As I wrote before, conservatives, in general, do not believe in violently attacking one’s own country to make a point. Our weapon is the vote. That said, the media quite handily linked Joseph Stack and the Tea Party movement, trying desperately to discredit this conservative revival. After reading his “manifesto” it becomes clear that he was a disturbed man and in fact quoted the Communist Manifesto at the end of his own… “right-wing” he was not. To make my point here is a self-described Maoist who can personally relate to Joseph Stack:

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

-AG

Nice little video with uncanny relevance to our present times:

-AG

What is the conservative plan for all entitelement programs? That is the multi-trillion dollar question that should be posed to Republicans and anyone else claiming to be conservative. How do we change a system that has come to define America since the days of Lyndon Johnson? This is no easy task and leftists throughout the country point to the GOP’s lack of clarity on the issue as proof that conservatives have no ideas and are not pragmatic. Just a couple of days ago, Paul Krugman offered his opinion of the GOP strategy in an op-ed which was, in a few words, to bankrupt entitlement programs by starving the government of revenue instead of actually cutting programs. I don’t like what he is saying… but he seems to be somewhat correct, at least with respect to the GOP’s past behavior. The Republican Party does not have a good fiscal record, that’s a sad fact. The bright side is that with the new resurgence of the conservative movement it may finally be possible to push through real change in Washington, and by “change” I do not mean more activism on the part of government but rather less government activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Tort reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-AG

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

-AG

The words “right-wing” and “power,” in the same sentence, have bad connotations in our left-wing media dominated society… but I use it because the terms have been hijacked, and I want to take them back. To channel Mao somewhat: “Right-wing power grows out of the voting booth.” This is an important message for both right and left, that the only weapon that we, in the United States of America at this time in history as citizens, have is our right to vote. That’s it. Those who advocate for revolutionary action, insurgent action, or any homicidal action against Americans are enemies of the political right in this country. This is a non-thinly-veiled denunciation of the recent actions of a sociopath who flew his plane into an IRS building because of his hatred of the agency. At least these are the motivations that the media reported. What the media did not report was that said suicide bomber railed against both the government and against capitalism in general. The hodgepodge of socialist and anti-government ideas that were sprinkled into his “manifesto” showed that he was just mad at life in general and did not know how to cope. But the media’s knee-jerk leftist reaction immediately painted this man as a right-wing extremist and they then released exposés on right-wing violence over the years. They displayed about a handful of examples over the last few years, but at least they got their message out: “right-wing extremism is out of control.” This is, of course, a tactic that the Left has used for decades, sometimes with reason, most of the time in order to smear the right. Groups that focus on racism are not right-wing nor are groups that advocate violence against some Americans for the sake of other Americans, by very definition these groups espouse an ideology that promotes one group over another. The right believes in freedom for all, not just for the few. Many of these supposed “right-wing” groups call themselves “national socialist parties” and believe that the government is run by business interests, particularly Jewish in origin. Historically, conservatives want to conserve the integral institutions of our free society and discard the unconstitutional parts… one of these basic institutions in our society is the right to vote and to supplant the right to vote with the right to engage in violence runs contrary to what “right-wing politics” is all about.

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

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

-AG

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