Monday, February 23, 2015

Conservative Sheep, Neocon Shepherds


Nelson Hultberg

In 1919, Rudyard Kipling wrote in The Gods of the Copybook Headings, "As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man / That...the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire."

Likewise, it appears that conservatives return to their disastrous past policies. In outlining his foreign policy plans for America, Jeb Bush recently stated, "I love my father and my brother...But I am my own man - and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences." He went on to say, "I won't talk about the past. I'll talk about the future."

What does this mean in actual foreign policy goals and actions? As reported by Chris Stirewalt at Fox News, the foreign policy team being formed by Jeb Bush "is not just very much George W. Bush's, but includes two of the most controversial figures from [the] invasion of Iraq, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Short of including Dick Cheney, this is the strongest possible indication that Bush is embracing his brother's foreign policy."

"Feels like old times," reports Stierwalt. "Other core players from the George W. Bush administration on the team include former Homeland Security secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, former intelligence bosses Porter Goss, John Negroponte and Michael Hayden."

How many conservatives, other than Jeb Bush, are also of this mindset? How many are itching to get bogged down again in the Mideast cauldron with ground troops taking on ISIS? John Kasich of Ohio, for one, states in the Washington Post that he supports sending U.S. ground forces to fight the Islamic State: "You will not solve this problem with only air power." Will Chris Christie be strong enough to reject such herd thinking? Hardly. He's the personification of an establishment sycophant.

Paul, Cruz, and Walker

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker will surely not stand for this myopic rehash of Bush Doctrine interventionism. But neocons control the GOP both ideologically and financially. To become the nominee, a candidate must acquiesce to the neoconservative worldview. This is why all prospective nominees (even Paul, Cruz, and Walker), when discussing the illegal immigration problem, state that they support "opening up a path to citizenship" for the illegals. What else is this but amnesty for over 20 million illegals? What else is this but acquiescence to the neocon controllers of the party? Prospective nominees realize that such a stand is mandatory if they are to win the nomination of a party controlled by "pro-amnesty" neocons. Will the same acquiescent attitude also govern Paul, Cruz, and Walker on foreign policy?

One certainly hopes not, but the desire to win the nomination is a fire that burns obsessively in the bellies of every presidential aspirant. Such an obsessive fire, far too often, destroys the principles of all aspirants who eventually cater to the ideological and financial partisans of the GOP hierarchy, i.e., the powerful intellectuals, bankers, and corporate moguls, who dominate the Washington-Wall Street axis.

This hierarchy is "interventionist" through and through, and it will turn most GOP aspirants into dancing puppets. Watch over this next year as the GOP nomination seekers drift closer and closer into acquiescence to the neocon worldview on immigration, welfarism, and a police-the-world foreign policy.

It's disgusting because this has been going on for over 40 years now, and nothing ever changes. When do the lights come on in conservative heads? When do they come to grips with the need to form an alternative political party if we are to save the country?

Those who refuse to see this, and insist it is a mandatory rule of politics that we must "always work within the GOP," don't understand that their rule is only a slogan with no rationality to back it up. They have become part of the problem, not the solution. They have become the equivalent to Lenin's "useful idiots" for the neocon dictatorship being insidiously formed around us.

There's a saying in Las Vegas that casino owners "send cabs for the gullible sheep." Well, neocons do the same for Republicans who preach the myth that we "must always stay within the GOP and try to take it over with new conservative legislators."

Vegas casino owners love the sheep who come to gamble because they know the game is rigged in the casinos' favor. And likewise the neocon hierarchy loves conservatives who preach "eternal love for the GOP" because it knows the party is rigged in its favor. The hierarchy has the power to buy off (or discourage from running again) 90% of new libertarian and conservative legislators sent to reform Washington.

Buying Off the Patriots

If you doubt that 90% of libertarians and conservatives are bought off or discouraged from running again by the neocon hierarchy, consider this: In 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus was formed, consisting of libertarian and conservative congressmen to fight for free-markets and restoration of the Republic as the Founders envisioned. In the first three years the RLC had about 25-30 members in the House of Representatives out of 435. Today they have 36 members.

If the strategy of taking over the Republican Party by sending new libertarian and conservative legislators to Washington has any validity, why has the RLC not grown to 200 members by now? Every election year, scores of new candidates win office who could be classified as strong patriots. Let's say 30-40 every two years. Why has all this new blood not translated into firm control of the GOP? At least 400 new conservatives and libertarians have been sent to Washington in the last 24 years. Why have we only increased the RLC membership by 8 during this time?

The answer is obvious to those who are perceptive and grasp the frailties of human nature: Out of the 400 new libertarian and conservative representatives we sent to Washington over the past 24 years who remained in Congress, only 36 had the strength of mind to stand firm on principle. Only 36 were possessed of the integrity of Ron Paul. Many got discouraged and went home. But of those who remained most capitulated to the enticements of fame, power, popularity, access to more campaign contributions, and ease of re-election that the neocon hierarchy promises to all incoming legislators who play ball with them by "modifying" their principles and easing away from hard core insistence on free-market capitalism. In other words, they got bought off. 

The lure of power and wealth has been corrupting men since time began. Do our conservative pundits believe that somehow human nature can be dramatically changed and politicians will no longer seek gratification of their egos? That such politicians will not cross over the aisle to do the neocons' bidding in order to gain more power and wealth? Do those activists in the Tea Party believe such nonsense?

Of course not. Why then are so many conservative pundits and activists preaching that "we must always remain within the Republican Party?" Why are so many ignoring history and human nature? Why are they not checking deeper into their arguments to make sure they are subscribing to truth, instead of succumbing to slogans? Isn't this what rational men do in disputes of monumental importance?

Unfortunately our pundits and activists have abandoned reason and are more interested in slogans. Consequently, the neocon hierarchy continues to bamboozle the Republican rank and file with the old communist agitprop that "one must never doubt the widsom of the party."

Thus conservative sheep remain loyal to the GOP and, in doing so, enable their neocon shepherds to relentlessly centralize government in Washington while perpetuating military interventionism around the globe. Strong minded patriots would revolt, not readily acquiesce to unconditional "love for the Party."

They Don't Think

Hitler told his Nazi followers: "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." Ditto with the neocons. How fortunate for them that so many conservatives don't think. Don't observe history. Don't grasp the flaws of human nature. Don't understand the evil of appeasement. Don't muster the courage to revolt. How fortunate for the neocons that so many conservative pundits refuse to leave the flock and continue to play the lackey to their neocon masters. How fortunate that so many are so soft and undiscerning.

America is descending into despotism because of the softness of conservative pundits and activist sheep. My message is this:

What will you tell your grandchildren when they have grown up amidst vicious tyranny and ask you, "why didn't you oppose the neocons when we still had a chance to save freedom? Why didn't you revolt? Why didn't you break from the GOP? Why would you continue for forty, fifty, sixty years to tolerate the constant 'crossing of the aisle' by conservative legislators you sent to Washington? Why would you continue to support a party hierarchy that bought off or scared off 90% of the freedom advocates you sent to reform the system? Why would you continue to tolerate collectivists who relentlessly expanded their power every year, yet soothed you every election with embarrassing lies claiming that they stood for freedom? Why didn't you revolt, Grandfather, when we still had time?"


-------------------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. He has a BA degree in Economics from Beloit College in Wisconsin. His articles have appeared over the past twenty years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: nelshultberg (at) aol.com

Monday, February 09, 2015

The Ark of Freedom


Nelson Hultberg

There is only one hope to stop the tyrannical rot of statism stealing over our country. We must challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly of politics that foments the rot.

Is this being redundant? Heard all this before? Perhaps, but our most defiant Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was very redundant in his pursuit of justice. He told his fellows repeatedly: "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Irate and tireless are what's important here. We can save our country only if we patriots (who are the minority) relentlessly challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly and the egregious falsity it spews out every election year.

Our Democrat-Republican politicians are not interested in freedom. They're interested in power and riding around in black limousines. Conservatives and libertarians must break from them totally and join with millions of patriotic independents and blue-collar Democrats to form a new governing coalition.

Never can we hear too much of this message of American salvation. The Democrat-Republican monopoly is like the Bolsehviks' Master Party collectivizing us with its regimentation (only done with ballots rather than bullets, subsidies rather than gulags), but always degrading our lives in so many ways, keeping us from what could be and ought to be. So if redundancy is the price we must pay to rouse the people from their stupor, so be it.

But the People Just Don't Care!

The most frequent objection encountered in discussing a challenge of the Democrat- Republican monopoly is that it will be impossible for an alternative political party to win because the people just don't care enough to do something so revolutionary. They are mesmerized by their SUVs and all the goodies that Consumerland has brought them. Voting will not change things because the voters are already bought and paid for with the bread and circuses government perpetually sends their way. Apathy dominates their lives.

This is partly true; most people will not listen at first. But life is not static. The great majority of Americans will begin to be receptive as the country descends deeper into the massive debt and immigration crises now upon us. It will not be long until the dollar is dropping like a rock in a dry well, 30 million illegals are banging on the door of our Congressional appeasers, and government is stultifying everything in its path. Then the people will be willing to listen to calls for an alternative party solution.

How far into the future that day is cannot be said with certainty. But we need to start building an anti-amnesty, patriot party NOW. The time to build an ark is before the raging flood is upon us, not after we're waist-deep in the tides of chaos and despair.

Amidst the coming socio-economic tumult, there will be a breakdown of many of the established ways of doing things. When the Keynesian fallacies plaguing us today have wreaked sufficient destruction upon our economic stability and sanity, there will take place an inevitable economic crash much bigger than the busts of 2008 and 2000; more lethal even than 1929. It is then, as we are climbing out of this catastrophic crash, that the people will be crying for radical change. Our danger lies in the fact that Democrat-Republican demagogues, bolstered by waves of third-world immigrants, will stampede the confused masses into accepting all-pervasive government control of the economy. They will abandon what vestiges of a free country we have left.

There will be a rash of sequels to what Roosevelt biographer, John T. Flynn, called the "dance of the crackpots" during the Great Depression era. Ivory tower eggheads will descend upon Washington like weevils to the gristmill to bring government and our corporations further together into not just today's partial fascism, but into the total form.

Attacking the Fortress

This "dance of collectivist crackpots" and its government-business partnership will have to be fought. And there is only one way to do that. We must attack its protective fortress, the Democrat-Republican monopoly over politics. But the time to start doing so is now. This means commitment instead of cynicism. This means a new political party - the National Independent Party - that AFR is forming.

Only in this way will we have a chance to save America as we are climbing out of the upcoming crash. Only in this way can we convince voters to return to the Founders' ideal of freedom, rather than subordination of America to World Government, which is what the Democrat-Republican monopoly will certainly be preaching.

If, during the coming crisis, we do not have a strong "freedom candidate" in the national TV presidential debates to counter Democrat-Republican proposals for subordination of America to World Government and a World Bank, the first stages of Orwell's nightmare will arrive. American sovereignty will become a "19th century delusion" in the media's eyes. The United Nations will begin to dictate our political direction in huge and hideous ways. To avoid this denouement, it is crucial that we get a "freedom candidate" into the national TV presidential debates to challenge the globalist propaganda that Washington's odious elites will be heaping upon a confused American populace.

To help make this happen, we at AFR have published Salvation of America (4 pgs). It lays out a revolutionary strategy of reform for our monetary, tax, immigration, and foreign policy systems that will stop the Democrat-Republican monopoly from its steady march to bigger and bigger government.

The Failure of the Libertarian Party

"But alternative political parties always fail," reply the naysayers. Yes, this is true. But there's a reason for their failure. They fail because they structure themselves upon excessively idealistic platforms that frighten the electorate with dissolution of the welfare state. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism. They ignore the fact that we're not going to eliminate the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and the welfare state overnight.

As a result, no nationally prominent candidates choose to run on the tickets of any alternative "freedom party" out there. Thus their candidates end up getting at best 1% of the vote. Our article, Why the Libertarian Party Fails (4 pgs), explains how today's alternative parties foolishly marginalize themselves.

The National Independent Party will not make this mistake of "marginalization." Thus it will be able to attract a nationally prominent candidate (of libertarian-conservative beliefs) such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Mike Lee. Our Four Pillars of Reform platform is designed to stop the growth of government and restore sanity to the country, but not threaten the voters with dissolution of the welfare state like the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party do every election year. Restoring the Republic will be left to future generations; we need to get the runaway freight train of government growth stopped first.

Libertarians and Immigration

Those libertarians of America who oppose our tough stand on immigration must rethink their reasoning. Tight borders are based upon one of the most libertarian of all principles - the "right to freedom of association." This means humans have the right to form into groups and establish rules for entrance into their groups, whether it's a family with a fence around its yard, or a country club with a gate at its entrance, or a labor union with closed doors and by laws, or a country with tight borders and a Constitution. There is no such thing as a "right" to go wherever we please as Judge Napolitano and the Libertarian Party maintain. Immigration is not a fundamental "right." It is a conditional "privilege" conveyed by the members of the group one is seeking to enter.

This was the view of Washington, Jefferson, and the Founders in 1787. [1] It was the view of the Supreme Court in 1892. [2] And it must become America's view again. No individual has the right to enter a country uninvited.

All property in the world is owned either individually by persons or collectively by groups. The owners of a house and yard decide who can enter their house. The members of a country club decide who can enter their club. And the citizens of a country decide who can enter their country. The government is not destroying rights by denying entrance to certain people to the country it governs. It is merely expressing the rightful will of the owners of the country.

Challenging Liberal Statism

American voters are ready for this kind of common sense campaign in which a nationally prominent libertarian-conservative challenges the Democrat-Republican monopoly. It was too early in 1992 when Ross Perot made his run. Now it's not. The people are fed up and ready for an alternative political party. An anti-amnesty, freedom candidate running as an  Independent would electrify the country's conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats. He would get 38-40% of the vote and win in a three-man race.

This then is AFR's goal - to build an Ark of Freedom for America, to rekindle that spirit that exists eternally in the hearts and minds of all those who will not kowtow to tyranny. We are the "New Sons of Liberty." We intend to take back our country from the statist black limousine crowd and all its collaborators - the academic cheerleaders for multiculturalism, the vast legions of obtuse bureaucrats, the liberal media apparatchiks, the mobs of unthinking voters - who are selling the greatest country in history down the river for an illusion of security and wealth via government pork and privilege.
   
America was meant for the free, for the self-reliant, for those individuals who are willing to live on their own wits, energy, and courage. She was never supposed to have a powerful centralized maze of bureaucracies regimenting and subsidizing every aspect of our lives. She stood in the beginning for "limited government," "personal independence," and a "small, selective flow of immigrants gaining entrance to the country." Unless she restores that stand, there will be no true liberty or justice for men on this earth in the future.


Notes

1. Writings of George Washington, Government Printing Office, 1931-44, 27: 254. See also Erler, West, and Marini, The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration, 2007, pp.
18-22, and Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders,1997, pp. 150-151.

2. Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892).


---------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past twenty years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: nelshultberg (at) aol.com

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Sons of Liberty: A Review


Nelson Hultberg

History channel, January 25-27, 2015.
Directed by Kari Skogland; written by Stephen David and David C. White.

The History channel's new miniseries, Sons of Liberty, will anger the purists and the prudes. But it will delight the swashbuckler in the rest of us. It is a big, bodacious screening with superb production values that covers the lead-up years to the American Revolution, 1765-1775. Yes, certain liberties are taken with some of the facts and events. The main characters are glamorized. But the essential theme of America's birth is kept intact: we as a nation were spawned by a band of rebels made up of assorted firebrands, smugglers, and philosophers all coalescing together under the rubric of Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man." Besides, what depiction of history is not romanticized by making the main characters a bit handsomer and younger than they, perhaps, were. Certainly not any depiction made for television.

The main character striding through Sons of Liberty is the famous Samuel Adams, played robustly by British actor, Ben Barnes, who doesn't give us an actualization of Adams' role in history, but rather a symbolization of it. First of all, Barnes is in his early thirties, and Adams was 51 years old when he fomented the Boston Tea Party. So the producers of Sons of Liberty are trying to give us the symbolic Sam Adams and what his role was in the creation of America. Sam Adams was the quintessential rebel mind. He didn't have the scholarly genius of Thomas Jefferson, but he had a brilliant revolutionary mind. And valor permeated his entire life. He blended mind and defiance as well as, and perhaps better than, any of our Founders.

Sam Adams told his fellow patriots in 1773 in the build-up to the Boston Tea Party, "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

This is what brings about all revolutionary change in history - small minorities of men and women fervently committed to a cause that will require courage and resourcefulness to bring into fruition. Yes, luck is also necessary, but mostly courage and resourcefulness because luck eventually descends upon us all. It's the ones with courage who ride the luck into history and change the fate of mankind. Sam Adams and the "Sons of Liberty" were these kind of men. They seized the opportunity that the arrogant, blundering British gave to them.

The valor of Sam Adams was the spark that made him one of our most important Founders. As we all know, the colonists were by no means united. Sons of Liberty portrays this Rebel-Tory division clearly, and it demonstrates how remarkable the likes of Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Dr. Joseph Warren were. They were willing to break from the security and stability of life under the British Crown to venture into uncharted waters for a new future - a break that offered them certain death or prison if they failed, yet they eagerly proceeded. In the process they galvanized a band of rebels and lit the match to "the shot heard round the world."

The Partnership

In the first segment, we see Sam Adams and John Hancock initiate their partnership, which eventually leads to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Adams is a scruffy, roguish firebrand, while Hancock is portrayed as a rich, cautious, unbearably foppish socialite who relies on trade and imports to bring him the lavish life he desires. In dddition, the director, Kari Skogland, has him constantly urging Adams and his band of street rebels to "stop their insanity." Unfortunately this is not the historical Hancock at all. Yet at every turn, Skogland and her writers insist on painting this false picture of Hancock as timidly opposing the rebellion, even opposing the dumping of the tea into Boston Harbor.

All historical records clearly show Hancock was a vigorous supporter of the colonial protests against the British from 1765 on in concert with Adams. Yet Skogland has him reluctantly and timidly dragging his feet throughout these crucial years. Hancock was not a warrior, but he was very much a willing rebel who financed the agitations and the dumping of the tea. He was upper class, yes, but hardly a fop. He fervently favored the revolution, and served admirably in various roles of political leadership for the American cause from the beginning. For some reason, however, Skogland's writers have quite incorrectly portrayed him. Not good.

The British Are Coming

In the second segment, we are introduced to the tyrannical British Gen. Thomas Gage (played to menacing perfection by Marton Csokas) and also to the renowned Paul Revere and his epic ride (played forcefully by the rugged Michael Raymond-James). Revere was a silversmith, but he had a warrior persona. The Boston Tea Party is presented in a sensationalized manner with Sam Adams standing astride one of the ships to stare down a regiment of British regulars with muskets raised on the wharf, daring them to shoot him. Quisling Governor Hutchinson arrives just in time to halt the British regiment leader for fear of making the heroic Adams into a martyr.

If director, Skogland, is lacking in historical accuracy, she is certainly not deficient in the ability to entertain her viewers. She gives us action, conflict, suspense, and charismatic characters we care about, as well as a salacious romance between Dr. Joseph Warren and Gen. Gage's ravishing wife, Margaret, played by Emily Berrington. Ryan Eggold is very appealing as the clever and courageous Dr. Joseph Warren. Berrington is pristinely beautiful as Margaret Gage. Their love affair is total fiction; but it's insertion into the story allows Sons of Liberty to avoid being just a litany of politics and battles. It becomes a sexy romp as well. After all, America's rebels were not prudes; they lusted after women in their day as we do in ours. This tale is not meant to be a staid documentary with sidebar commentaries by dreary Doris Goodwin types. It is meant to be a TV blockbuster. Sex is necessary for that.

Lexington and Bunker Hill

The third and final segment begins with the British rout of the rebels at Lexington Green on April 19, 1775 and the following rebel victory at the Concord munitions storage. Thus begins our War for Independence. These and the later battle scenes are carried off spectacularly with big sophisticated production values. The Concord surprise victory for the rebels shakes Gage and his troops severely, which is demonstrated by Gage's hurried request to London for more troops and his demand to recklessly attack the rebels at Bunker Hill despite the certainty of heavy British casualties and warnings from his subordinate officers. Gage is vile and icy in demeanor. He will surely go down as one of the great villains of TV entertainment. There is a grisly inhumanity about the man. Gen. Washington termed him a ruthless cancer.

At John Adams' insistence, our rebel heroes then pay a visit to Benjamin Franklin for advice and support. Apparently the historical Franklin is not in Skogland's memory bank either, for the Franklin we encounter here seems more like a brawny biker with a Harley outside at the hitching post. He is played by Breaking Bad's robustious Dean Norris. He pours forth the braininess we expect from Franklin, but Skogland has injected a few choice morsels of modern dialogue into his part. "You're talking about a new country," he informs a startled contingent of Sam and John Adams, and Paul Revere. They reply hesitantly that they guess they are, to which Franklin responds, "That's a bat shit crazy idea." But he assures them that he agrees with this crazy idea. Inserting modern slang into the revered mouths of the Founders may be "progressive" and "avant-garde" to Skogland, but to me it is a stink bomb for the script.

Next comes the Battle of Bunker Hill, and it is as gritty and grotesque as a battle can be. Huge casualties are suffered by the rebels as they are overrun by the monster British war machine and Gage's fanaticism. In the aftermath, Gen. Washington, who up till now has remained a non-participant in the rebel hostilities, manifests as the heroic leader we know from history and assures the rebels that all is not lost. A fierce war is coming, but he will lead them.

The finale is a stirring speech for liberty by Sam Adams in front of the delegates of the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia in July of 1776 that prefaces the signing of the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock inscribes his now famous signature to the storied document, a war begins, and a new country is born.

The Lesson for Us Today

In conclusion, Sons of Liberty is far from accurate history, but it is splendid entertainment. Most importantly it is true to the fundamental fount of America - that we were spawned by a new philosophical vision of strictly limited government instituted to protect men's rights rather than manipulate men's lives.

How did these scruffy "Sons of Liberty," and the rag-tag army they morphed into, pull off defeating the most powerful military force in the world at that time? They did it because there exists a dynamic force in our lives that all tyrannical systems lack and all rational revolutionaries possess - moral truth!  This is what brings the most powerful of tyrannies down. No matter how much military or regulatory control they possess, no matter how ruthless they are - they are always vulnerable in face of men and women who are in possession of truth and willing to take a moral stand against overwhelming odds. Moral truth connected to unbending human will is what eventually destroys the most entrenched of evil.

We have this force on our side today in the crisis we now face, which is identical in principle to the crisis our Founders faced. We possess the same "moral truth" that they had, and we can use it to overcome today's Washington tyrants. We just have to design the right strategy to implement it. There are countless Americans out there just waiting for the right mix of political savvy and passion to come along and sweep them up into a crusade.

In 1776, the Tories timidly hid behind closed doors where it was safe and popular. They wallowed in pessimism and lamented that nothing could be done. The British were too strong. Why make a big fuss? But the rebels - men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, Paul Revere and Joseph Warren - would have none of it. They knew they had moral truth on their side, and that the British Gargantua would fall precisely because of that. And if they weren't absolutely certain they would prevail, they knew they still must fight, or their lives were meaningless. This is the lesson we glean from the Sons of Liberty for our lives today.

Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Dr. Joseph Warren are eternal archetypes of what is required as human beings to live freely and justly. If you missed this original History channel presentation of their fight, it will come around again. Don't miss its rerun.

-------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past twenty years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: nelshultberg@aol.com

Friday, January 16, 2015

U.S. Department of Justice Shuts Down Major Aspect of its Civil Forfeiture Program


Property Rights Protected, but More Needs to Be Done

Holder's order
Department of Justice release
Washington Post story that broke the news
Arlington, VA.Marking an important shift in federal law enforcement policy, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that the U.S. Department of Justice’s adoption program—which permits state law enforcement agencies to turn seized properties over to the federal government for forfeiture—will be suspended.

But the Justice Department policy does nothing to limit the widely used and sweeping power of the federal government, or joint federal and state task forces, to seize Americans’ property based on nothing but suspicion.

“This important change in policy will strengthen protections for property owners who stand to lose their cash, cars, and other property without being convicted of or even charged with a crime” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, the nation’s leading legal advocate against civil forfeiture. “But it is essential that greater protections for property owners must follow at the federal level and in the states to ensure that Americans are no longer victimized by civil forfeiture.” 

The announcement by Attorney General Holder follows a growing wave of criticism and outrage about the government’s forfeiture practices. Federal legislation that would sharply curtail the federal government’s civil forfeiture program, including adoption, was introduced last session and is expected to be introduced again soon.

Under civil forfeiture laws, law enforcement can take property suspected of involvement in criminal activity without convicting or charging the owner with a crime. At the federal level and in most states, agencies involved in the forfeiture, including prosecutors and police departments, can keep some or all of the proceeds for their own use. 
Today’s announced policy would stop the process of adoption, where state and local officials use federal law to forfeit property without charging owners with a crime and then profit from those forfeitures, regardless of whether those forfeitures are permitted under state law.  But the new policy leaves open a significant loophole, as state and local law enforcement can still partner with federal agents through joint task forces for forfeitures not permitted under state law, and state and local law enforcement can use such task forces to claim forfeiture proceeds they would not be entitled to under state law.  Moreover, the federal government can still pursue its own civil forfeiture actions, where property owners face very significant burdens.  And the policy does not change state forfeiture laws, many of which burden property owners and permit policing for profit.

IJ is the nation’s leading legal advocate against civil forfeiture. IJ launched its initiative against civil forfeiture in 2010 with the publication of its path-breaking report, Policing for Profit.  That report first exposed the federal government’s pernicious practice of equitable sharing and adoption procedures.  IJ’s initiative against civil forfeiture consists of cutting-edge court battles on behalf of property owners facing civil forfeiture, strategic research, and grassroots activism calling for ending or radically changing civil forfeiture law.  In 2014, IJ launched EndForfeiture.com, a wide-ranging online initiative to educate and activate citizens and legislators to fight civil forfeiture.

“Civil forfeiture should not exist in a country that values the principles of private property rights and due process,” said Chip Mellor, IJ’s President and General Counsel. “Now is the time to enshrine today’s policy change into the law and to pass further reforms to ensure that no American loses their property without being convicted of a crime.”

Monday, January 05, 2015

Taking Over the Republican Party


Nelson Hultberg

One of the biggest fallacies in politics today is the claim that we, as conservatives and libertarians, can only be effective if we stay loyal to the Republican Party and work to gain control of it by electing more free-market conservatives every election year.

We at AFR believe such thinking to be tragically misguided. To expect the Republican Party to challenge the modern day juggernaut of statism is as foolish as expecting socialist professors to instill Americanism into our youth. It won't happen anymore than the planets will one day reverse their orbits. This is because the members of the GOP hierarchy who control the party have bought into the  collectivist ideologies of Karl Marx and J.M. Keynes. Thus they want the same thing that Democrats want - a society in which "equality of results" replaces "equality of rights." They merely want it to be established more gradually than do the Democrats.

Conservatives have been trying to take over the GOP for more than 40 years now by electing "conservative legislators" to Congress; yet nothing has changed. The Republican Party continues to give us relentlessly expanding government. It continues to exploit, lie to, and make fools out of conservatives.

Those who continue to cling to the hope that they can transform the Republican Party into an engine of freedom are like battered wives who continue to stick around to take their husbands abusive beatings. The marriage is over. Conservatives, libertarians, and patriots must abandon the GOP.

The GOP Hierarchy

The problem with the conservative strategy is that electing conservative legislators to Congress can never bring about a takeover of the party because the GOP hierarchy buys off 90 percent of the legislators that we send. Who and what is this GOP hierarchy? It is the vast network of elite intellectuals, bankers, and corporate leaders throughout America that make up the "neoconservative establishment."

The intellectual sector of this hierarchy is comprised of prominent scholars and pundits such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Charles Krauthammer - prestigious organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Hudson Institute, and the Foreign Policy Initiative - scholarly magazines such as Foreign Affairs, Commentary, Public Interest, and The Weekly Standard.

Completing the hierarchy are the major bankers of the Federal Reserve system and the myriad of corporate moguls throughout the nation. The members of this GOP hierarchy call themselves "neoconservative" because it makes it easier for them to sell massive statism to the American people. Unfortunately allegiance to the founding principles of America is not in their lexicon.

These prominent scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads are not true conservatives (and they are certainly not libertarian) because they don't believe in the fundamental base of America - which is the Founders' spirit of free enterprise and limited government. Yet this GOP hierarchy continues to claim that its Republican Party is a vehicle for freedom and adherence to the Constitution. They make such a claim because they know Americans still adhere to such values. But their claim is as deceptive as the pickpocket's brush against your coat in a crowded subway.

The scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads of this hierarchy wield great power, both ideologically and financially - enough so to buy off most of the incoming patriotic congressmen. Such newcomers to Washington adopt the GOP hierarchy's "pseudo conservatism" soon after their arrival in the capital because they know if they don't vote in step with neoconservatism, they will receive no ideological and financial support for re-election from the party and its influential hierarchy.

Preferring an easy road to re-election, almost all new patriot arrivals, thus, sell out their "true conservative" principles to stay in Washington. They cross over the aisle and gradually turn into advocates of statism. This is why sending conservatives to Congress has gotten us nowhere over the past four decades and will get us nowhere in the future. Incoming conservatives don't stay conservative; they are bought off. Lord Acton told us why over a century ago.

Thus it is impossible to take over the Republican Party by just sending more conservative legislators to Washington. To get control of the GOP, we first have to replace the neocon ideologues who control the party - i.e., the hierarchy. A whole new generation of scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads will have to be ushered in. This will require 70-80 years to bring about. Shifts of this magnitude take many decades. America doesn't have this kind of time.

Ideological Change Works Slowly

As proof, let's examine the time span of liberalism's takeover of the Republican Party. The actual political takeover began with Richard Nixon in 1968. But liberalism's "political takeover" of the GOP had to be preceded first by its "ideological takeover" of the educational institutions of America - the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the movie industry.

This is why converting the Republican Party to "freedom and conservatism" (as many Tea Party members and other activists are trying to do) can never happen. Because conservatives do not control the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the movie industry in this country. These were the vital factors in liberalism's takeover of the GOP during the 20th century. These five institutions relentlessly spewed out collectivism, which shaped the minds and motives of the scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads who joined the GOP and formed its present hierarchy. Without this "mind shaping," liberalism could not have taken over the Republican Party.

Thus if conservatives are to take over the GOP, it will require that we first gain ideological control of the the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the Hollywood movie studios so as to shape a new hierarchy. This will require at least 70 years to accomplish (assuming we can actually do it).

The liberal takeover of these cultural institutions was a 70-year process that began in the early 20th century with the Progressives' encroachments into our school system and then throughout the rest of our society. Seventy years later they had gained control of the GOP during the Nixon-Ford administrations and made it the little sister to the Democrat Party. But they were only able to do this because they had also gained control of the schools, churches, media, publishers, and Hollywood.

Turning a political party around is like turning a huge aircraft carrier around. There is a delay between the time you start turning the steering helm to when the ship finally completes its turn. The steering helm of a political party is the ideology of its hierarchy, which is determined by the schools, churches, media, publishers, and movie industry. These five institutions must be turned first if the party itself is to be turned. This cannot be done overnight.

Therefore, if conservatives intend to take over control of the GOP, they must prepare for a 70 year struggle. Unfortunately, America doesn't have this kind of time. Economic collapse looms over the horizon. And tyranny looms on the other side of the collapse like it has with all political-economic breakdowns of countries throughout history. In times of disintegrating chaos and peril, people who are ignorant of the causes of their chaos and breakdown always opt for order and stability in the form of regimentation and dictatorship.

Freedom's Last Stand

There is a chance, however, to save the country if we can avoid the dictatorial takeover that is sure to be promoted in the aftermath of the coming collapse. But to do this, the American people must be told the truth about what has brought on the economic crises we are experiencing at present, and what must be done to properly climb out of the economic mega-crisis that looms up ahead.

We must climb out of the coming collapse in the direction of the Founding Fathers and decentralized government, not in the direction of the globalists and World Government. Unfortunately the Democrat and Republican hierarchies are committed globalists, ideologically poisoned by the Marxian-Keynesian brainwash that has been seeping into America for many decades. They will never work to return to the Founding Fathers; they will work fervently to usher in a New World Order, a World Bank, and the elimination of American sovereignty.

But there is still a chance to save freedom because a sizeable sector of the people still favor freedom. Most conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats (50 percent of the voters) remain opposed to Marxism-Keynesianism if the rudiments are clearly explained to them. They still believe in "honest money" and "limited government." All they need is a courageous, conservative political candidate to explain how we must get back to such values.

Thus we must bypass the Republican Party and go directly to the people. We must launch an Independent political campaign that will tell the truth to American voters about the Democrat-Republican monopoly and how it is smuggling us into a centralized dictatorship via Marxism and Keynesianism.

Stopping the Drift

In conclusion, trying to take over the Republican Party by voting in more true conservative congressmen will never stop America's dictatorial drift. We've been attempting to do this for over four decades now. And the freedom advocates we send to Washington continue to get bought off by neoconservatism as fast as we send them.

There's a much better way to fight. Our goal at AFR is to recruit a prominent free-market conservative such as Ted Cruz or Mike Lee or Michele Bachmann to run an Independent campaign on AFR's Four Pillars of Reform for our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems in the next presidential election (like Ross Perot in 1992). By going directly to the people with the truth, such a patriot, conservative campaign would give us a chance to save the country.

In this way we can challenge the Washington establishment and unify all conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats into a vibrant grassroots force. We believe a nationally-known, free-market conservative, running as an Independent, would get 40-45 percent of the vote and win the 2016 election. In doing so, his campaign would act as the launch for a new political party - the NATIONAL INDEPENDENT PARTY - that would further the fight into the future. For more information on this cause, go to our website, www.afr.org.


-----------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past twenty years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.

Friday, December 05, 2014

Does Freedom Matter?


What was the purpose of the founding of these United States of America and the creation of our Constitution? Before the migration from Europe to this newly discovered land, all people of the civilized world were ruled by Kings. Even the original thirteen established states of this new land were ruled, as a colony, by the King of England.

Then something very profound and monumental took place, Independence was declared and the American Revolution was underway, a war for the freedom of man ensued. A group of men bent on their desire to be free and rule themselves in a land where the government answered to the people and not the people answering to the King and his court, rose up and risked their lives and fortunes in an attempt to end government dictating to, taxing at will, and over regulating the people. Through the shedding of their blood and fortunes the American Constitutional Republic was born, an experiment in self government. As you know the opening shot fired in that revolution was called, "The shot heard round the world."” It was so called because it was "the people" in rebellion against, not only the King of England, but against mankind being ruled by kings.

Kings and dictatorial leaders all over the world heard that shot. They heard the shot that proclaimed that men were now in rebellion to being subjects of a government, or King, and willing to challenge it.

We Americans celebrate on July 4 every year, the marking of American independence from England and its King, a very radical departure from governments which prevailed all over, “"round the world",” at that time, and for thousands of years before. Never before in those thousands of years had the rule of Kings ever been challenged. Kings challenged each other, but never had the people challenged the Kings and their rule.

Is the United States an exceptional country? Barack Obama has stated publicly that he doesn't think it is. I quote Thomas Sowell, "“You couldn't be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document, the Constitution of the United States, by opening with the momentous words, “We the people…”."

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, the elite who think that way, and that includes many among those who regard themselves as the educated and enlightened class, as well as the Liberal news media and political messiahs, find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of them imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

Barack Obama stated in a public interview on T V, "If Congress doesn't do what I think is necessary, I won't wait on them, I'll do it anyway." And we all heard him say, "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation. I've got a pen and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders." Never before in American history has any president so blatantly and openly shown such disregard and out and out contempt for our Constitution as the rule of law. He just simply ignores it, as he just did with an Executive order changing our immigration laws. It is very apparent that his swearing to "uphold and defend" it, upon taking the oath of office, means absolutely nothing to him.

Our Constitution was designed to create a framework for a Federal Government,— and worded to keep the government inside that framework. In other words, the very existence of the Constitution is for the sole purpose of laying out in detail the limited powers it is ALLOWED BY US to have, and reserving all other powers to the states or the people. Let us ask ourselves, does the Constitution matter? I submit to you, if it doesn't, then neither does our freedom. If it doesn't, America, we are on a collision course with full blown Socialism.

As you know, on November 4th we took charge and hired people to go to our seat of government and try to stop Barack Obama and his Socialist leaning supporters there from destroying our Constitution. Not only is he ignoring our Constitution, he is ignoring us also. He will not even recognize that election result. I am very concerned about the drums beating on all news networks, including Fox, for those people to compromise and work with the president and the Liberals (Socialists) so as to "get something done." We should never comprise with the shredding of the Constitution, further loss of Individual Liberty, and the Federal Government growing even more powerful. If this kind of compromise happens, Barack Obama will have two more years to complete his burning mission to turn this nation into the Socialist States of America. The Constitutional Republic of These United States of America will no longer exist and our Individual Liberty, to make and be responsible for our own decisions, will be gone from our lives forever. I, for one, do not believe for a moment that the people intended for our Constitution and Individual Freedom to be compromised for the sake of "getting something done."

I pray that God bless America and keep us free.

Please feel free to forward to all you wish, in any manner you wish.

John Porter
johnporter1939@cox.net

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Alien Tidal Wave Now Assured


Nelson Hultberg

Reason flees; pygmies rule. Our intellectuals and legislators on both sides of the spectrum have abandoned all sanity regarding immigration, culture, freedom, and common sense. Our country is in free fall. Collapse lies over the horizon like grinning Death with its blood stained Scythe. Pity our children. They must live in the desolate country we are creating for them.

Those who hold intellectual and legislative power in America today, no doubt, think of themselves as noble and brave in pursuit of justice and progressive purpose to advance the values of our great nation. They imagine that they are doing the “people’s will.” They please themselves in front of the morning mirror thinking that the world’s a better place because of their presence and acumen. But it is a cunning lie.

The highest of our leaders, our President, has just come in front of us to set in motion a leprosy of executive actions that must tear down our safety, stability, and legitimacy as a culture. He has inserted a Trojan Horse of deception and perfidy into our society that puts him on the path of history’s mega-tyrants. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, and Robespierre may have been far more ruthless and blatant, but the lawless policies of Barrack Obama are huge steps toward dictatorship, and will prove to be, in the long run, lethal to the decency and freedom that a just society is built upon. We are being assailed with the tyranny of the velvet glove rather than the iron fist; and those who man the media desks and the schools of America cannot grasp the subtle hidiousness of it.

Liberals are overjoyed with Obama’s egregious reach for power. “Way overdue,” “Compassion dictates this,” “Finally some action,” are the comments culled from the left. What do we hear from the right? Charles Krauthammer exemplifies the pusillanimity of the right. He informed Fox News that he would go along with bringing the entire 11 million illegals into citizenship. But we are a nation of laws, and we must do this the right way (via action by Congress), not the way Obama is doing it.

Can They Not See?

Holy mother of God! Cannot the neoconservatives see how craven they have become? Can they not see that the issue is not just right procedure via the Constitution, but also right reform itself? And right reform is not “clearing a path to citizenship” for illegals, but “withdrawing the magnets” that are bringing the illegals to America to start with. Cannot these phony conservatives see that it is only frauds and fools who appease their enemies, which is what they are doing to oppose the left’s autocratic immigration mandates? Can they not grasp that if we are to solve a problem destroying us, we must go courageously to the root cause of the problem? – which means eliminate the magnets. Can they not see that you don’t stop fire ants from invading your back yard unless you withdraw the honey pots? Can they not see that what is required here is simple wisdom and human courage?

There are four solutions to the catastrophic immigration dilemma confronting us today. They will require an intellectual toughness that is clear-eyed and steadfast. They are:

1)  Enact E-Verify into law so employers know who is legal and who is not.
2)  Disallow welfare services and schooling to all illegals.
3)  Make English the official public language used in our courts and schools.
4)  Eliminate the anchor baby loophole with Constitutional clarification.

The above policies, if enacted, would eliminate the magnets that have brought us to today’s illegal immigrant crisis. They would solve the problem genuinely for the long run, not just palliate it and kick the can down the road. But the above policies will never even be considered, much less enacted, if conservative intellectuals and legislators do not talk openly and courageously about them to all media outlets. This means with outrage, not with mealy-mouthed acquiescence.

Unfortunately we do not see conservatives speaking this way at all. They are, like Charles Krauthammer, mouthing all the wrong answers. They are assuring their questioners that they want also to “clear a path to citizenship” for all the unfortunate aliens “doomed to live in the shadows of American life.” What else is this but the promise of amnesty for criminals? Be patient my darlings; we will reward you.

Such appeasers believe all we need is to shore up the border, then amnesty can safely be granted. Post more guards and erect better fencing. Then the 11 million aliens can be given amnesty because that will be the last of it.

The website, ImmigrationCounters.com, says the government is lying, and that the true figure is not 11 million illegals, but more than 20 million. Imagine that; the government is lying. Psychologists have a name for the Republicans’ mindset: delusional. No fence will solve the enormity of this invasion. Clever humans will always find their way over, under, and around fences. Only removal of magnets will solve the crisis.

There is surely dancing in the streets these days throughout Central America. Jean Raspail’s apocalyptic 1973 novel, The Camp of the Saints, dramatically warned the West that continuation of its nations’ soft policies on immigration would bring their cultures to ruin with armadas of aliens eventually descending upon them.

Conservative, Peter Brimelow, stunned America with his own apocalyptic vision, Alien Nation, in 1995. And libertarian, John Hospers, emulated Brimelow with briefer, but equal fire in “A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders” in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1998. The collectivists have smeared them all as racists. But their searing prose and frank courage would well serve our conservative pygmies in Washington today who are whimpering to the media about Obama’s lawlessness.

Appeasement never ends a problem; it always magnifies it. By 2035, the human hordes camped south of our border from Caracas to Tijuana will bring 40 million aliens to storm our gates adding to today’s 20 million. And larger and larger waves will then follow in the ensuing decades until California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have been thoroughly “Mexicanized.”

Reconquista

It’s called Reconquista (reconquest). The powerful National Council of LaRaza (supported by Mexican Presidents, Ernesto Zedillo, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderon, and now Pena Nieta) boldly asserts that the real Mexico extends into these states of America which Mexicans say were stolen from them in the 19th century. The National Council of LaRaza fully intends to take them back, not with military invasion of course, but with relentless cultural invasion that the American left appeases so eagerly.

Phyllis Schlafly, has exposed LaRaza’s false history in her article, “Is it Assimilation or Invasion?” [ http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/ nov01/01-11-28.shtml ]

The United States,” she informs us, “acquired the Southwest a century and a half ago in three ways: part by the 1845 annexation agreement with Texas, which was then an independent republic, part ceded by Mexico in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after the Mexican-American War, and part by the 1852 Gadsden Purchase.

“Mexico's claim to the Southwest originated with the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which drew an imaginary line on the map to divide the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal....Other countries never recognized this treaty, and Americans consider it ridiculous even to talk about giving the Southwest to Mexico....

“Mexicans…hope is reconquista by migration, both legal and illegal. According to Mario Obledo, founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, ‘California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave.’"

Will Mexicanization stop at the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? Highly doubtful. It will overflow into Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Perhaps further north and east. Central Americans out breed Americans heavily, three births to two.

Exposing the Ideological Rot

Evil comes to us in a thousand disguises throughout our lives and throughout history. Perceptive minds know this, and thankfully are ceaselessly on guard against it. America now desperately needs such perceptive patriots to come forth. America needs a modern Thomas Paine / Patrick Henry type of leader who will speak truth to power and expose the rot in the ideological structure that guides our nation today.

This will require the likes of Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, Ben Carson, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, and so many other perceptive conservatives to quit thinking of their political careers, and start thinking of America’s political future. If we don’t stop this Marxist tyrant in the White House, we will not have a country worthy of passing on to our children. Impeachment is what is called for. Of crucial importance are patriot visionaries to honorably lead, not neoconservative hacks to cravenly accommodate.

From the beginning, it was obvious Barrack Obama was a dangerous man, as all Marxists are. This is because they do not share our concept of freedom. They believe that freedom is not the “absence of coercion in life,” but the “absence of difficulties in life.” And they mean to bring it about with massive government centralization. They hate the America of the Founding Fathers; they seek a Brave New World where equality of results rather than equality of rights prevails. They believe a government dominated society is not tyranny; it’s a “new kind of freedom,” as Marx declared.

Barrack Obama wishes to destroy America. Nudging us into a more egalitarian system will not satiate his narcissism and perversity. What is needed to make this hubristic charlatan’s life meaningful is to raze the American system while he is in power. Or at least create chaos and confusion on such a scale that it brings massive centralization. If economic depression, tanks in the streets, riots, and pervasive societal malevolence are the result, then this is what Lenin meant when he said “one does not make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” This is what all Marxists believe and are willing to tolerate in order to purge capitalism from the earth. The coming social malevolence is merely the means to a quicker obliteration of the Founding Fathers’ vision.

Wake up America! Evil comes in a thousand disguises. One of its grisly advocates spoke to us Thursday night, November 20th. He spoke of compassion, fairness, entrepreneurial spirit. He quoted Scripture and pontificated via the lexicon of the patriot. This, of course, is what good Marxists are trained to do. This is what Barrack Obama learned in Hawaii in his youth from the communist apparatchik, Frank Marshall Davis.

Mainstream conservatives are up in arms and have sworn to fight this tyrannical humbug. But they are rushing into battle like pampered Boy Scouts running into the forest to play campfire games and earn merit badges. The liberal dominated media dragon will gobble them up. They don’t even know what the battle is about, let alone what weapons to employ in fighting it.

There are four weapons that we need to stem the evil that sits outside our gates. They are the four policies listed above. To enact them will require immense courage and intellectual clarity. Do our conservative leaders possess such attributes?

Patrick Buchanan’s powerful book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive To 2025?, now looms ominously before us. Barrack Obama has shown us the overwhelming nefariousness of his dreams. Will conservatives rise to the challenge with a muscular and rational confrontation? Or will they prove to be just more fodder for the Orwellians that we have seen from the right since the gruesome days of Richard Nixon?

It is from such questions as these (and how a society answers them) that great nations rise or fall. One hopes fervently that the intelligentsia of the greatest country in history can rally itself to fend off the deranged traitors among us. The first step in that rally will be to admit that we are up against “deranged traitors,” not misguided Americans. We are confronting stark evil, not innocent error.