance of “right-wing.” I’m panicking already! This is the type of fear mongering that is circulating among liberals who probably do not know any better about the Tea Party movement. As for the Florida issue, the state GOP chairman seemed to be mismanaging funds and he was making some bad calls. If only the RNC would do the same and rein in Mikey.

What I find most amusing is that at the end of the email, they admit that even though the Democrats that were just elected were doing a bad job, they should go and elect more of them! Apparently, the big government agenda put forward by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate does not go far enough. Spending trillions is not enough, we must spend QUADRILLIONS!!! Oh Dean, what a clown.

The sad part is that they consider me an extremist… I, who pay taxes, contribute to society, vote and sometimes put my simple, honest opinions on a hidden away blog on the inter-tube-webs… oh and I forgot my most subversive act: thinking! Sometimes I hope we would all be a little more extremist.

-AG

Congratulations to all Americans out there that were and are opposed to the current health care proposals which are, without a doubt, one of the most intrusive and expensive government programs ever conceived in our country: the supermajority is no more! The election of non-Democrat Scott Brown in Massachusetts, that great state, has restored my faith in our system and has shown Americans of all stripes that the most revolutionary weapon in our arsenal, as citizens, is our vote. The Democrats have been running wild in Washington and have acted as if they did not have to answer to the American people… this year let’s show them that they are wrong. While we may rejoice right now, a word of caution: the Obamas, Reids, and Pelosis came to power because of a Republican party that committed treason against conservatism and if conservatives are not wary, this cycle will simply repeat. Conservatives must make sure to vote for candidates that make the conservative case clearly and with common sense. The far left has been winning the media war for years, it’s time we reverse this trend by being smart about our choices. Party voting hasn’t gotten us very far. We must make the most principled votes possible. It’s now up to the Scott Brown’s of today and the Scott Brown’s to come to show America how a conservative should lead and why conservatism is the best way to preserve freedom, expand opportunity, and usher in prosperity… the far left fringe will put every obstacle in our way, but we must persevere.

-AG

In the bluest of blue states, red is gaining traction. I have only recently been following the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown ® and Martha Coakley (D), mainly because I expected a quick victory for the most liberal candidate. Apparently, conventional wisdom is being bucked as we speak. Scott Brown took a lead in the polls, ever so slim, and Coakley, the expected winner, may just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The surprising thing is that Coakley’s failure is being seen as… well… surprising. To put it nicely: she’s a moron and a puppet of the Left. Just running a cursory search of things she has said and done reveal what is expected from the Democrats: utter detachment from reality. Here’s some clips:

Ironically, the Taliban just launched a brazen attack on the capital city of Afghanistan yesterday. I wonder what alternate reality she lives in…

Here’s a beautiful quote from a lobbyist attending one of Coakley’s fundraisers recently, something that runs contrary to the whole “party of the people” image due to the presence of health care industry lobbyists and the impact this election would have on the health care reform bill:

Indeed, change we can all believe in. Of course, being initiated into the Imperial Democrats’ den of corruption, kickbacks, and culture of bribery is not too surprising to intelligent folks out there, but we aren’t talking about those people, we are talking about those who have been indoctrinated in far Left propaganda for years and blindly follow any ass running for office, pun intended. If these were not enough reasons, Brown skillfully puts together an ad criticizing Coakley for pinning all of her foreign policy experience on her sister who lives abroad. Craziness indeed.

Here’s some more fun where she talks about how she wants to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and her saying that America will always have open borders.

The rest of Coakley’s incompetence is right there, in her own words, on television, and on the internet. Amid a recession she parrots the Obama line about raising taxes. While America begs Washington to change or re-do the health care reform bill, hers is the vote that will make it all possible, saddling her state with an even greater economic burden. The list goes on…

The other side of story is one that concerns me the most. Whether MA goes red or blue does not matter too much. Like the election after Bush which benefited the Left, widespread disaffection with the party in power and an empowered conservative base make Republican gains in this state more possible than before. Unfortunately, the person we have running for office is automatically getting rewarded for not being a Democrat… when the reality is that he may be more moderate than most conservatives would like. Without a doubt, if I could, I would vote for him, at least for the chance to save our country from the ravages of Obama’s health care fascism, but what I worry about is how much we are willing to compromise. In how many other states will we be forced to choose between a Democrat government on steroids and a Republican who will sell out? We will always tell ourselves, “yeah, just this time, because it really counts,” but when won’t it “really count?” Conservatives must draw a line when it comes to supporting liberals in elephants’ clothing and be willing to stay in the minority if the Republicans keep advocating “moderation” (especially in the fiscal sense). As a general rule of thumb, I think that conservatives, tactically, should vote for moderate Republicans in blue states and more conservative ones in purple and red states… otherwise, the cycle of big government Republican and big government Democrat will just keep repeating.

In the interest of fairness, I will post one of Coakley’s attack ads against Brown. Here she viciously attacks him for being…. REPUBLICAN!! Oh the horror.

What’s funny about this ad is that it is wrong on the facts and it misspelled the name of her state… not a good move. Furthermore, it’s a very weak attack even by far leftist standards… a picture of Bush and Cheney? Really? Looks like it’s straight out of the hope-and-change express’s playbook. All in all, it is still possible that she may win and if she does then Massachusetts will have definitely been [refer to title].

-AG

Minorities, you can’t make it on your own! This is the message constantly spewed by the Left. Their “reasons” are simple: racism is keeping you down, class-ism is keeping you down, sexism is keeping you down, etc. etc. With these blunt rhetorical instruments they brand Republicans and everyone on the Right as being the bigots, the rich robber-barons, the abusers of poor minorities. Reality is much more nuanced (to use one of their favorite words) than they make it out to be. Bigots exist on all sides and we have good reason to reject their views, in the words of honest Abe, a Republican: “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Unfortunately, this message of unity, that we are all Americans regardless of what state, race, heritage, gender, “social group,” or religion, is something that the Left has not heard and indeed, it is a message that liberals have rejected. Name something that can be termed a social identity group and you will find a liberal group that identifies with it. What is most amazing about the Left is that, after helping erect barriers between so-called identity groups, they turn around and call the Right bigoted and prejudiced. It is political jujitsu that has been taking place for a long time and it is very effective. At the end of the day though, the liberals who profess these lofty ideals of “helping” minorities rise above (the majority I presume) while instead helping create subcultures and cultural enclaves where these very minorities get stuck, are in fact more racist and classist and sexist than the conservatives they criticize.

Case in point are the recently revealed comments by Senate Majority Leader and Democrat Harry Reid who, during the campaign, said that Barack Obama could win the presidency because he is “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect”. Of course, Obama immediately forgave Reid’s comments saying he knows Reid’s heart, yet when Professor Gates was arrested last year, Obama immediately brought into question whether or not the police officers were being racist. Clearly, Democrats get a pass on racism. Even the vice-president’s comments about Indian-Americans and seven-elevens were simply taken as being a gaffe, almost silly in its portrayal. At the same time, regular Americans are scrutinized, Don Imus gets fired, Bill O’Reilly criticized for his characterization of a Black restaurant, and social differences are used as a wedge and charges of racism are used as a bludgeon by the Democrats. I am not saying that disparaging remarks about people based on social/physical similarities should be tolerated, I am saying that the standard must apply to all. Sadly, this will not change anytime soon, for American liberalism stands on the “two America’s” argument, on the “majority vs minority” argument, and on the idea that the majority is bigoted/backward and need to “progress” with “progressive” policies. Racism is as integral today to the Democratic Party as it was in the 1800’s. Only when we absolutely rejects the divisionism that has existed and continues to exist today because of racism, gender-ism, etc. can we, as a society, move forward. Just look nearby, at Latin America, where women have shattered “the glass ceiling” with no formal “women’s empowerment movement” (see: Bachelet of Chile and Cristina Fernández of Argentina) and minorities have become presidents (see: Peru’s former president Fujimori who was of Japanese descent) to see that probably the greatest impediment to “minority empowerment” is the fact that liberals have been simply using minorities as political pawns instead of actually helping them. To move forward we need to stop seeing any differences between Americans, but with liberals constantly reminding us of how racist we are, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for us, how can we?

-AG

The best defense is a good offense… so goes the adage. This is something learned early by the previous administration due to the terrible events of September 2001. It was trial by fire. The lesson was clear: evil exists in the world and must be confronted before they kill any more innocents here at home. What followed was an “offense-first” foreign policy that led us to where we are now in the world. Many Americans rejected this seemingly bellicose behavior on the part of our country, particularly liberals but many people on the right as well, but they failed to remember the reasons we needed to be proactive, as opposed to reactive. Whether or not there was an overreach on the part of the administration is for history to judge, but what is indisputable is that 9-11 taught us something about the world… but now, it appears that America has forgotten the lesson.

The current administration, in its efforts to be seen as the anti-Bush, has decided that the best policy for America is to play defense, to react. So far, most of what has happened with respect to the war on terror has been a reaction, not an action. Take, for example, the plans to surge in Afghanistan, this was equal parts a political move (to appear centrist and satisfy a campaign promise) and a reaction to increased casualties. Or North Korea’s provocations, which led to more (ineffectual) sanctions. Or the recent Christmas would-be bomber which prompted the administration to review security and “improve” measures. All reactions to the enemy. At the same time we have our troops in Iraq retreating back to our bases, the highest casualty rate to date in Afghanistan, and a resurgent Al Qaeda, all due to the actions or inaction of the administration. In reacting to everything, we are giving the enemy the chance to act and, fortunately, only the technical incompetence of the terrorists themselves has kept us safe in the age of Obama… but our luck can only protect against so much. We need to get back on offense. While playing offense may be offensive to some, it kept the bombs off our planes, it kept Al Qaeda cowering in their caves, and it kept America safe. The price we paid in blood, treasure, and international “likeability” was needed to ensure that those who dreamed of a renewed Caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia never got the chance to make those dreams reality. America was, and is, the only thing standing in the way of extremists willing to commit the mass murder of innocents simply to send a message. Playing defense just makes our job that much harder.

-AG

Saturday morning, an effigy of Obama was hanged in Plains, Georgia above a sign in honor of former President Jimmy Carter. The Secret Service is now investigating the incident. See video:

This is not the first time something like this has happened. In October 2008, during the presidential campaign, two students, whose names were graciously made public by the mainstream media, hung an effigy of Obama in response to the hanging of Sarah Palin in effigy. The students were arrested and charged. See video:

In Lexington, Kentucky, where the effigy was hung, there was a crowded forum of city, university, and community leaders that discussed this event and they unanimously condemned this act.

Now, let’s get back to reality for a moment. First of all, I think that it is in poor taste to hang an effigy of an elected leader or a candidate. That’s what the radicals do abroad and we should not be emulating them. Second, the above outrage and coverage by the media over these “acts” directed against Obama is something unique because during President Bush’s terms we had similar events that received little to no coverage. Bush’s effigy has been burned in celebration of Obama’s inauguration in Washington DC:

Burned at the stake in Alaska:

Pelted with shoes in DC:

The list goes on, but these are the more recent ones. The recurrent soundtrack to all of these events is laughter. The recurrent setting is America. The recurrent reaction from the media is little to none. Have we, as a country, decided that the symbolic destruction of one political figure is comical but doing it to another is absolutely wrong? I have not been able to find any reports that anyone was arrested for destroying, faux killing, or defacing a Bush effigy… while Obama effigy “hangers” have been sent to jail and are actively being pursued. Whether or not one agrees with the policies of one of our elected officials, is it right to hang or set ablaze effigies of them? I think it has gotten pretty ugly out there on both sides, but unfortunately the imbalanced media rarely shows the lefties gleefully setting fire to a doll of a “Republican” president, they specialize in generating outrage over the defacing of dolls of Democrats. Hanging effigies of Obama does little to advance the conservative cause, those who do it do conservatives a disservice. Hanging and burning effigies is something that the Left does, let them keep it. The difficult thing is when leftists hang effigies of leftists and blame it on the right… the only thing conservatives can do is consistently denounce these tactics. Conservatives’ principal weapon must be the vote and the only way to win votes is to win over hearts and minds. Faux executions of politicians may not be the best way of doing that.

-AG

This happened a few days ago, but I have not had a chance to comment. The Danish newspaper Politiken published an editorial that proclaims Obama to be, “of course,” greater than Jesus. This is not so surprising when you take into account the infatuation that Europeans and the media in general have with Barack Hussein Obama, but I find that comparing him to Jesus Christ right after Christmas is a low-blow. While it is perfectly within their right to say such blasphemy, it goes to show that the mass-hypnotic effect of the president has not yet faded completely. Comparing him to Him is not all that new (see previous post), but in this case the Danish newspaper takes it one step further, going from “like” to “greater” (greater as in “Akbar“). While I enjoy the fact that people around the world admire a (supposed) American, what bothers me is that we, Western Civilization, are still willing to characterize our leaders as deities instead of progressing to a stage of practical realism. Is human development supposed to move in the direction of less reason or more? Why does this not worry everyone?

-AG

A lot of persons of the elitist mentality deride toughness… so foolish they are. Elitism in America exists and existed because of individuals who shaped history after the events of December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 (to name a few). In each of these events, while led by two completely different persons, America did not choose to whimper in a corner but instead to harness American power in order to extinguish evil. Elitists see history differently, probably because elitists find it amusing or enlightening to twist the historical narrative to fit their own mind-set. This does not make this type of person more enlightened, it makes this type of person akin to the high school all-star athlete who ends up serving drinks at a bar: wasted potential. I see it constantly, at reunions with old friends and with people whose style is eloquent but whose content in vacuous. What I marvel at, in the midst of listening to their diatribes against the right, is their ability to use specious arguments and a smattering of facts, ill-interpreted, that make Dali look like a realist. What I take away every time is that true “enlightenment” comes not from the arrogance of believing oneself so clever, so wise, or so insightful but rather from having a true understanding of what matters and what one actually knows. I strive for that latter while elitists blindly thrive in the former.

Toughness, on the other hand, holds its nose up to no one. Toughness sees a necessity and pursues a course of action, be it perfect or imperfect, vigorously. That is not to say that many times ignorance does not accompany toughness, but toughness itself, what I term that visceral “gut” reaction that makes us stand up to an enemy or to bite our tongues in preparation for some necessary torture, is pure and beneficial to man. Without it, the Spartans who held back the Persian Empire, glorified in history books and Hollywood alike, would not have safeguarded Western Civilization. Without it, those who resisted the Nazi war machine would have succumbed to it and we would be celebrating our new years with book burnings and lynchings of “undesirables.” So when I hear people say that such toughness is a quality that leaders should not have, I fear for my country. To imagine a world run by Chamberlains, waving pieces of paper while enemies polish their bayonets, fills me with dismay… yet this is precisely what they want. Idealists, unfortunately for all of us, do not elect Chamberlains anymore, they elect Lenins, who argue for peace but deliver national holocausts. Therefore, let us not sue for an end to American toughness, for there exist two great evils that emerge upon its extinction: the vultures who await our moment of weakness and the parasites who promise us utopian dreams but end up sucking us dry. For all of history, only toughness has kept them at bay. In the future, we will need no less to guide us forward… which makes those who cherish toughness, in my eyes, wiser than those who disparage it.

-AG

“We are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: Al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered” - White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

The fun part about Leftists is that they tend to be pretty straightforward (not always though) about their incompetence and cowardice. This was a response to Dick Cheney’s comments about Obama pretending that we are not at war with terrorism and it goes to show how the Left twists statements in order to score political points. The statement, to begin with, is intellectually dishonest because it redefines “war on terror” and makes it into an absurdism. To say that the war on terror is strictly a war against the tactic of terrorism is akin to saying that the war on poverty is a war against poor people, or the war on drugs is a war against all drugs (recreational or health-related)… apparently, if the White House is releasing such incompetence on their blog, then Cheney seems to be right about the administration being soft on terror because they do not even seem to understand the context of “the war on terror.”

My second observation is that, in explicitly writing that “we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"),” the administration is making a quiet concession to our enemies: terrorism is an “acceptable” tactic. Just think about it, would Harry Truman have been criticized for saying that, after WWII, America was at war with genocide? What would have happened if the opposing party said “we are not at war with other countries’ domestic policies ("genocide")?” America absolutely should be at war with the use of terrorism abroad. When rockets are launched into civilian areas simply for the sake of killing civilians, we must respond. When suicide bombers board airplanes for the sole purpose of sending the world a message, we must respond. When planes are crashed into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians while they worked, we did respond. There is a huge difference between guerrilla war and terrorism. So when the administration says that they are not at war against the tactic of terrorism, it sends the message to our enemies that maybe some terrorism, especially not directed at America, is acceptable. America is at war with terror… today it may be Al Qaeda, but we cannot ignore other organizations that use terror as a tool to destabilize regions and accomplish political goals. The world can never have peace as long as these organizations exist. To throw up our hands in defeat saying that we do not go to war against “tactics” is to enable this very tactic… and if this is what Obama has in mind with respect to our struggle against terror then, to quote Rush, I hope he fails.

-AG