$1,000 Essay and Video Contest: Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out


This is one of those truths that has become so self-evident today that Frontpagemag.com has adopted it as a motto on its masthead. At the same time, it is one of those truths, which is so politically incorrect that people are reluctant to express it. You can talk about neo-fascists, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives, but not neo-communists or neo-totalitarians – not if you want to remain in polite company. That is why we have undertaken the task of promoting the obvious. We are offering two $1000 prizes and a “Bloomie” bobble-head for the best essay and the best 3-5 minute video with the theme: “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”  “Bloomie,” obviously, is named in honor of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg who leads the league in totalitarian maneuvers. The contest begins now, April 3, and ends on May 6, at which time all submissions need to be in.

“Nanny state” doesn’t begin to capture what is happening in our world.  Nannies at least look out for their charges.  Liberals don’t really care about anything or anyone but themselves and burnishing their compassionate image. They aren’t concerned with our well-being but with their idea of what we should be.  They know what’s good for us, and they don’t care what we think of it, or whether we like it or not. They want us to do what they think is good for us — or else. Self-reliant American individualists are their worst nightmare; wild cards they can’t control. Their desire is to exercise power over us, and their goal is to crush our individuality. They aim to achieve this by designing a complex cage of rules that will not only direct our behavior, but ultimately remake us into a people under their thumb — fearful, docile, dependent on governmental directive, but progressive. Submission, not compassion, is their core value.

This totalitarian impulse has been at the heart of the utopian project since Lenin.  For the Soviets and their Third World lackeys in Cuba and elsewhere, the goal was the creation of the New Man—a worker bee for the state whose private intimate life was as tightly regulated as his political and economic behavior. The enemy of the New Man was human nature itself — hard-wired in ways that could not be manipulated by social engineers; one of those stubborn facts that defied the uplifting project — which is what made all those gulags and firing squads necessary.

Today’s liberal totalitarians learned from their predecessors. They don’t rely (yet) on secret police, torture, and “political reeducation.”  Their approach is more indirect. They rely on a maze of laws and administrative rules; and especially on a heavy-handed social consensus that intimidates individuals into conformity. They are in no way deterred by their absurdity. Think Mayor Bloomberg’s relentless assault on New Yorkers by taking away their Big Gulp drinks, regulating smoking in apartment buildings, and restricting painkillers in emergency rooms. No wonder the “Bloomie” will be the icon of our contest.

The totalitarians screaming to get out of liberals like Bloomberg are very ready to break eggs in order to make their social omelet. According to a law proposed by Democrats in Oregon, state police will have the right to conduct inspections in the homes of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to confiscate them. So much for those liberal claims that the state won’t use police power to kick down doors to get at guns.  And now that ObamaCare has gotten the camel’s nose under the tent, the president’s advisers are advocating follow-on rules allowing care to be explicitly rationed according to patients’ age.  So much for the liberal claim that the state won’t use its new medical power to determine who lives and dies.

Where does this all stop?  It doesn’t –there is no end to the modifications that progressives want to insert into our make-up. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. There is no end until we’re all trussed up with duck tape over our mouths ready to obey the rules that are good for us.

We need to sound the alarm bell now, and that’s why we’ve devised this contest and are offering  two $1000 prizes for the best essay and the best 3-5 minute video on this subject.  Send your entries to Jamie Glazov (jamieglazov11@gmail.com), editor of Frontpage, by May 6. A panel including David Horowitz, Peter Collier and Michael Finch will judge this competition. Winners will be announced on May 15 and the winning essay and video will be posted on Frontpagemag.com along with profiles of the author and videographer.

It’s show and tell time. Take a stand against the liberal totalitarians by submitting a video or essay to the Frontpagemag contest.

Submit to jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • scum

    Is this a serious post?! 'Today's liberal totalitarians don't rely (yet) on secret police and torture?' Wow. Thank God the Right was leading the way in opposing the use of torture in Black Boxes and Abu Ghraib.

    • SoCalMike

      Those crowing the loudest about the false torture at Abu Ghraib actually carry water for Islamic Jihad and those who engage in real torture like the animals who cut Daniel Pearl's head off with a dull knife.
      Hope it feels good..

    • RebeccaJean

      Great non sequitor. I'm sorry you feel bad that terrorists have gotten water-boarded. I feel worse for the people who jumped out of the top floors of the world trade center because the thought of burning to death was their only other option. And while you should feel bad about Abu Ghraib. I hope you feel as bad about Benghazi. But this article is about the little totalitatians that are living inside of liberals. It is a very apt description. You do know what totalitarianism is, don't you? It is a form of government that attempts to control every aspect of our lives. I think that is truly descriptive of modern day progressives.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Is this a serious post?! 'Today's liberal totalitarians don't rely (yet) on secret police and torture?' Wow. Thank God the Right was leading the way in opposing the use of torture in Black Boxes and Abu Ghraib."

      Because people were tortured arbitrarily just for fun and that's what right wingers love.

      Conservatives want law and order according to the constitution, including full due process. You can't show any evidence to the contrary.

    • sd42jnq

      You have fallen for a media lie. The photos were faked. Look at the photos our media published: think that the "prisoners" in S&m positions would be grinning if it was a prison and they were being tortured?

      Pornographic photos from websites were used and the guards edited in.

      Because of the fakery, the editor of the Daily Mirror was sacked in 2004 for using false imagery of Abu Gharib. How many in this nation still think the porno photos used with the guards photoshopped in are real?

      It needs to be kept in mind that physical torture is a smokescreen for the commonly used methods of interrogation. For at least 30 years, drugs have been the choice for interrogations. Not only does the person want to tell everything they know, they don't remember it afterwards.

      With methods like that commonly used since the 1980s, how common do you think torture actually is?

    • Indioviejo

      You must be as stupid as your post. Remember Abu Graibwas perpetrated by low rank undisciplined troops, probably a product of our public school system, which gives us the proverbial Low information voter which afflicts this nation. It follows that the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib are the same people who elected Obama twice. You can't disown them.

    • Gee59

      At least you aptly named yourself

    • Ar'nun

      Totalitarians would have had no use for an Abu Ghraib. A totalitarians regimne would have either just eliminated them therefore not needing to house them, or Abu Ghraib would have looked more like Aushweitz.. The fact that the Jihadists survive long enough to have water poured over their faces or be put in a human cheerleader pyramid is a sign of our overall goodness. If you notice the Abu Ghraib pictures, not a mark on any of them.

    • SoCalMike

      When you finish carrying water for Islamic Jihad be sure to get some rest.
      You clowns did the same thing during the Cold War that you're doing now.
      Then as now you saved your vitriol for Reagan and the US while simultaneously claiming Communists weren't mass murderers and the Cold War was a "social construct" academic jargon meaning it was all a figment of our collective imagination.
      I guess with a name like scum…enough said.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Marx believed his ideas were liberating…for those who lived through the revolution. That's no joke. He was lazy and wanted the state to provide everything for him. That's the kind of liberty he wanted.

    • Ar'nun

      The Left believes in Collective Freedom and Collective Wealth. While the Right believes in Individual Freedoms and Wealth. Marx's ideas were Liberating, for the Government. This is why the Left Champions higher taxes, make the State wealthy, not the people.

      • Jim_C

        But the classical liberals who were the architects of our system believed in a certain balance: freedom to associate and transact business within a framework of regulation and system of justice applicable to all. The whole reason we rebelled was because England was granting favors to certain companies that they did not grant the colonies and our people had no voice in what their tax dollars were used for. It kills me that TEA partiers sometimes forget their namesake, because we're looking at a similar situation. That framework created by the people who fought for self-determination has become tilted and that justice askew in favor of those who treat our country as if it were only a resource to be exploited.

        Protecting and supporting the things we "own collectively," aka the "Commons"–air, water, environment, and to an extent infrastructure–actually enhances our personal freedoms and creates value in our businesses. So it ain't a simple left/right thing.

        • reader

          "Protecting and supporting the things we "own collectively," aka the "Commons"–air, water, environment, and to an extent infrastructure–actually enhances our personal freedoms and creates value in our businesses. So it ain't a simple left/right thing"

          Wow. How compelling. Why not insert "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own" demagoguery too? Did not test too well?

          • Jim_C

            Incapable of rational thought, you resort to snark.

          • Jim_C

            You, reader, are the child who thinks we just "magically" have water that sustains ecosystems, air relatively free of contaminants, food safeto eat, parkland that nourishes the spirit and keeps property values high. But every single one of those things has been fought for–against selfish interests on the wrong side of history who espoused your philosophy.

          • reader

            Fought for by whom? The government? I've seen first hand how a government made the entire regions completely unlivable. That's history. What you call history is fraud, a script written by utopian masterminds actually rejecting human experience and insisting on phony superiority of their "intellectual" schemes predictably causing mysery, poverty, desease, famine and death every time they try. And they keep on trying.

          • Jim_C

            Sure, things like public libraries, clean air and water, safe food and medicine, safe driveable roads…all those totalitarian enterprises causing "misery, poverty, disease, famine, and death?" LOL

          • reader

            Clean air and water? You know, they used to joke in Brezhnev's USSR:

            It's winter now,
            but spring is nearing
            thank our Party
            let's start the cheering

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Clean air and water? You know, they used to joke in Brezhnev's USSR:
            It's winter now,
            but spring is nearing
            thank our Party
            let's start the cheering

            —-

            And today even so-called Americans believe things like that. Amazing eh?

            We're talking wayyyy over his head.

            See, there's no profit motive to deliver safe water, safe medicines and driveable roads. Because we seemed to have done well by subsidizing some transportation technologies and we passed laws to make sure it's against the law to be murderously selfish, we now have proved that the government should control everything, including paying for gays to have children funded by thieves (successful people) and preventing old white people from living too long.

            It's all for the greater good. Trust me. Why would I lie?

        • Ar'nun

          There is only a collective if the Individuals allow it. The Individual owns nothing. Everything s taxed making it a part of the Collective. Clothing is taxed, Property is taxed. No American will every own their own property ever again thanks to the brilliant Totalitarian idea of Property Taxes. Think about it, if you don't pay your Property Tax, the Government will take your property. So how can you really own something if there is always someone who can take it?

          You can go on and blame Republicans, Conservatives or even the TEA Party. But ultimatly the last time Conservative principals were practiced was during Calvin Coolidge's administration. If Reagan entertained the Liberal agenda. He caved and was tricked by that scum bag Tip O'Neil several times. He was already dealing with a country that shifted to the Left.

          The Founders of this Nation were not Liberals. If anything they were clearly Libertarians. America was founded on the idea that a man should be left alone to live his life and his success or his failure was on him, and not the responsibility of the Government.

          • Jim_C

            The founding fathers called themselves liberals–classical liberalism was their ethos, and the debate about what role federal government should play was a matter of intense debate from the Federalist papers to today, with the interpretation of the Constitution itself as a matter of debate as the country morphed, radically, from the original thirteen colonies to an industrialized large portion of a continent to a superpower containing multitudes from every nation. This country is not an individualist free-for-all and never has been, from the very first words of the Constitution on. That is conservative utopian fantasy. And utopian "conservative" philosophy has been on the wrong side of history far, far more times than they've been right, from the robber barons through the people who insisted that removing lead from gasoline would kill our economy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This country is not an individualist free-for-all and never has been, from the very first words of the Constitution on."

            It's a constitutional democratic republic. It's not that hard to understand once you've learned correctly the first time.

            "This country is not an individualist free-for-all and never has been, from the very first words of the Constitution on. That is conservative utopian fantasy."

            Not a common one.

            "And utopian "conservative" philosophy has been on the wrong side of history far, far more times than they've been right, from the robber barons through the people who insisted that removing lead from gasoline would kill our economy."

            The "Utopian conservative philosophy" morphs quickly in your mind to cover anyone that defies the totalitarian leftist agenda.

            Fresh water is not created "magically" but it is a hell of a lot more robust and organic than creating wealth to hand out to people who think they can't work because they've been victimized since birth or shortly afterwards.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "But the classical liberals who were the architects of our system believed in a certain balance: freedom to associate and transact business within a framework of regulation and system of justice applicable to all."

          That's why the communists redefined what justice and many other "values" words and terms actually mean.

          "The whole reason we rebelled was because England was granting favors to certain companies that they did not grant the colonies and our people had no voice in what their tax dollars were used for."

          That's not quite enough. Their belief was that a new form of government would rectify it and they were correct. Do you have a new form of government that is more just than the one we have? Then what explains all of this rebellion?

          "It kills me that TEA partiers sometimes forget their namesake, because we're looking at a similar situation."

          You cold not be more wrong. We are looking at "the same situation" only if you accept communist revision of definitions.

          "That framework created by the people who fought for self-determination has become tilted and that justice askew in favor of those who treat our country as if it were only a resource to be exploited."

          What BS. What total absurd BS. What lies. Poor poor nations that are given only a little of the money we stole from them. Because we went around stealing gold and oil and money trees and money machines from the poor non-whites. We never helped them like we should.

          How do you define justice?

          "Protecting and supporting the things we "own collectively," aka the "Commons"–air, water, environment, and to an extent infrastructure–actually enhances our personal freedoms"

          Reasonable people can argue over federal lands and protection of resources. My income is not a shared resource. Don't conflate for the sake of argument. Nobody said that every ideal the Democrats present is inverted. It's just that they lie so much by the time they want to act on something that their entire agenda is malicious.

          "and creates value in our businesses."

          Not necessarily. It's certainly not an iron law we can rely on to say that all of these ideas you have are "good for the economy" because that's just more leftist BS.

          Certainly conservation includes conserving common resources for the common good. It's all of these redefined terms, done to deceive, that lead to the problems we have with leftists and their destructive agenda.

          "So it ain't a simple left/right thing."

          Lying is a leftist thing.

          • Jim_C

            "What BS. What total absurd BS. What lies. Poor poor nations that are given only a little of the money we stole from them. Because we went around stealing gold and oil and money trees and money machines from the poor non-whites. We never helped them like we should. "

            Hey, uh, ofm? I didn't say OTHER nations, I said OUR nation. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

            "Nobody said that every ideal the Democrats present is inverted."

            Sure they did. They do every day on this site. And every "liberal" or "progressive" or whatever you want to call it from which you benefit every day was fought by guys like you who couldn't care less about the society they benefit from–they just want to extract their own profit. Once they, like you, saw that "Gee, it's nice I don't have to worry about my food being poisoned" they said "Oh well sure SOME of these things are OK…"

            Situational ethics and generally being unprincipled just happens to be what you're all about.

            "Not necessarily. It's certainly not an iron law we can rely on to say that all of these ideas you have are "good for the economy" because that's just more leftist BS."

            So clean air and water, functioning roads, conserved parkland–these things are "not necessarily" good for the economy?

            Whatever.

            "Lying is a leftist thing."

            Then why do you do it so frequently?

          • reader

            "Sure they did. They do every day on this site. And every "liberal" or "progressive" or whatever you want to call it from which you benefit every day was fought by guys like you who couldn't care less about the society they benefit from–they just want to extract their own profit. Once they, like you, saw that "Gee, it's nice I don't have to worry about my food being poisoned" they said "Oh well sure SOME of these things are OK…"

            This is the kind of nonsense our children being spoonfed in K-12 schools everyday. "Analysis" barely reaching the level of a soap opera content. No wonder that we have professors using "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" type "factors" to evaluate economic trend. I guess, the marxists in the media have learnt the lesson since Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed
            Nowadays they would not broadcast it unedited.

          • Jim_C

            For the last time, what, specifically, is nonsense about it?

          • reader

            Watch the video. Let me know how many times did it take to sink in. And if it did not sink in after ten times, stop posting here. Go to huffington. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed

          • Jim_C

            I agree with Friedman, here. It sounds like you want to attribute to me beliefs I don't have.

          • reader

            How can you agree with Friedman, when you claim that "liberals" fight the profit makers for all the good thing in society – "liberals" meaning "statists," of course? This exactly the sentiment expressed here by a "liberal" Donahue, which Friedman is countering. What are you on, Jim? Come on, clear the pitch here.

          • Jim_C

            Saying "liberals fight the profit makers" is gross oversimplification. No one fought Gates and Jobs (two liberals, btw, responsible for much profit, commerce, and advancement in this country). Yes, people fought for things like removing lead from gasoline, safety standards in mines, or to prevent chemical dumping into bodies of water. That's bad?

            I think there are many things that concern public safety which we need some enforcement for. It needn't be a federal agency, but it needs to be something.

            I also think there are some things we need to look at as necessary investments in our future, for ex. infrastructure and education. DO these things need to be compnents of federal spending? No. I've said time and again I don't think we need a department of ed. as well as I don't think teacher's unions always have the best interests of the kids in mind. I think conservatives, like Friedman, have some good ideas when it comes to reforming education.

            I don't know that anyone thinks there aren't too many regulations already, but do you want to be the one whose kid dies from some poison product before we decide to make a regulation about it?

          • reader

            Jim, you may have missed Friedman's video, where he says that, in order to prevent "kids from being poisoned," all that the government needs to do is provide for the court system, thank you very much. EPA adds absolutely nothing of value in this regard. You don't seem or want to understand that the statists in government use Orwellian language to justify the expansion of the Federal bureaucracy. Why would they tell you that they want to impose state monopoly and control over entire industries, when all they need to fool you is to talk about clean air and water?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Jim, you may have missed Friedman's video, where he says that, in order to prevent "kids from being poisoned," all that the government needs to do is provide for the court system, thank you very much."

            They used to teach this in high school. Communists hate that because it works within the system successfully and perpetuates justice AND capitalism and they want revolution for the sake of Utopia.

          • Jim_C

            Friedman also says that capitalism is necessary for freedom, but not sufficient for it, right?

            My concern, and one I wish more conservatives joined with, is that Washington's power seems to go hand in hand with large and powerful private interests. And it has turned our election process into a dog and pony show no less pathetic than any other country's. Mind you, I am not imputing "evil" to these interests–merely natural self-interest. And this power tends to make some people more equal than others in the marketplace. Whether we are talking about the housing market collapse, in which government "good intentions" led to exploitative private lending, or the bailout of Wall Street, where deregulation led to the creation of essentially phantasmic instruments that precipitated a meltdown which taxpayers bailed out, or even certain aspects of the defense and energy industries colluding to plan the Iraq War before Sept. 11 even happened. Basically you have government being used to push agendas that have been harmful to the everyday citizen.

            Friedman is a wonderful intellectual, but as the popularizer of free markets, he tended to look past the sins of bad actors in the private sector in order to indict government statist meddling. But the two go hand in hand.

          • reader

            Jim, you keep hanging on to mindless statist talking points. "Deregulation" is in and of itself an oxymoron. Bad debt is something actuaries can deal with without any regulations. It's pure math. It's the regulations – particularly the Housing and Community Development and Affordable Housing acts (all Orwellian terms, as usual) – that caused the housing bubble and bust. It's REGULATION, or government interference with markets that perpetuates rampant lobbying and crony capitalism. That's exactly why the Founding Fathers designed the system of Negative Rights curbing the reach of the government. That's how you protect small business moms and paps from the GEs of the world, not the other way around, Jim. Wake up and smell the coffee, if you really mean it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Saying "liberals fight the profit makers" is gross oversimplification. No one fought Gates and Jobs…"

            OMG. Really?

            "Yes, people fought for things like removing lead from gasoline, safety standards in mines, or to prevent chemical dumping into bodies of water. That's bad?"

            You are conflating conservatives with anarchists. How can you possibly be so confused? You were indoctrinated to think that way.

            It's funny but sad and sick because you're not alone. You represent the majority of voters.

          • Jim_C

            Anarchists? These were fought by the industries affected. The objections to removing lead from gasoline were full of lines about job loss and economic collapse. Yet those industries remain healthy, as does the populace–which was the point. Indoctrination? No–objective facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Anarchists? These were fought by the industries affected. "

            We are not anarchists. We don't mindlessly oppose everything supported by those on the left.

            "The objections to removing lead from gasoline were full of lines about job loss and economic collapse. Yet those industries remain healthy, as does the populace–which was the point. Indoctrination? No–objective facts."

            You're simplifying to show your point that some times regulations are a positive thing. I already stipulated to that. It's therefore yet another straw man argument. Those in opposition had valid points to make but on balance we can say that it is acceptable to have laws against lead in gasoline. It doesn't mean that every leftist delusion must be acted upon.

            And the price of gas isn't exactly something people point to today that is a positive thing for the economy. Is it worth removing lead, probably, but it's not the slam dunk case you think it is just because of how it played out.

            And I repeat that I am not against ALL regulations. There must be objective standards for decisions. Notice that when laws fail the first reaction is to create new laws without repealing the failed laws that are cited as justifications. Why is that?

            Because the objectives are all about growing the government to create more centralized control. There are people who believe that we need elites to run the government. You might be able to trace it back to Nietzsche or Marx but it's definitely post-Darwin fallacies and philosophers that make people believe in the "common sense" of things that are entirely subjective.

            The logic you present is distorted by such thinking. It's a common disease today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I think there are many things that concern public safety which we need some enforcement for. It needn't be a federal agency, but it needs to be something."

            We're not anarchists Jim. We want to "conserve" checks and balances at every level of government. We don't want the fed to do it fi it can be done better locally or by private enterprise.

            If you make the case that something certainly needs to be done and can define that need and it's realistic goals objectively, and there are remedies for the case of failure, then you probably have the support of virtually every conservative…AFTER you make your case.

            Simply saying that since there are some times real needs for the federal government to do something that we should have no problem with the modern leftist agenda is tyrannical simplicity.

            You are functionally just as tyrannical as any of the worst leftists, if I am to judge you by what you write here.

          • Jim_C

            We have a few paragraphs to make our points. It is a shorthand that tends to emphasize our differences. It takes two to tango; I think I have made plain on many occasions my points of agreement with conservatives. I have drawn you out to almost admit there may be policies beneficial to public safety, but your default position, if I am to judge you by what you write here, is government = bad. And since you mentioned it, that's not too far from an anarchist's stance–but then neither is conservative rhetoric–whatever your actual views. You see, it works both ways.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We have a few paragraphs to make our points. It is a shorthand that tends to emphasize our differences."

            That's a good point. That's why it's crucial to focus on saliency.

            "It takes two to tango; I think I have made plain on many occasions my points of agreement with conservatives."

            Yes, but equally clear is when you are confused about topics you disagree on.

            "I have drawn you out to almost admit there may be policies beneficial to public safety, but your default position, if I am to judge you by what you write here, is government = bad."

            That's tyranny through denial of complexity. I never said that. If you want a succinct summary, it's government for the sake of more government is always bad. I made it clear I am not an anarchist. Didn't that tell you something? Who enforces constitutional law? How can a conservative be anti-government? It makes no sense. It's clear you're not actually comprehending what we say but you've been lead to believe some silly ideas from your own partisan echo chamber.

            Don't you even know what it means to be conservative or "on the right?" Those are the ones who generally want to preserve the status quo or slow down revolutionaries. That's not anti-government at all. That's anti-radicalism.

            Today, the Democratic Party is so full of radicals that it makes them seem mainstream. Being radical practically is mainstream but that doesn't make me anti-government.

            That's such a gross oversimplification that I wonder if you understand a single point I've ever made. I think not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I don't know that anyone thinks there aren't too many regulations already, but do you want to be the one whose kid dies from some poison product before we decide to make a regulation about it?"

            That's why objective facts matter Jim. We want them to make their case objectively before sending out the tax bill and seizing more power. That's not how they operate. That is the point.

            They're liars and you still have to prove that I am a liar. Don't forget your baseless statement on that little matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I agree with Friedman, here. It sounds like you want to attribute to me beliefs I don't have."

            You seem to not understand the real world implications of the various ideologies.

          • Jim_C

            BTW that's a great set of interviews, never saw those before.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Hey, uh, ofm? I didn't say OTHER nations, I said OUR nation. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. "

            Yes that is true that you didn't say "other nations" but his rhetoric is most often comprised of this anti-colonial rhetoric. But it does *mirror perfectly* his ideology and what he says about "the rich paying their fair share." I thought you would recognize that. I assume too much about your ability to follow the discussions. You're just a quieter version of EarlyBird I see.

            >"Nobody said that every ideal the Democrats present is inverted."

            "Sure they did. They do every day on this site."

            You're not able to follow nuanced conversations. Here is an ideal: Every man should have what he needs. That's OK. The perversion comes from their policy suggestions. Rather than expand opportunities and true education, they expand entitlements through class warfare, expand indoctrination and oppress true education movements and so forth. What people are saying is that results and effect are tyrannical even though superficially their ideals are couched in moral terms that seem consistent with goodness.

            That means some people who go along are duped. Those dupes are the people that mean well. They might truly be motivated by "clean water" and "safe drugs." We have those things in abundance by the way. It is leftist policies that threaten those things. They threaten research and our government's ability to function by killing the proverbial golden goose; the people who pay most of the taxes in the middle class.

            "And every "liberal" or "progressive" or whatever you want to call it from which you benefit every day was fought by guys like you"

            Ahhh..fight me with rhetoric about historical conservative movements. If that's all you have, you don't understand that "progress" requires more than delusional wishful thinking. Guys like me simply want policies to reflect reality and not lies and deceptions.

            "who couldn't care less about the society they benefit from–they just want to extract their own profit."

            That's funny because I've been doing volunteer work without compensation since 2005. I help people build businesses in developing nations. I have not made a single penny doing so, but eventually I probably will. I'm just not that worried about myself because I personally don't need it at this point. And this is a decision I made for myself. I don't need the government stealing money in the name of equality and keeping 99.9% of it and giving the rest to corrupt tyrants in the name of "social justice."

            "Once they, like you, saw that "Gee, it's nice I don't have to worry about my food being poisoned" they said "Oh well sure SOME of these things are OK…""

            You're assuming I rejected all progressive ideas from birth. This is totally false. Live in the present Jim.

            "Situational ethics and generally being unprincipled just happens to be what you're all about. "

            In your mind Jim. See, whenever tyrants want to push their unrealistic ideals they talk about the opposition as those without objective morals. That way they can avoid the argument in the mind of anyone who assume there is a chance to acheive perfection. "Situational ethics" implies that the source of morality changes according to the situation. Making moral choices based on reality does not mean you've rejected the objective source for morality. If you weigh the options and measure against that objective source, you're not engaging in the classic definition of "situational ethics" you're simply making moral choices.

            "So clean air and water, functioning roads, conserved parkland–these things are "not necessarily" good for the economy?"

            No they are not. Because you have not defined an objective standard. As you put it, we can dump infinite resources in to ever cleaner water, ever more functional roads and so forth. There are finite limits. Now as it happens I would say the exact same thing even if I was worried about all of our roads, drinking water and parks. The reason is that once you give power to the government to regulate something without finite limits. that is a recipe for tyranny. Witness Affirmative Action programs which now use the statistics of their failure to justify punishing future generations. These programs become self-justifying.

            This I hope articulates the distinctions between ideals and actions, and why I might want the same things that some of the idealists want and yet I have no confidence in their ability to actually deliver without failure or without taking over and creating far worse problems.

          • Jim_C

            In that you have shown me there is a person behind the rhetoric and you have in parts discussed something concrete, it is helpful. Being someone who wants policy to reflect reality is not a characteristic unique to conservatives. The rhetorical tricks you attribute to liberals work just as well the other way around.

            Situational ethics are in play, and obvious to anyone who looks, when the objections raised against an opponent in power are not the same raised when their own party is in power. It is a game we could play all day–like charges of hypocrisy.

            You have gone to the trouble to respond to my posts in detail, and I should note that I appreciate that. I would say that if I had the idea that you "might want the same things idealists want," it would be refreshing to understand just that, and to hear your solutions for achieving those results, rather than the endless critique of modern liberalism. That was the point of my original post (somewhere above or below) in the first place.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In that you have shown me there is a person behind the rhetoric and you have in parts discussed something concrete, it is helpful. Being someone who wants policy to reflect reality is not a characteristic unique to conservatives."

            Of course everyone thinks their views are realistic. That's why OBJECTIVE FACTS matter most. That's why I often include "and their dupes" in my statements to show that I realize most people are just going along with what they sincerely believe to be correct. I know that. It only takes a few tyrants to lead people in the direction that threatens freedoms of many people.

            "Situational ethics are in play, and obvious to anyone who looks, when the objections raised against an opponent in power are not the same raised when their own party is in power. It is a game we could play all day–like charges of hypocrisy."

            OK, it can seem that way if the conversation is not complete and the fact is that it is that way some times. But that's why we need to remember that objective facts matter more than opinions. Have the patience to finish conversations. Challenge people on questions before you assume you have the answer, especially when this person takes time to write comprehensive statements. Maybe not everyone can justify their positions but that doesn't mean someone else can't.

            It's often complex and if anyone is too impatient to hear the fully articulated views of their opposition then their default position is going to be the one they already formed on their own accord.

            "You have gone to the trouble to respond to my posts in detail, and I should note that I appreciate that."

            I'll respond to anyone I see that might be listening.

            "I would say that if I had the idea that you "might want the same things idealists want," it would be refreshing to understand just that, and to hear your solutions for achieving those results, rather than the endless critique of modern liberalism."

            It only feels that way based on how you interact. If you take the time to respectfully challenge what you hear, you might get a more comprehensive response that makes more sense.

            I'm some times sarcastic, that's true. The thing is that I've spent a lot of time discussing leftist views, hearing their very best and brightest explain these views to me. That is not to say I know everything, but there are plenty of arguments I can make a lot more effectively than those who try to sell them here. I have to choose when I can spend my time listening to something I've already heard in greater detail, many times over.

            When I hear something I'm unfamiliar with, I'm all ears. But hearing tired old arguments when I'm 99% certain I know exactly where they are going…one has to pick his battles given the reality that time is limited.

            So I'm not critical of anyone that uses sarcasm per se, but using sarcasm when there's a chance you're wrong…it wastes everyone's time.

            Those are judgment calls and suggestions.

            You questioned what to do about some of these issues. A lot of these issues are addressed better by volunteers. The problem that leftists have with volunteerism is that it destroys their central planning. They can't ensure that everyone gets their fair share of help if volunteers get to decide what to do. Leftists hate the free market because of various reasons, but all of those reasons deny the realities of human life and what motivates us to do anything. Humans are not fungible. That's what Marx screwed up worst of all. And the fallacies that flow from that critical error still pollute leftist ideals to this day.

          • Jim_C

            Incidentally, I couldn't agree more about the tendency for government agencies to become self-perpetuating and self-justifying. They are not sacred cows to me. They may be to some but not to me.

            Remember I'm the guy here saying "Let's figure out the best way to make sure the kids of this country receive an education that makes them informed and productive citizens, even if it means abolishing the Dept. of Ed. and breaking teacher's unions." I think it's an issue conservatives could really get out in front of.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Incidentally, I couldn't agree more about the tendency for government agencies to become self-perpetuating and self-justifying. They are not sacred cows to me. They may be to some but not to me."

            The question then becomes, which do we need and why. Knowing that conservatives are of exactly the same mindset would then help you realize that we just need to calmly discuss the most relevant facts to see which agencies and laws deserve our support.

            I think if you studied Marx and other philosophers of his era you might recognize a lot of the false ideas that people seem to blindly accept, and why these ideas lead to big government.

            It all springs originally from the ideas about evolution. People want to manage what they consider evolution. Evolution in technology happens mostly in a free market where people have the most incentives to create valuable things and ideas. Central planning simply reduces the number of people with incentives to create those solutions, and those in power have to spend a lot of their resources remaining in power rather than coming up with solutions superior to what a free market would develop organically.

            That is not a call for throwing out regulations. That's a call for throwing out tyrants. Tyrants use fear to gain power. They often half-believe the nonsense they come up with. Look at Al Gore. He finds a few facts that scare him, invents the rest and calls it "An Inconvenient Truth."

            Anyway, my suggestion to you is that you slow down and ask questions first before determining that conservative positions are irrational. It seems like some times you are judging conservative positions based on leftist delusional simplifications of those positions rather than the fully articulated justifications.

            And as you said before, some times people use shorthand summaries to emphasize distinctions, and that combined with biases leads to an argument that is not persuasive. But that doesn't mean there isn't a valid point that could or even should be made.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"Lying is a leftist thing."

            "Then why do you do it so frequently?"

            Calling your bluff again Jim. One of us is a liar. Show your evidence that I lie, or that makes you a liar ipso facto.

          • Jim_C

            You lie about liberal motives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You lie about liberal motives."

            I'd be more worried if you actually had an example.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So clean air and water, functioning roads, conserved parkland–these things are "not necessarily" good for the economy?"

            Money raised to perform these tasks is taken away from someone..correct? I joke about money trees because we don't actually have any. Taxes mean that taxpayers have less to invest in their own plans.

            Now some times that money is more productive for the economy in the hands of the taxpayers than it is in the hands of the government. And that is true even when there is a need for "cleaner" water. Now add the fact that some of these programs are not even necessary because (in your clean water analogy) the government is cleaning water already pristine or worse they make it less suitable by adding say, fluoride.
            <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=flouride+in+water&aq=f&oq=flouride+in+water&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.11294j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&quot; target="_blank"&gt <a href="http://;https://www.google.com/search?q=flouride+in+water…” target=”_blank”>;https://www.google.com/search?q=flouride+in+water

            That's just one example even if you want the fluoride. People are forced to consume flouride by our government and forced to pay for it, and then forced to buy filters if they need to remove it.

            Not every program is consistent with my example but the point is that when you don't mind using deception to get your way, lots of disasters like that will keep happening because you lock the taxpayer out of the debate until it's too late. Or maybe they never even learn the true facts.

            But for you all that matters is that leftists want clean water and more tax money to hire more people to clean it.

            Never mind that some people paying those taxes would have used it to create or expand private enterprise creating jobs that add more value to our lives than the government can manage in the best case scenario…which to spell it out for you means it only gets worse from there.

            Everything I've said here is backed by principals that used to be taught in high school in America.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The Left believes in Collective Freedom and Collective Wealth. While the Right believes in Individual Freedoms and Wealth. Marx's ideas were Liberating, for the Government. This is why the Left Champions higher taxes, make the State wealthy, not the people."

        Not every leftists understands communist ideals or where their ideas go. They make the same stupid assumptions about productivity and wealth, that's for sure. That's why their delusions are destructive. They don't understand how things get done in reality. Someone has to run those "money machines," plant and water "money trees" and so forth.

        Sadly I think today's leftists imagine we don't even need money trees any more. We just need to transfer money in to their accounts online, like those fantasy games. They think why can't the government just do more of that?

    • whatever

      Amusing handle – you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the @ss

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Amusing handle – you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the @ss"

        Facts with teeth. Oh, THOSE facts. OK., whatever.

  • Chezwick

    "They aim to achieve this by designing a complex cage of rules that will not only direct our behavior, but ultimately remake us into a people under their thumb — fearful, docile, dependent on governmental directive, but progressive."

    Sounds like your average European.

    • Looking4Sanity

      Sounds like your average American if you ask me. There is not one aspect, jot or tittle of American life that is not regulated by the federal government…including religion.

      • onepornqueen
      • Looking4Sanity

        To that, I can only add…pick any room in your home and identify ONE item NOT federally regulated. It can't be done. Try it, though, as a "fun" experiment!

    • Jim_C

      Here's the challenge for conservatives, then:

      Conservatives have one overarching issue: is society sustainable when so many depend on government for survival (mostly via Social Security and Medicare)? How do we adapt policy to address the needs of these people who currently depend on these things without necessarily subjecting them to the vagaries of the market (iow will a poor economy mean they lose access to food, shelter, medicine)? Because make no mistake we're talking about the elderly and infirm to a large extent, here.

      Then you look at what we pay for our freedom: I use the example of obesity–we're free to be fat. I agree Bloomberg is essentially doing Nanny State stuff with soft drinks. But obesity stats are shocking–epidemic–and mean huge costs down the line to the extent that it presents a national security issue. It's something our leaders, gov't and private sector, WILL have to deal with. How do you do that responsibly without being "liberal?"

      Can conservatives address these things without being insulting and without "I got mine, Jack" attitude? Can you instill belief that your way is not just better but more secure? Or do you really adhere to social Darwinism?

      Because if it's the latter, social order will likely collapse–and that collapse will necessitate strong action, and that action will mean a real–not just metaphorical-cause-it-sounds-cool–tyrannical State.

      • reader

        Yeah, society is going to collapse if we're going to allow people to eat big macs. So, let's raise taxes, create more unemployed, give them food stamps and let them buy booz with it. "cause people are too stupid to play with money without genius Jim looking over their shoulder.

        • Jim_C

          You can't deal with the issue. It's just too hard for you to even address.

          • Looking4Sanity

            It ain't too "hard" for me to address.

            Here's the problem with your argument. You lay the governmental dependency of society at conservatives feet. We, clearly, have never advocated such. Based on that, your entire premise falls apart like a paper tiger in the rain.

          • Jim_C

            I am not laying governmental dependency at your feet, and as you see above, I have said that governmental dependency is a legitimate problem. My original question was, how do you adapt policy conservatively without essentially putting the "social fabric" (for lack of a better term) at risk? To me that's the challenge of getting the conservative message across.

          • Looking4Sanity

            The short answer, Jim, is that you can't. Given the dependency class that the liberals have created, millions of lives are going to be up-ended regardless of how carefully or compassionately any conservative austerity measures are crafted / implemented. There IS no way out of this mess without pain…and that's the GOOD news! The bad news is that because of this fact, nothing is going to get done at all. There is no will in the Democrats for it and no guts in the GOP for it. We'll keep kicking that can until it explodes in our faces…and it isn't going to be much longer from everything I'm observing. Ronald Reagan isn't around to pick us up and dust us off and put us back on the path any more.I'm sorry if I came off a little aggressive at first. That's my “go to” response when I feel challenged. That, and it causes me pain to see the country of my birth destroying itself unnecessarily.

          • Jim_C

            No problem, thanks for the response.

            Like you I think we're heading for a date with reality that we've been putting off for almost two generations, now, and it is going to hurt. And it's a date we're going to have whether an R or a D runs the ship. I have said on this site many times, the R's have a major, legit point about the sustainability of the path we're on as far as government spending.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You can't deal with the issue. It's just too hard for you to even address."

            Your sense of priorities is distorted by fear-mongering leftists. You ought to fear them rather than their enemies.

    • HouTexan

      People I know who deal routinely with Europeans tell me they think *we're* they ones who've gone nuts!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "People I know who deal routinely with Europeans tell me they think *we're* they ones who've gone nuts!"

        Well yeah. Where do they get their information from generally? The mainstream media.

  • geneww1938

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y is one candidate video every person must watch. It clearly explains why nobody teaches ' True Islamic History'.
    Life is too short and eternity too long to be wrong about God, His Bible, Jesus or salvation. If you are not 100% positive about your eternal home, better find a Bible teaching church.

    • Rob

      Bill Warner is the best. Great video. Thanks!

  • Western Spirit

    The right is responsible for Abu Ghraib?!! What are you smoking? Some irresponsible idiots staged the spectacle of Abu Ghraib.

    Since deplorable behavior was involved the perpetrators were probably from the Left because that's usually where deplorable behavior originates.

    This is because "liberals" have no standards, ignore all rules, and anything goes because you see, they are too "liberal" to impose standards and rules on themselves. And when individuals have no standards, rules along with anything goes the state, like parents used to do, has to set the standard, rules and limit them. Its natural, nature abhors a vacuum and chaos requires order.

    So hence the totalitarian impulse always follows "liberals" where ever they go with restrictions people wouldn't impose on themselves. So the state imposes restrictions with other peoples ideas leading the way in the restrictions.

    Freedom and self determination with self limitations go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.

  • Omar

    I have a better idea. Why don't we write an essay about how the left has managed to turn the conservative movement and Republicans against each other on a number of issues. One of those important issues is on the political status of Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. territory located in the Caribbean. For almost 40 years, the left-wing Popular Democratic Party (which supports the current territorial status for the island) has been trying to divide the conservative movement and the Republican Party politicians against each other when pertaining to the issue of making Puerto Rico the 51st state of our great country. The PDP has somehow managed to get support from many conservative and Republican politicians and pundits into opposing statehood and supporting the current status for Puerto Rico by using lies and false propaganda against statehood and its supporters, who unlike the PDP, truly believe in the American Dream. The PDP has been able to block PR's road to statehood by trying to lobby conservatives into opposing the statehood cause despite the fact that there are no Republicans and conservatives in the PDP (the PDP consists mainly of Democratic Party-affiliated island politicians). Meanwhile, the New Progressive Party (the main local pro-statehood party in Puerto Rico) has politicians affiliated with both major mainland parties (Republicans and Democrats, as well as independents and other non-affiliates). In fact, at least 75% of the NPP politicians are affiliated with the Republican Party. Even many Democrats (pro-statehood Democrats consist about 20% of the NPP's membership) in the NPP are more conservative on social issues than other Democrats (and more conservative overall than PDP Democrats). In fact, Puerto Rico's population as a whole, is actually quite conservative on social issues. For example, the island's population is largely pro-life on the issue of abortion. Historically, it was the Republican Party that has expressed support for statehood for Puerto Rico. The founder of Puerto Rico's statehood movement, Jose Celso Barbosa, was a national Republican (he founded the island's Republican Party in 1899, at the end of the 19th century) Past Republican President like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes have expressed support for statehood for Puerto Rico. And yet, it seems that there are Republican politicians and conservative politicians who are supporting the Popular Democratic Party's (the natural ideological opponents of conservatives) stance on Puerto Rico's political status, rather than supporting statehood for the island like the New Progressive Party (the natural ideological allies of conservatives). This would be like if the United States supports Argentina (which is run by a government who opposes the free-market and wishes to limit America's interests in the Western Hemisphere) over the United Kingdom (America's best and closest ally in the world- i.e. the "Special Relationship") on the issue of the Falkland Islands sovereignty, or if the United States supports Syria (a puppet state of both Russia and Iran) over Israel (our strongest ally in the Middle East) on the issue of the Golan Heights sovereignty. Since that is generally not the case with either issue (as well as many other issues), then there is also no reason for conservative pundits and Republican politicians to support the current status for Puerto Rico and oppose admitting the island as a state.
    To be continued below.

  • Omar

    One of the Popular Democratic Party's favorite tactics used to convince conservative pundits and Republican politicians in the U.S. mainland into opposing statehood for Puerto Rico is by using the erroneous claim that admitting PR as a state would automatically create an overwhelmingly Democratic state, since they claim that Puerto Ricans are "overwhelmingly Democrats". They are jumping to conclusions. For the record, Puerto Ricans are not overwhelmingly Democrats, as the PDP and some of their mainland supporters erroneously claim. While it is true that Puerto Ricans living in the New York City metro area (they are called "Nuyoricans") generally vote for Democrats, Puerto Ricans living in Florida (the state with the second largest Puerto Rican population outside Puerto Rico), as well as in other states,are up for grabs (they are swing votes). Ideologically, there is a huge difference between Puerto Ricans who migrated to the mainland in the mid-twentieth century and those who migrated in more recent years. Those who migrated from Puerto Rico to the mainland in the mid-20th century migrated to New York City and are predominantly Democrats, while those who remained in the island of Puerto Rico through the late-20th and the early-21st centuries migrated to Florida and other parts of the country (the migration is still ongoing, as there are now more Puerto Ricans living in the mainland [almost 5 million] than in the island of Puerto Rico itself [around 3.7 million]) and are generally up for grabs as swing votes between Democrats and Republicans. For example, Puerto Rican voters living in the Central Florida region supported Jeb Bush's re-election as Florida's governor in 2002 and also supported George W. Bush's elections for the presidency. There is also a Republican member of Puerto Rican origin, Raul Labrador, representing a district in Idaho in the House of Representatives. This past election cycle, a conservative Reaganite Republican of Puerto Rican origin, Hector Concepcion, challenged the Rep. Luis Gutierrez (who has an ironic double standard regarding immigrant rights and the political status of Puerto Rico) for the Illinois district seat in the House of Representatives. And in that same election cycle in Florida, a former U.S. Air Force officer of Puerto Rican origin, E.J. Otero, ran for a district seat in the House of Representatives. So there are a sizeable number of Republican politicians of Puerto Rican origin in the mainland United States. During the administration of Gov. Luis Fortuno (whose re-election bid was stolen from him by Alejandro Garcia Padilla and his PDP cronies) in Puerto Rico, the governor was a Republican, the heads of both chambers of the island's legislature were Republicans, and most of the New Progressive Party (the statehood party in PR) mayors, including the mayor of the capital city (San Juan), were Republicans. The mayor of Aguadilla (a city in the northwestern part of Puerto Rico), Carlos Mendez, is an important member in the island's division of the Republican Party. Those facts right there disprove the Popular Democratic Party's (and their supporters') claims of an automatic Democratic Party supermajority in Puerto Rico when it becomes a state in the nearby future. For more information on Puerto Rico and the statehood issue, check out the Solid Principles podcast link here: http://www.solidprinciples.com/index.php/podcast/
    The Solid Principles episode is from 2010, but it gives plenty of information and debate on Puerto Rico and its political status.
    This past November, Puerto Rico held a plebiscite on the political status. The plebiscite had two questions. The first question asked voters if the island should continue its current status. about 54% of the 1.8 million voters who answered said that they did not want the current status to continue, while 46% said they did want it to continue. Regardless of how voters answered the first question, the second question asked voters to chosse from among the three non-territorial options: statehood, independence and free association (a form of independence that provides a special treaty between two countries. The U.S. has those forms of treaties with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau). Of the 1.4 million voters who picked an option, 61% voted for statehood, 33% for free association and 5.5% for independence. It is interesting to note that the 834,000+ votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 828,000 votes for the current status on the first question. For the first time ever, more people in Puerto Rico want the island to become a state of the Union than to remain as a territory. Yet, there are supporters of the current status who argue that the plebiscite results are fake. They erroneously argue that because close to 500,000 voters left the second question blank, statehood did not prevail in the plebiscite. But truth beats fiction any day. In any election or referendum, questions left blank do not count as votes at all. Not voting is simply an empty act. It is time that conservative pundits and Republican politicians to stop giving the Popular Democratic Party support and credibility. It is time for conservatives to support the New Progressive Party (our real allies in Puerto Rico) and support statehood for Puerto Rico. Admitting Puerto Rico as a state would strengthen the Union politically, economically and socially.

  • Edward Cline

    Here's a candidate for the essay contest: Sarah Conly: Totalitarian-by-Proxy, at
    http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/04/sarah-co

  • Jode

    I believe there is a coummunist in all of us; a monster who wants 'something for nothing.' Many of us realize this is an enemy that sucks out the joy of liberty, working and achievng in this life. We ignore it when this siren rises its ugly head. Some fall to it's lies, especially politicians that are so good at $pending other peoples money. As for me, I live in the "Live Free or Die" state and am glad I understand that the 'something for nothing' progressive promises come at a big price, my freedom.

  • marios

    Socialism failed everywhere but Dem's/neo-commies instill on us that horror. Dem's elite is more rich than Rep's but they use old tactic of class war. They corrupted common, gullible people bribing them they welfare using our taxpayers money. For Obama and Co enemies are not Islamo-fascists but Rep's and Fox news. We already live in totalitarian regime country as MSM is Dem's party servant. Free speech is only for those who share the same ideology as leftists in the WH and their accomplices.
    If Obama and Co disarm us, law-abiding citizen it will be end of great country and birth of Soviet Union of United states of America.

  • trickyblain

    I've noticed that you tend to insult without really pointing out where the poster you're insulting went wrong.

    Jim's description of the the debate between Federalism and anti-Federalism is historically accurate. How does it contradict anything Locke wrote? Are you under an impression that Locke was an individualist? How'd you arrive at this conclusion? And why put Edmund Burke in the same sentence (the founders' views were solidified before he could have any input)? Are you aware that the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison et. al.) were the "big gov't" party while the Anti-federalists (Jefferson, George Clinton et. al.were the "small gov't" proponents? Are you aware that the Federalists won?

    Can you write an intelligent, informed statement that actually addresses points you disagree with, instead of hurling out 3rd grade level insults, then claiming some sort of superiority?

    • reader

      What you wrote here is a third grade level interpretation of the Federalists vs anti-Federalists discussion, thank you very much. To refer essentially marxist policies of present day Democratic Party to Hamilton and Madison is ridiculous beyond belief.

      • trickyblain

        Can you point to where I mentioned the modern Democratic Party?

        • reader

          Oh. And how else do you interprete the word "liberal" at the core of this thread? Really? Are you not a supporter of this president? Is he not a marxist?

          • trickyblain

            You're jumping around a bit here. You claimed that I mentioned the modern Democratic party when I was talking about the debate in the 1780's, and now you're talking about "liberals." But I define "liberal" the way it's been historically defined: "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." The founders certainly fit that description, did they not?

            As an American, I've supported every sitting president in my lifetime, including President Obama. Yes, I voted for him as well.

            Is he a Marxist? Not based on any policy positions I've seen. "Marxist" seems to have turned into a catch all for "anything I disagree with." Environmental policy is "Marxist." A 2% tax increase is "Marxist." While I agree that a ban on large sodas is certainly stupid, it's not "Marxist."

            Marxism is what it is: beliefs directly centered in the works of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. Can you point to any Obama policy position that comes directly from Das Capitol or Communist Manifesto? That start would help support calling our president a "Marxist."

          • reader

            I'm just trying to keep up with your alinskyite bull crap. Don't tell me that when the word "liberal" was envoked here that the context did not imply any linkage to the present day Democrat Party's line. Now your president is a marxist. Your environmental policy is a sham that has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with legislating by decree via EPA – in a blatantly unconstitutional way. So is the soda ban – it has nothing to do with the health concerns and everything to do with the power grab. Communist Manifesto is all about the advanced elite that will lead the Proletareat to crush everybody who stands in its way. Obama is certainly no Stalin, but he is a marxist nontheless. He is an alinskyite marxist.

          • trickyblain

            If you're talking gov't power grabs, those have been going on since the very beginnings of civilization. Many thousands of years before Marx. Was Rome Marxist? Ancient Egypt? The Yuan Dynasty?

            You seem unable or unwilling to tie any policy to real Marxism. And — oh boy — now bringing out the "Alinskyite" references.

          • reader

            Marx is the post-enlightenment statist (to put it mildly), coming particularly after Adam Smith – that's the distinction. But let me ask you: do you think of him in any negative way? Be honest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Be honest."

            He's not trying to be honest. He's trying to be "tricky."

            Just like Alinsky advised all of his disciples like 0'Bama.

          • trickyblain

            Are you serious?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Are you serious?"

            About what?

            1) He's not trying to be honest.

            2) He's trying to be "tricky."

            3) Just like Alinsky advised all of his disciples like 0'Bama.

            It's not that serious, but it's true. Are you going to tell me that "trickyblain" is not trying to be tricky or deceptive?

          • trickyblain

            Good question!

            I don't really hold any "negativity" against Marx. He never personally put someone's brains out. An idealist, but also an absolutist.

            That's never good. But not like most folks who read FPM can talk.

            His economic ideals were impossible. His suggestions defied natural law and human nature. Simply put, if it's too good to be true….

            Adam Smith? My kind of man.

          • reader

            You're either confused or disingenuous. One can't hold favorable views about Marx and Smith at the same time. The fundamental difference is that Smith acknowledged Natural Law, from which stem the inevitable laws of economics. Marx rejected Natural Law. He hated people and he wanted to mold them into his scheme, realizing full well that it will take tremendous bloodshed to accomplish. This screams from the pages of the Manifesto, which is the piece of hate no less than Mein Kampf or Koran are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "His economic ideals were impossible. His suggestions defied natural law and human nature. "

            That's the entire point. It's not about him personally at all. Not only were his ideas too good to be true but the naivete should be obvious to anyone. Yet he's influenced modern politics more than any other single philosopher albeit not directly.

            We're generally not talking about philosophers influencing other philosophers and that's fine if you want to openly take the discussion that way.

            Don't be stupid and tell people that 0'Bama is not a real Marxist because Marx was the only real Marxist if you want to have an objective standard.

            0'Bama is a Marxist because today he believes in at least some of the impossible ideals Marx published and is known for. That is all anyone has been saying the whole time.

          • trickyblain

            "0'Bama is a Marxist because today he believes in at least some of the impossible ideals Marx published and is known for."

            Like what? I guess all I've been asking for are some concrete examples, not just "he's a Marxist because people on hate sites call him so."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Like what? I guess all I've been asking for are some concrete examples"

            His first big effort was 0'Bamacare. That's Marxist to the max. If you want to call it evolutionary Marxism I'm OK with that because it's totally consistent with what Marx predicted in a strategic sense.

            Stimulus spending, quotas on bank loans according to "class victims," gay rights puts the state closer to being completely in control of every birth, subverting natural parent rights… relentless attacks on "rich people."

            "…not just "he's a Marxist because people on hate sites call him so."

            I don't know what hate sites you refer to because I barely have time for FPM.

            And next time you have an explicit question, try to articulate it explicitly. Speaking for myself I assume you read the articles when you comment on them.

            And by the way, what do you even know about your favorite president's biography? Do you know anything about his childhood and career? That alone does not make him a Marxist but when ALL of the circumstantial evidence points to full-blown communist and he behaves like one every chance he gets and then some. what else can anyone conclude? He's simply confused? Are you saying that he's stupid and will respond to additional education about how the economy really works?

            What's your alternate theory to explain his anti-colonial (as if the USA is a coercive empire) ideology and aggressive globalist policies?

            You can't have international socialism without communist central planning. A global sovereign would be a mere umbrella: An extra layer of government on top of all other sovereigns. I don't know of any other comprehensive theories for this to work other than full-blown communism.

            Wait, yes I do…Sharia.

            But 0'Bama believes that communism and Islam can fuse to create…Indonesia. He recognizes that Hawaii (in basically the same climate and circumstances minus a lot of natural resources) is much nicer than Indonesia. He assumes this is because his "uncle" (or perhaps father) Frank Marshall Davis was really correct about all of his claims (that originated in Moscow). So…it would be fair to ask everyone to live as they do in Indonesia so that the countries worse off can live better than they do at present.

            Hawaii and all other developed economies become like Indonesia after America, Britain, France, Benelux countries and Germany pay back the "victims" for the "theft."

            And the American mainland is like Indonesia in every way but climate. Hawaii gets to keep their tropical weather.

            This is what 0'Bama envisions. But he'll keep his estates and wealth in Hawaii on an island that somehow remains opulent in spite of all his "wealth sharing" policies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Like what? I guess all I've been asking for are some concrete examples, not just "he's a Marxist because people on hate sites call him so.""

            My earlier reply was deleted I guess.

            OK then. His implementation of national health care, his rhetoric about who needs to pay higher taxes, his "stimulus spending," and "you didn't build that" along with his anti-colonial rhetoric that borders on outright lies and in fact when it comes to "Muslim self-esteem" I just realized he lies all the time about the history of "Islam" and "Muslim contributions."

            He doesn't understand the dynamics of the national much less global economy but what he does understand could have been taught by Marx or followers of Marx. He's either re-tar-ded or maliciously ruining the economy…Quotas for bank loans to unqualified borrowers, gun control based on purely emotional arguments that are inspired by class warfare (he's not at all interested in taking guns away from gangs or organized criminals, people already violating the law, but that's OK to radical Marxists because it will held bring forth the revolutions)…all from the Soviet playbook as handed to people like Frank Marshall Davis aka "Pops."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If you're talking gov't power grabs, those have been going on since the very beginnings of civilization. Many thousands of years before Marx. Was Rome Marxist? Ancient Egypt? The Yuan Dynasty?"

            Change the subject much?

            "You seem unable or unwilling to tie any policy to real Marxism.

            Because you get to define what "real Marxism" is.

            "And — oh boy — now bringing out the "Alinskyite" references.""

            And why not? Marx's ideas shaped every leftist movement of today. That's the point. Alinsky was a radical leftist whose ideas were shaped my Marx.

            And 0'Bama is an Alinsky disciple.

          • trickyblain

            Real Marxism comes from Marx. You know, his books and writings?

            You seem obsessed with "Alinsky." I really didn't know all that much about him, but after some imbecile (you) called me a disciple of his, I spent five minutes reading about him.

            Can you list the Top 10 things he did to warrant your intense hatred? Please?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Real Marxism comes from Marx. You know, his books and writings? "

            I did not fail to get your point. I wonder if you are trying to be deceptive or the discourse simply confuses you.

            "You seem obsessed with "Alinsky.""

            Sure, because I always mention him. Let me get the stats from that on my comment stream.

            "I really didn't know all that much about him, but after some imbecile (you) called me a disciple of his, I spent five minutes reading about him. "

            You're the imbecile that can't read with comprehension. If you use deception like Alinsky advised his disciples, taking notice of this coincidence is not an explicit claim that you are a disciple. It's maybe a call to take note of his influence or to simply notice how common it is to for leftists to use deception.

            "Can you list the Top 10 things he did to warrant your intense hatred? Please?"

            No. Maybe later. I have better things to do than help you with your straw man arguments.

          • Jim_C

            Says the man making the straw man argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Says the man making the straw man argument."

            That's easy to say. I say you're simply confused and hallucinate thinking you see straw rather than the facts.

            Articulate your accusation please.

  • Looking4Sanity

    "Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out"

    Once you accept this for the truism which it is, there is another truism you must consult: Inside every Libertarian lurks a flaming liberal.

    And, tangentially: a "fiscal" conservative is actually nothing more that a penny pinching, tightwad liberal. If you are not socially conservative, you are NO PART of a conservative!

    Food for thought.

  • Bea

    Lets not leave out the neo-racists – like those attacking Dr. Ben Carson for being an Uncle Tom.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I am wondering that it may be true that inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out,
    just as much as inside every liberal or Democrat is a demon screaming to get out as they are
    to dirty even for demon possession……………….William

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "The only issue here is how many suckers can statists fool into being dependent on the statists.'

    You're talking to one of them right now and it's not me.

  • Jim_C

    Reader, you amuse me with your name dropping of Locke and Burke. It's cute because you call yourself "reader." And yet you never specify what part of Locke or Burke contradicts anything I've said.

    • reader

      Everything, Jim. You probably coasted your K-12 with the heavy use of spark notes – just like most of Obama voters – but it does not work like that with Locke and Burke. Go to a public library that is so close to your heart and ask for the whole lot.

  • JacksonPearson

    "Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out"

    Obama goes on a State visit to Israel. While he is on a tour of Jerusalem, he has a fatal heart attack.

    The undertakers tells the US diplomats:
    "You can have him shipped home for $1 million or you can bury him here in the Holy Land for $100." The US diplomats go into a huddle and come back to the undertaker and tell him they still want Obama flown home.

    The undertaker is puzzled and asks:
    "Why would you spend $1 million to get him home when it would be wonderful to be buried here in this religious country and you would only spend $100?"

    One diplomat replied: "More than 2000 years ago a man died here, was buried here, and just 3 days later he rose from the dead. "we simply can't take that Risk."

  • http://twitter.com/quillerm @quillerm

    Since the Democrats say my children are property of the State, when can I drop them off for Indoctrination, food, shelter, clothing, education, and their future Government Job?

    • Vervie

      When? The morning bell in most urban schools rings around 7:30.