The Left's Beguiling Simplicity

by: R.J. Moeller

“What Socialism implies above all else is keeping account of everything.”
-V.I. Lenin, 1917

I would be willing to wager that very few people know that the actual definition of the word “utopia” is “nowhere.” As in, where has a utopia ever existed here on earth? Answer: nowhere.

In large part, the two key differences between sincere liberals and conservatives in the United States today are: conflicting views of what role our government should play in the daily life of an average citizen, and to what extent a government is able to make your life easier, better, or healthier.

The subtle brilliance of American free-market democracy is that it isn’t easy to maintain. Like most things in life we deem worthwhile, thing are not handed to us. In short, its effectiveness, and subsequently your quality of life, is based squarely on the shoulders of those who participate in it. If the people don’t care, or become convinced that they are unable (or more likely, unwilling) to take their turn as the current generation’s cultural watchman upon the walls of our “shining city on a hill,” then the nation’s lot will be deserved. We’ve nothing to fear but an apathetic citizenry itself.

Think about it. If we’re angry over how much power Congress annexes itself each year, or the manner in which they abuse the power they already have, we need look no further than the disinterested masses (us). We rarely hold our elected officials accountable because we rarely take the time to learn what those officials are in need of accounting for. If we’re angry over a volatile credit and housing market, the lion’s share of the blame ought to be laid at the feet of those who took loans they couldn’t afford to buy homes they didn’t need. If Hollywood is corrupting the youth, we need only to turn off one of the, on average, three televisions in the typical American home and hand little Johnny or Janie a book. (I suggest either the Bible or The Federalist Papers.)

This responsibility is something many of us no longer want, despite the self-evident and unmistakable rewards that can only come from such a free and de-centralized society as ours. Capitalism, specifically, is continually targeted for being too individualistic and too competitive. Although few would admit their own inability to “cut it” in a free-market economy, a disturbing number of our fellow citizens are willing (perhaps unconsciously) to label those currently less fortunate then themselves as being incapable of climbing the same ladder of success their own parents or grandparents did. The distinct line between handout and hand-up has been purposely blurred, and a culture of victimization encouraged and fostered to further justify the need for government intervention and coercion.

Liberalism and its logical conclusion, Socialism, are patronizing, naively easy answers to difficult and complex problems. The beguiling simplicity of Socialism, like that of Freudianism and Darwinism, is what I believe attracts the otherwise intelligent and thoughtful supporter to such a flawed ideology. It is, in the words of Polish philosopher and ex-Communist Party member Leszek Kolakowski, a “one key fits all locks” philosophy. The answer to every problem starts and stops with the federal government.

Admittedly, conservatives tend to forget that liberals, by-and-large, genuinely care about this country and generally want what is best for the most amounts of people. But what liberals almost entirely misunderstand about conservatives is that it is not “ends” we disagree upon, but the “means” by which we reach them. Everyone wants a free country. Everyone wants a cleaner planet. Everyone wants a cure for AIDS and an end to starvation. A significant stumbling block to thoughtful resolution of such problems is the fact that those in liberal media, academia, and politico desire to go uncontested as to the merit of their own championed ideas or policies regarding these matters, and thus are content to frame debates as being “the caring vs. the un-caring.” (Can you guess which group the Right is?)

Dont believe me? Why is it that when conservatives go to speak at a secular state university they are shouted off the stage by belligerent "activists"? Why is it that Al Gore, who has now won an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize, refuses to debate anyone on both the merits of the science he employs in propigating man-made global warming and the economically-crippling "solutions" he boasts? Why is it that when CNN's founder, Ted Turner, in response to a question regarding Fox News' unparalleled succes in cable news, tells a press conference that, "Let the Right have their one little network...We've got everything else," the crowd of objective reporters knowingly laughs and applauds? Liberals are teach us liberalism, but, more importantly, as far as most Americans are concerned, they also teach us conservatism. (And when we on the Right rise up to respond with a defense of what we believe, we're accused of tearing the otherwise tranquil nation apart.)

This is why Barack Obama is the favored candidate of the Left. He claims to offer up the type of Socialism we all recognize as venerable and worthy of contemplation. This includes the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and genuine security from want or need. Not only are his desired “ends” that which are common to the hearts and minds of most Americans, but his self-proclaimed “means” are the kind of collectivist psycho-babel that can win over audiences in such progressive strongholds as San Francisco and Berkley and the faculty lounge at most public universities.

For the anti-war crowd he can point to the fact that while a state senator and community activist back in Illinois in 2003, he vehemently condemned the War in Iraq to any and all local Southsiders who would listen. For the Americans concerned with our safety, but disapproving of the Bush Doctrine, he promises to sit down with tyrants and despots around the globe in order to explain our intent to “buy the world a Coke.” His well deserved title as “Most liberal voting Senator” appeals to Democratic base and then is somehow dismissed by excitable Independent and Moderate supporters as being un-important in light of his potent oratory talents and genial demeanor. He’s a legitimately impressive political package when all is said and done.

But, and you knew there’d be a “but,” what Socialist idealists from Marx to Michael Moore always neglect to inform their captivated audience of is the price (a.k.a. the “means”) society will unavoidably pay for their visions. These messy details rain on the emotional parade of well-meaning citizens. Naysayers (like me) are seen as a wet blanket and cold-hearted Scrooge to stand in the way of what seems to be insurmountable excitement and enthusiasm surrounding a candidate like Senator Obama. In reality, many of us simply do not wish to trade “freedom from coercion” (by the government) for the unattainable “freedom from necessity” that modern liberal Democrats insist is only a November 2008 vote away.

The Socialism Barack ensures us is for the “common good” leads, in the immortal writings of 20th century economist F.A. Hayek, to the abolition of private property rights, a decrease in private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a “planned” economy in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. But even this may seem like not such a bad idea to most of you. The devil, yet again, is in the details.

The allure of Socialism is that its Collectivist “means” are never divulged up front because they don’t have to be when the electorate is as under-informed or disinterested as our own sadly is today. The idea of central economic planning, something most Americans would still (hopefully) agree is unsustainable, owes its appeal largely to the very vagueness of the promises made by candidates who (along with their financial backers) stand to inherit the consolidated power that comes along with increased federalization. Obviously both sides in November want to win, so ask yourself, candidly, not only what is it that each side plans to do with their power, but also how they plan on doing it.

What’s the problem with the Dem’s promise of free national health care? Nothing, if you think that 10% of Americans not having insurance requires that the other 90% settle for the same sub-par, wait-listed medicine that brings thousands each year from Canada, Cuba and Europe to our shores. Why do you think it is that so many of your doctors have names you can barely pronounce? What possibly could motivate them to leave their native homelands in order to come and perpetually re-diagnose hypochondriatic soccer moms? (Hint: It’s green, and there’s more of it here than anywhere else on the globe.)

Okay, but isn’t if fair for liberal Democrats to insist that we “take from some to give to others” in light of the money that Big Oil and Big Drug (the prescription kind) companies are making? Sure, if you are cool with Communism. Exxon Mobil alone paid more in taxes ($28 billion) last year than did the bottom half of income earners in the United States. These companies find the oil, drill the oil, refine the oil, ship the oil, and have it ready for your Lincoln Navigator or Toyata Prius each day (all while employing hundreds of thousands of workers and padding the investment portfolios of stock-share holders), and liberal Democrats can only think to punish Exxon’s success by mandating that their self-made reigns be handed over to the same type of bureaucrat who oversaw the Katrina aftermath and runs your local DMV?

Can’t you see where this line of thinking ends? Liberals insist they are for the “little guy” but as soon as that little guy votes for one them, they immediately seek to take away the freedoms and rights of everyone (except for themselves) so that we all end up little guys. Economic freedom cannot be separated from political freedom. The uniqueness of our nation is that we stress the rights of the people over those of the State. We entrust each citizen with the sacred duties of personal responsibility and civic duty, and only when either or both are neglected (as it is, increasingly so, today) can it even begin to sound reasonable for government intervention. We are failing each other, and ourselves, and it is exhibited by our collective desire for someone else to come in and solve the problems our own apathy's have created.

The reason Obama and Clinton don’t disseminate their ideas any further past the rhetorical phase is specifically because they know the overwhelming majority of us, when given the opportunity, can easily see through the misguided “means” with which they ultimately plan to use to reach our agreed upon “ends.”

I do not wish to question the motives of any liberal. It is their judgment, in light of facts, common sense, and our historical experience as a nation, which must (and will) be scrutinized and challenged every day from here until November’s election.

“What has always made the State a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.”
-German economist Johann Christian Holderlin, 1957

What did McCain actually say?

Democrats get very animated when referencing John McCain's alleged promise to keep American soldiers fighting in Iraq for "a hundred years." This, of course, is non-sense and Charles Krauthammer clears the whole matter right up.

Priceless

Barack and Michelle Obama, to their credit, released their tax records this month. But, what we learn is that Old Barack gives less than 4% of his income (last year which totaled $1.5million) to charity. Why is this noteworthy or any of my business?

Your initial reaction is correct: it isn't my business, any more than it is his what I do with mine. It is noteworthy because this is the presidential candidate who incessantly claims that Americans need to sacrifice more (i.e. give more power and tax money to he and his cronies in Washington) to meet the needs of the poor. Yet, the man doesn't feel compelled to give even the customary 10% that all who call themselves Christians are "encouraged" in the Bible to give.

Meanwhile, we remember that it is actually Conservatives who give the most to charity, just as it is capitalistic societies that give more to those in need than Socialist ones. Hmmmm, what ever then could be a politician's motivation in calling for increased power in the hands of the federal government which he stands to control come November?

A necessary reminder of why we are fighting

A member of Congress from Michigan (Rep. Pete Hoekstra) writes in today's Wall Street Journal to remind the West of the continued threats to freedom that radical jihadists pose. Women have no rights under Sharia Law. Free and open elections are suppressed. Finger are cut off for smoking. It's a sad, terrifying existence for many in these Sharia-dominated countries and that is worth remembering the next time we disparage or mock our War on Terror.

Straight talk from a guy who knows

Here is retired Col. Ralph Peters' take on the passing of the 4,000 US soldier in Iraq. He's no partisan, but all patriot.

Novak: Dem's in trouble

Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times and Washington Post analyzes what exactly is going on with the Democrats and their Super Delegates. They can't run their own Party, but want the reigns to our country?

As if you needed more proof...

Krauthammer is the final voice you need to consider on the entire Obama (and his pastor) issue...

Ideas Have Consequences

by: RJ Moeller

“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”
-Winston Churchill

An accepted definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. I’d like to amend the working definition of “deranged” to include the description “the insanity one exhibits in voting for one or the other Democratic presidential candidates who espouse neo-socialist ideas in 2008.” Their ideas have been tried and their ideas have failed – both in our own nation’s history and in the historical experience of nations around the world (see: Berlin Wall’s demise, the Soviet Union’s collapse, and everything Jimmy Carter said or did while in office).

So why do so many American voters keep making the same mistake of voting for distinctly collectivist, socialistic policies espoused by grossly inadequate contenders for the highest office in the land? How is it that a nation as blessed and prosperous and free as this can continue to chase after categorically refuted systems of government and economy? How does liberalism remain a legitimate intellectual political option after leaving such an objectionable track record in the United States, to say nothing of the world at-large?

Since the American Revolution we’ve had no problem recognizing a monarchy as undesirable form of government. We’ve moved past bartering as the way to conduct modern business. We no longer use leeches to cure the common cold. So why is the socialist’s ideology still so prevalent in modern American political discourse?

The simple answer is that this nation is still unwilling (due to personal predilections or intellectual laziness) and unable (due to biases or intellectual dishonesty) to seriously investigate the real consequences of Leftist positions and decisions in foreign, domestic, and monetary policy.

You’ve likely heard it said that the best trick the devil ever played was to convince people he didn’t exist. Well, the best trick socialism ever played was to convince the average voter that its own past failures and sins don’t exist. Rather, with enough “hope” and “change” you can do the same things that failed in the past, only now they will succeed in the future. (The little Marxist that could.)

I have no problem with the media, with liberals, with Democrats, scrutinizing both the ideas and their results from Conservatives, Republicans and Evangelical Christians. We all know that ideas have real and potentially serious consequences that aren’t always apparent without thoughtful inquiry and contemplation.

Let’s consider a few examples:

Idea: The Founding Fathers chose to value liberty over equality.
Consequence: Equality of opportunity, not outcome, becomes our national ethos. Subsequently many investors, entrepreneurs, and hard-working stiffs die wretchedly poor (but equally free) because they took a voluntary chance on free-market capitalism. Yet, the vast majority prosper and rise to a point of prosperity the world could never had dreamed because they were free to both succeed and fail in the free market economy.

Idea: Liberty, freedom, and economic stability in the Middle East will enable peace-seeking Muslims the opportunity to rise above their current totalitarian existence (and will also put pressure on Iran and Syria to relinquish their hateful, terrorist-sponsoring ways).
Consequence: 3,800 American soldiers have given their life so that 50 million citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan could have the chance to change the destiny of their homelands and the entire region.

Again, I have no beef with American Left incessantly critiquing the ideas of the Right as long as they do so with fairness and truth (fat chance). What I do find galling is the Left’s unwillingness to seriously acknowledge their ideological ancestry (Marxism begets Socialism begets Liberalism). Nor will they concede the blatant and devastating consequences of their ideas. Regardless of how strong the ivory soap Pontius Pilate couldn’t wash his hands of the consequences of his own decisions – neither can modern Liberalism.

Idea: A women’s right to choose trumps the right to life guaranteed by our Constitution.
Consequence: 50 million innocent unborn children perish since 1973 -- they “never are” before they “ever were.”

Idea: The War in Vietnam is no longer worth fighting so there must be an immediate troop withdrawal and de-funding of the war. This will force the South Vietnamese to stand on their own.
Consequence: Three million innocent people (our allies) in Southeast Asia are slaughtered in the era immediately following our fast exit from the region.

Idea: Government welfare and entitlements for even the able-bodied poor are the moral necessities of a Great Society.
Consequence: Generational poverty and government dependence destroys millions of families and any hope for a better future. By 1996, Bill Clinton, with the support of more than 95% of Americans, signs Welfare Reform into law, signifying, in part, the monumental failure of liberal social planning.

We all are accountable for the ideas we hold and the consequences they bring to ourselves and others. Accountability, I admit, is an unpopular concept in these contemporary times. However, if we refuse to honestly appraise the profits or losses of our intellectual investments we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Nor will we have the ability to embrace those ideas that have served us well and could make life easier in the future.

Ideas matter. Do we have the will and wisdom to examine where they lead so that we might throw out the rubbish while saving the rubies?

The Definitive Word on Obama's speech

Michael Medved brings Obama's soaring rhetoric from yesterday's speech regarding his ridiculous pastor down to earth. Enjoy it.

Two views on Obama

Here is one take from The Wall Street Journal's Shelby Steele, and another from National Review's Thomas Sowell (both African-American conservative commentators), on the current situation Obama finds himself in regarding his politics, his race, and his inflammatory pastor.

Collectivism De-bunked

by: R.J. Moeller

“We’re gonna have to take from some to give to others.”
-Hillary Clinton, November 2007

“If you work hard in America, you shouldn’t be poor.”
-Barack Obama, February 2008

Whether you have recognized it yet or not, the deceptively alluring forces of collectivism (socialism/Marxism) are gathering at the gates of our beloved “City on a Hill” (America). A strange and alarming way of thinking that is altogether foreign to our historical experience as a nation has surfaced in the 2008 Presidential campaign – most notably from the two Left-leaning candidates of the Democratic Party who are both vying for the White House.

Only because far too many of us have been subtly indoctrinated from grade school with collectivist ideas and maxims can Senators Obama and Clinton go unchallenged using such blatantly Marxist rhetoric. Both are promising economic security and equality to all Americans in return for a fundamental restructuring of the American capitalist economy and government into a neo-socialist state. That perhaps some of you find this potential threat I am describing to be overstated does not justify, or explain away, the words and promises of the Democratic candidates themselves.

As both a vigilant American and a prudent student of history, I find it offensive that Hillary and Barack should so enthusiastically and shamelessly dismiss our proud 232 years of American capitalist traditions and heritage. We have for two and a half centuries prospered as no other nation has because we championed capitalism over collectivism, the individual over the State, and most important of all, liberty over equality. These values lie at the very heart, at the very core of the great American experiment in self-governance.

Both our representative democracy and our free-market capitalism are based squarely on the principle that liberty, freedom, and autonomy (and the protection of all three) are inherently more valuable than strict equality, economic security, and regulated outcomes (particularly of the “central planning” type being unproductively served up in Europe today, and now advocated by our current batch of Democratic presidential hopefuls).

The French, in their somewhat bungled attempt at a revolution in the late 18^th century, recklessly embraced the idea that “equality trumps liberty”; or at least that the latter should be subservient to the former. This subtle decision – to work at making everyone equal rather than making everyone free – is the precise error in judgment that brought economic, cultural, and political failure to France over the last two centuries (as with any other Socialistic nation on earth).

The deeper wisdom of the American Founding Fathers’ was to opt for liberty rather than equality and this has been a fundamental secret of our success for over two hundred years. They rightly believed that liberty does not originate from some intellectual or philosophical fountainhead; no, liberty is a gift from God and God alone. Thus, we have believed no government or political party or system of economics has the right to deprive the American people of what God freely bestowed on all of us – liberty, not even in the name of some arbitrary brand of “equality” that sounds good because the person espousing it has a nice smile and looks handsome in a suit (“pant-“ or otherwise).

It’s bad enough that Clinton and Obama are so wrong in their understanding of our nation’s political and economic history. But for them to then wrap their naïve, simplistic, pie-in-the-sky, un-American, and Constitutionally-challenged statements under the cover of quasi-Christian and ostensibly religious language, in hopes of catering to the simple-minded and weak-willed among us, is, as far as I’m concerned, unconscionable.

For example last fall in South Carolina, Senator Obama stood in the pulpit of a church audience on a Sunday morning, supposedly “the Lord’s Day,” and implored the congregation to “Make me an instrument of God…and usher in a new Kingdom on earth.” Under slightly different circumstances, someone making those same statements in public would be referred to a licensed psychiatrist or therapist for help in exploring such clearly self-proclaimed messianic assertions.

So what will this new “instrument of God” do to usher in the Kingdom? Translation: I’ll give you free health care, allow you to abscond from your mortgage debts, and “usher in” a Nanny-state that will put those heartless Pharisees on the Right (Republicans) to shame once and for all.

Hillary Clinton, not to be further out-shadowed by the dashing, saintly, junior Senator from Illinois, has on countless occasions mis-quoted Scripture verses (that surprisingly sound a lot like a Manifesto I once re(a)d), appeared in numerous Sunday morning church pulpits to stump for votes, and has shrilly vowed that anywhere Obama has been light on collectivism, she will be a sickle to his hammer.

As an aside, it’s fascinating that any discussion that involves the convergence of politics, economics, and religion is one that violates the separation of church and state if it involves a Conservative’s take on the matter. However, as long as we aren’t talking about George W. Bush and his “faith,” even the agnostic and secular members of the Left are comfortable with a candidate who beckons supporters to make him an “instrument of God.”

Despite their religious language and appeal what Obama and Clinton fail to appreciate is that socialism (on a national level) is a both a heresy and proven failure when held up to the illuminating light of human experience, Scripture’s (the Bible’s) testimony, and the Western Church’s history and tradition.

Let’s start with church history and tradition. The Reformation, the single most important religious event in the last 1000 years for those in the Protestant tradition, exalted personal freedom and liberty and condemned the centralization of power. Such ideas were embodied in the life and writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Both men fundamentally disagreed with the consolidation of authority (spiritually speaking) in the hands of a few clergymen, regardless of the character or integrity of the church leaders. At the core of their argument against the Church’s chokehold on forgiveness-of-sins and personal piety were the concepts of sin and the depravity of all Mankind. Man is too inherently corrupted, they argued, to be trusted with extraneous power or sway. They argued instead for investing power and authority in the individual or what they called the “Priesthood of all Believers.”

In his treatise, On Christian Liberty, Luther expounds that freedom was found in faith in Christ, but such freedom carried with it a great responsibility to serve God and one’s neighbor tirelessly. John Calvin, in his classic work The Institutes, reminds the follower of Christ that the focus of moral governments (and the moral, religious citizens of them) should be on liberty and equity (justice), not guaranteed or compulsory equality.

Adam Smith of Wealth of Nations fame, the father of the modern free-market capitalism and a devout Christian himself, insisted that the only way his system could work was if the people participating in it were overwhelmingly moral and religious and willing to individually look after the “least” (orphaned, widowed, handicapped, etc.) among them. Thomas Jefferson, the father of American democracy, said that our system of government was made for a God-fearing and religious people, and was “wholly inadequate in the hands of any other.” Voluntary participation, pursuit of self-interest, and a firm belief in a higher power (under Whose standard of morality we are all held accountable) were the cornerstones of both men’s prolifically successful ideas.

The biblical record also rejects the consolidation of power by the few in order to control the many. Going back as far as the misguided attempt to build the Tower of Babel, or to the short-sighted plea by the Israelites for a king (instead of in Yahweh), even to Christ’s admonition to distinguish between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, the Bible clearly denounces collectivism and the centralization of power.

The egalitarian life-style of the early New Testament church in the book of Acts is often cited as the model for American Christians to pattern our government and society after. However, this outlook fails to appreciate both the context of that time and the underlying theme of the passages cited. These early believers shared among each other and helped the poor and needy around them entirely on their own, rather than under the direction of a government or bureaucracy. Early Christians did not turn to Rome or Pilate for help and direction in caring for the poor, the sick, or the elderly. Rather they acted freely and independently as house churches reaching out to the needy in their own local communities.

The need for all Americans, let alone God-fearing ones, to extend help to the less fortunate is not in question. The debate is over which is best equipped to do so: the State or the individual (including faith-based believers and organizations).

What is clear from Scripture is that while God loves everyone equally, He did not grant everyone equal resources or gifts. Consider the Parable of the Talents Jesus told. He begins by explaining that God gives one person a gift of ten talents (a considerable sum of money), while to another five talents (still quite a sizable largesse) while to another He bestows just one talent. The Parable then scandalously explains that God eventually calls each person to account for their faithfulness in investing the talents they were given, rather than their success or ability to redistribute the talents so everyone ends up with the same amount. This is no doubt a real theological conundrum for Hillary and Barack. Indeed, the Parable is an unfortunate setback for those who preach a biblical case for collectivism.

For even the non-religious among us, human experience alone tells us pursuing absolute equality in life just is not a realistic goal. Some of us are born short and some of us are created tall. Some of us become professional basketball players while others develop into wildly talented concert pianists. Some of us are fortunate enough to be born into wealthy, loving homes while others among us are born wretchedly poor and grow up unspeakably abused. Some of us work very hard our whole lives and barely make ends meet, while others stumble upon an invention that allows them to sip drinks with tiny umbrellas in them for the rest of their days.

Ultimately life judges us not so much by the hand we’ve been dealt but how we decided to play it. In fact, some research indicates that an impoverished or difficult beginning can actually serve as the platform for developing extraordinary character and achievement. A popular book entitled Cradles of Eminence released in the mid-twentieth century documented numerous cases of individuals overcoming extraordinarily difficult home environments of such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln. While the furnace of suffering unfortunately consumes some, it at the same time it forges the mettle of others.

The history of Western civilization, the biblical record and common sense all confirm that providing citizens of a nation genuine liberty and opportunity rather than contrived security and equality offers the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.

Collectivism, socialism, and Marxism have been repeatedly tried and have perpetually failed at reaching the goal of “equality.” It's not that their ends are unworthy; it's that their means are totalitarian. Again, the Left isn't evil per se, just wrong.

America has enjoyed a different experience for the last 230 years than much of the rest of the world. Personal responsibility, economic freedom, and a faith in God that engenders true liberty have allowed us to become the most prosperous, generous and caring people on the planet. We have enjoyed something far better than equality, we have enjoyed true freedom.

Remember that outcome this November when you’re tempted to change course in return for the promise of “change” or “hope” from “an instrument of God.”

Terrorism on American soil

And against military recruiters, no less. Michelle Malkin catalogs the systematic effort by extremist groups to intimidate military recruiters over the past 5 years.

More on Buckley's legacy

Not enough can be said about the impact William F. Buckley had on the political landscape during his 50 years in the public eye. Please take a few minutes and read more about this most remarkable American, and visionary Conservative thinker, who passed away two weeks ago. It's worth your while.

Everything you need to know about Gov. Spitzer

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer made headlines last Fall when Hillary Clinton supported his plan to give illegal aliens US Drivers Licenses, and now he's back in the news for soliciting over $80,000 worth of prostitution. Dr. Albert Mohler, on his blog, explains the situation from a moral standpoint, while the Wall Street Journal does an excellent job of exposing the bias the media has shown (surprise, surprise) toward a liberal who is guilty of "crimes" no less egregious than Republicans David Vitter (Senator, LA), Larry Craig (Senator, ID), and Mark Foley (Congressman, FL) who were each lambasted in the press for their moral indiscretions.

Is there a "Patriotism Gap" on the Left?

Jonah Goldberg of the Los Angeles Times seems to think so. His point is not that liberal Democrats aren't patriots, because that would be unfair to assert; but that their rhetoric doesn't convey the kind of unapologetic patriotism that the likes of JFK and FDR were more than willing to espouse.

It's fun to watch

The Democrats are intent on embarrassing themselves in the Clinton-Obama feud where race and gender are more important than competency and policy. I, for one, am loving it.

At least consider that Iraq is winnable

Michael O'Hanlon, writing in the USA Today, asks anti-war politicians and voters to take an intellectually honest look at the successes in Iraq since the Surge began last summer and consider whether or not A)We can actually win? and B)Does it matter if we do?

Identity Politics is a messy game to play

The Democrats have invested more in who their candidates are than what they actually stand for. Mark Steyn offers a biting critique of such superficial antics, and explains why the Dem's seem to have bitten off more than they were willing to chew by over-hyping the the minority statuses candidates (a woman and an African-American).

Castro's Legacy

One of the biggest liberal myths is that Communism is a tenable alternative to our free-market brand of democracy. More specifically, the Left loves to laud the supposed successes of Castro's Cubs over the past 50 years. Luckily George Will is here to set the record straight on what it is truly that Fidel Castro brought to the table for his people, and the world.

The column I wish I had written about Obama

Victor Davis Hanson is a syndicated columnist, military historian, and contributing editor at National Review. The dude knows his stuff. This week he has written the definitive column on Barack Obama's candidacy for President. A "must read" for all fair-minded Americans.

Off to college

Parents in this country are often told to leave the decision-making process for where their child goes to school completely up to the student, but Dennis Prager says this is foolish. If a parent is making the financial sacrifices (or even if they aren't), it is their duty as a parent to see that their child attends the best school possible. Here's a list of questions for both parents and students to ask themselves before selecting a college or university.

(Democratic) Ideas Really Do Have Consequences

Thomas Sowell of National Review explains why the campaign promises from Democrats to increase jobs are antithetical to their own policies (when implemented). First it was US Steel, and now it is the automotive industry. PLEASE take a minute to read (and then think through) what Sowell has to say.

Passing of a Legend

Although I've much still to learn about the man and the school of thought he forged, William F. Buckley is the most influential conservative thinker in American history. Chances are you've never heard of him, or if you have, what you've been told is ambiguous at best and untruthful at worst.

To gain a better understanding of who this man was, and what he is responsible for creating, please take the time to read both Ann Coulter's obituary and William Kristol's poignant piece in today's New York Times. William Buckley was a pioneer and a trailblazer and many Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for the ideological movement he helped spawn (Conservatism) in a time and place where liberal Socialism and collectivism was simply accepted as the only viable way for a nation to conduct its affairs.



As Buckley himself once said: “We must bring down the thing called liberalism, which is powerful but decadent, and salvage a thing called conservatism, which is weak but viable.”


He will be missed.

China (down)Syndrome

Beijing is requiring all athletes to keep mum about any injustices or human-rights violations they may witness while in China this summer for the Olympics. Chuck Colson has some thoughts on the matter.