When Has The Left EVER Been Right?


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


The Adviser

“America’s national security cannot be entrusted to left-wing Democrats.” –– Richard Winchester

“Weakness is policy, and the world’s dictatorships have taken note. The only question now is how much more damage can be done before this disastrous presidency finally comes to an end.” – The Commentator

“Russian troops are invading Ukraine and we have no response. I suppose the Pentagon has more important things to worry about – like hair and makeup for our gay military.” – Allen West

Pick a topic, any topic. Barack Obama and his “progressive” cohorts have been wrong about it.  Global warming? “Arab Spring”? Stimulus? Benghazi? Syria? The “reset” with Russia? Obamacare?  His is a braintrust that has achieved perfection — they’re always wrong.

Why a population of theoretically intelligent citizens continues to trust with their country’s future left-wing politicians who have proved themselves monumentally unqualified to govern is a question best answered by a qualified psychotherapist or two (if such things exist). “You Bet Your Life” should be remembered as a TV show from the ’50s, not a description of America in the second decade of the 21st century.   Even such a formerly staunch Democratic media ally as the Washington Post has come to realize an eternal truth:  Nations will always respect strength and take advantage of weakness.

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces … Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping … These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies.

Nonetheless, the leftists who have commandeered the federal government are busy stripping our military down to a few bleached and transgendered bones:

Face of the Modern Military: Gay Troops Perform in Drag at Air Force Base

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

While Russia invades Ukraine, as Islamic terrorist factions plot the West’s destruction, our service members at Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan, are being treated to a gay and lesbian drag show … Thanks to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s longstanding policy towards gays in the military, the military has seen an influx of gay marriage ceremonies and other events that celebrate the alternative lifestyle.

What Gutting The U.S. Military Means

[…] a combination of the Obama Administration’s policy decisions and budget cuts mandated by the Sequester — the idea for which originated in Obama’s White Housewould leave the U.S. military smaller and weaker than it has been in 74 years. The National Guard will also be reduced. Hagel went on to say that the U.S. would no longer be the world’s foremost military power. He also noted, apparently with equanimity, that reducing U.S. military capacity would likely entail risks to our military personnel and to the nation

 Once the budgetary savagery Hagel outlined for the military is in place, the U.S. will have a Navy with the fewest ships at sea since before World War I, the smallest Air Force ever, and an Army and Marine Corps smaller than at any time since 1940. Weapons systems that would modernize and upgrade our military capability will be canceled, and older weapons systems, such as the A-10, will be eliminated.

In addition to severely reducing America’s conventional military capability, Obama has drastically curtailed the country’s nuclear weapons capacity.

Rank ignorance or malice aforethought?  Allen West has no doubt which:

“Is Obama doing this intentionally? There can be no other answer than yes. Why? Because just like Bill Clinton, spending on domestic welfare nanny-state programs is more important to progressive socialists — after all, they want power, they need votes.”

Obama promised his supporters “fundamental transformation,” and he’s providing it.  Even Democrats will live to regret it.

Related Stories:


Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead


From Leftfield The Future Looks Fantastic!


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

We small-brain folks on the Right  just don’t get. You know who I’m talking about; folks like me. We believe in free market capitalism and silly things like the economic law of supply and demand. We believe that government interfering in the market place with their fiscal and monetary polices just screw things up by their non-stop efforts to pick the winners and losers. We look at the declining workforce participation rates, the declining velocity of money, the rising fraction of the workforce working only part-time or in low   income jobs, and we look at the trends in computerization and robotics and we worry about what kind of future our grandchildren will have. But, the good folks out in Leftfield laugh at us small-brain folks. They are the least bit worried about automation and robotics taking away the jobs of the future. For example, Lydia Depillis recent wrote an article for the Washington Post about eight ways robots are taking over the work of humans and Dean Baker of the Leftfield think-tank, Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) thinks Ms. Depillis is an economic Luddite. Baker believes our current economic woes are due to robots not taking our jobs away quickly enough.

On the subject of robotics, Mr. baker says:

There can of course be issues of distribution. If the one percent are able to write laws that allow them to claim everything the robots produce then they can make most of us very poor. But this is still a story of society of plenty. We can have all the food, shelter, health care, clean energy, etc. that we need; the robots can do it for us.

And, about the ever-growing mountain of debt, no problem says Mr. Baker. The government only needs to print more money.

Okay, now everyone is completely appalled. The government is just going to print trillions of dollars? That will send inflation through the roof, right? Not in the world where robots are doing all the work it won’t. If we print money it will create more demands for goods and services, which the robots will be happy to supply. As every intro econ graduate knows, inflation is a story of too much money chasing too few goods and services. But in the robots do everything story, the goods and services are quickly generated to meet the demand. Where’s the inflation, robots demanding higher wages?

So, you see, small-brain people like me are making much ado about nothing. All we need to do is build a fire under the technical experts to invent those robots faster and turn the money printing presses on to warp-drive and we can all live happily ever after.

And, maybe pigs really will learn to fly.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Asylum Watch


How the World Continues


Too often it is the case that we focus on what is wrong with the world rather than what is right.  That truth spans through various positions of criticism be it politics, economics, or faith.  On the latter, I have often heard scoffers of faith (specifically Christianity) speak of the ill that Christianity has brought the world as a way of demeaning the religion.  I must reject this notion.  I cannot deny that evil men have taken the banner of Christianity and have done terrible things with its power, but Christianity has harmed no one.  It cannot.

The purpose of this post, however, is not to defend the faith, but to point out the goodness of people.  Frequently our attention is turned to those who choose to do wrong, who harm others, who work on behalf of evil.  Not today.  Below is a piece written by a girl that I know.  She is getting married soon and keeps a simple personal blog.  You will find the link to her blog at the bottom of the page if you choose to visit.  I know many individuals locally who are doing a lot of good deeds: dentists who are giving free dental care in third world nations, couples who are building sanitary stations in similar nations, individuals who are packing lunches for kids at school for the weekend, others who purchased Christmas presents and made Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner for families who have incarcerated or dead fathers.  The list goes on and on.

I’ll stop writing with this one last thought.  Regularly I recall a time when I was a boy and I learned the difference between the usage of the words “good” and “well”.  A teacher told some students to “do good”.  He was corrected by one of the astute students who said, “Don’t you mean ‘do well’”?  He simply replied, “No, do good”.  And that is my suggestion to our readers.  We can argue politics daily with fervency and zealousness with little to no impact.  Selfless acts of goodness to other human beings are what will make real differences.  It might not save the republic, but it might save that person – and then again, it might save the republic as well.


Last weekend, Brian and I decided to head to Bed, Bath, and Beyond to start our wedding registry. We were led upstairs to an office, where we were handed a binder filled with pictures of the various assortment of dinnerware the store offered. There were no prices, just pictures and their descriptions, and we were told we needed eight place settings of whatever set we chose.

I flipped through the pages for a moment and settled on a set I liked. I turned the book around to show the nice lady and to ask the price, and the nice lady said, “Oh, those are $88.”

“$88 for a set of 8? That’s not bad!” I replied.

“Oh no.” I think the lady was trying not to laugh. “$88 per place setting. Those are Vera Wang.”

The look on my face must have been incredulous, because the lady quickly added, “I know that sounds like a lot of money, but you’re getting married! You deserve it! It’s the one time to get anything you want for free.”

And so began our registry. We spent the next two hours being followed around, pressed to scan (literally) the most expensive item in each category, and pressured to meet a “scan quota” at every stop.  When we politely tried to argue that we already had a perfectly good food processor, six cookie sheets, and a quality used set of mixing bowls, our objections were met with a smile and, “But this is your chance to get the best cookie sheets. You’re getting married – you deserve this!” The best suitcase? You deserve it! The best toaster oven? You deserve it! The best pots and pans? You deserve it!

We left the store, me nearly fuming and Brian feeling nauseous. As we looked over the $3,000 worth of items we had scanned, we failed to find more than one or two that were even reasonably priced – and we needed about half of what was on the list. I just shook my head as I reported to Brian that our dishes and the $9 cloth napkins the lady had added of her own accord would alone cost over $600. Six hundred dollars.

We cancelled the registry.

Two days later, God called us to sponsor two precious little boys. Meet Abishek and Akshay.


And suddenly, it all made sense. The reason why the registry made us sick and angry was because it was a waste.  It was extravagant. Most of the items were unnecessary. And we realized with a heavy heart that it was all a lie.

We don’t deserve anything.

God gives us joy and material possessions, not because we deserve it, but because He is good. God is incredible. And you know what? He does deserve something. God deserves our praise and our giving, which He asks us to share with others.

Abishek and Akshay deserve our giving, deserve our sacrifice, because God has asked us to share with them.  Brian and I want to give as much as we can because we want these little boys to know Jesus. We want them to know that God gives us grace only because He loves us, not because we deserve it.

Don’t you worry, we will still have a registry – just at Target rather than a specialty store. We will still have some things that we want more than we need. And I will still add my KitchenAid mixer because one day I will be out of nursing school and will actually have time to bake.

But most of the items on our registry won’t be the most expensive or the absolute best you can buy. We came to this decision not because of frugality, but because Brian and I don’t want to build our marriage on “stuff” (Did you know that money and stuff is the number one reason why couples get a divorce? Irony.). God tells us that marriage is about serving Him better together than we could alone, that marriage is a chance to see the most complete image of Him we can experience here on this earth. He says, “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.  Test me in this, says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.” – Malachi 3:10

Brian and I want to build our marriage on God’s image of marriage, not man’s image of getting all the free stuff that you want. We want to honor God together. And we are starting by sharing Jesus’ love with two precious little boys.

And one day, if we get one, maybe God will even let me feed the homeless with my KitchenAid mixer.


Note: I added the link to the post for added linkage mojo.-Matt


Make the Right Choice This Tuesday: My Closing Arguments


In this election you have a choice- to vote to loot your fellow man in the hopes that some of that wealth may find its way to you, or to vote to elect moderate and responsible individuals who will limit the power of government so that you may live your life as the free and prosperous individual that God intended you to be.

You see, God created you all free and equal, and then we all agreed to create a government that would protect our basic rights to life and liberty and  protect our property rights. Moderate and responsible men and women are then elected into office to manage this limited government and manage the institutions of government that protect our rights and liberties.

But some people feel that the purpose of government is something different- that some men are superior to others because of their birth or so-called ‘intelligence’ and that their superiority puts them in a position to take wealth from others and give it to who they want or deny you freedoms and liberties or control important decisions regarding your own life. These people do not believe that we are all equal and equally free to make decisions, and so they vote for those who promise them unequal results for their own decisions.

There are those out there who say that you should vote for love of country– what they are saying is that in this election you should vote for those who love what America was traditionally about- it’s values, beliefs, traditions, and institutions. These people want to trust to civil society and private charities, loosen regulations and taxes on businesses so that an individuals can make choices, to let people take responsibility for their own actions by not getting the government involved, and not get government involved in determining traditional values that govern our society. They want to get people off of government help and working- working hard and working long hours and working for whatever wages they earn- so that they can make their own way in the world, whatever way that is.

But these people are opposed by others who are running for office who want you to vote for revenge- they want to use the power of the state- to use its ability to use force to make others follow its directions- to get revenge on all those who are perceived by you as having done you some sort of wrong. Your decisions and choices, freely made over your lifetime, may not have resulted in a perfect world, and there are some politicians out there who are promising you that if you simply give them more power over others than they can make your world more perfect by taking property rightly earned by others and giving it to you in the form of loans or bailouts, by preventing people from making their own choices regarding healthcare or what sort of automobile to buy, or by using the massive power of the state to put in place new traditions and new values reflecting the beliefs of those who are in power. They wantmore people to be dependent on the government, sitting at home collecting wealth that they didn’t earn, even though that wealth is meager, letting their skills and education atrophy and damaging any future that they have.

The truth of the matter is that our nation is approaching a historic pivotal point, whether through immigrants who are not assimilating, an education system that is failing, laziness and carelessness of our parents in passing down values and beliefs, peer pressure by the lawless and tyrannical nations of the world, or circumstances and bad luck. We have two paths in front of us, as we have ever had- one path which taken which may seem harder and longer but in reality leads to prosperity and freedom, and the other path which seems bright and shiny but is proven to be lined with fools gold and only lit by the fires from below. The support for these two paths is about even today.

And there are those politicians on both sides who call for you to take one of these paths. Some are moderate and restrained with their calls, but none-the-less through the policies that they push for they are asking you to either protect the freedoms and liberties and property of people or to take away the freedoms and liberties of people.

As I sit here with my Bible, thinking about what I may say that may help guide your votes, I think of the two highest profiles campaigns and what they represent- one candidate speaks of going big again and doing big things once more, and the other has gone small and talks only of small and petty sayings and rhetoric. Go big or go home, my dad always says, and I think in this election we need to make a big and bold decision to vote once more for freedom and liberty and property protections, even if that means that you are voting against someone who you think ‘helped you’ by looting property from others to give to you. We can all be richer, more free, and more happy if we make the right choice this election.

So let me translate all this rhetoric into recommendations for you all for your voting choices tomorrow. I’m from Michigan, so you’ll have to rely on your own counsel if you are from another state, and I still keep a lot of my contacts in Oakland County, even though I know live near Flint.

Make the right choices this Tuesday. Make sure your friends and family know what the right choices are and encourage them to vote that way. Together this Tuesday, let’s do the right thing.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Keeping the Ignorant Feeling Informed


“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear” – Daniel Dennett

A good friend of mine, one whom I never enjoy being on the opposite end of an argument with, explained to me that in order to properly argue for a belief that you hold true, you should not only want to present good arguments, but deny bad arguments.  It seems simple enough, but in practice we consistently fail – especially in politics.

Politics has become a cesspool for talking points and half truth rhetoric.  Few actually know the principles or intricacies behind the topic they are defending or promoting.  Interestingly, it seems we all know that both sides are guilty of this because we constantly point out the flaw across the aisle.  Talking points are prominent in politics for, as I see it, two basic reasons.  First, because they are easily recited by even the most ignorant of supporters and second, they give just enough information for an individual to feel as if they are learned in regard to the given subject.

There’s an advancement in talking points that seems to be prominent among the left (though honestly, it can be found on both sides) that deals with the problem of not being able to argue with intellectual honesty.  Allow me to explain with a recent encounter.

In the not too distant past I got in a little discussion on a college campus with some kids who were supporting a certain democratic politician. I attempted to keep it civil and simply asked them some probing questions about the issues.  While I presented my point regarding the new laws in our state surrounding methamphetamines, this individual wrote my entire premise off with one interrupting rhetorical statement, “I bet you support Sarah Palin too”.  With that one line, that irrelevant half-accusation, I was doomed in the hallway besieged with collegiate brilliance! My answer didn’t matter, the accusation had been made and I had to either deter from the point and defend that charge or denounce Palin to remain credible – either way, he defused my argument regarding methamphetamines with a parry from the sword of mockery.

Being mocked by the ignorant is frustrating.  For me, I stood in wonder as to how this individual who knows so little was bold enough to taunt me under the misguided belief that he knows so much.  In that thought process it hit me; he has been a successfully converted instrument of the left.  You see, it is easier to convince people of what they want to believe rather than teach them what they need to know.  In the case of this individual, and many others, it was easier for him to be convinced that he was knowledgeable (something he wanted to believe) rather than teach him actual knowledge.

Years ago I made a simple argument with my office’s outspoken liberal about limited government. When I told him that the Tenth Amendment said that all powers not specifically given to the federal government by our constitution are reserved to the states and the people, he scoffed at me for my ignorance.  “The states are bigger than the federal government”, he puffed with a contemptuous voice.  For a brief moment his boorish mockery won the audience – until I pulled out my pocket constitution.

Prior to pulling my trump card, he had convinced everyone I was the dumb character he was imitating. The liberal knows that the federal government trumps everything, just like they know that Bush and Palin are stupid, that Tea Party protesters are racist, and that conservatives are greedy people who hate the poor.  These non-factoids have become, in the minds of liberals, non-fiction.  They have their truth; try opposing it, and you’ll be met with the refined and most effective weapon the left has – mockery.

The left has made a business out of mockery; it is nearly everywhere. It is no longer left to the comedians or talk show hosts, but is consistently used in “real political commentary” by the likes of Rachel Maddow andKeith Olbermann.  The comedians use it as a tool for the supremely foolish such as in Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, and then the Bill Mahers of the world try to play both parts of the field when it suits them best. All of this has become a source to puff up those who lack understanding and followers continuously imitate these wind bags in the process of debate.  The masses receive their truth in sound bites and make a joke out of legitimate arguments in spite of their substance.  Try making a drinking game for every time Rachel Maddow rolls her eyes, or shakes her head in dismissal at a republicanor explains their positions with the hint of laughter in her voice and you’ll be as drunk as a lord.

Now, I love mockery as much as the next guy, especially if done with a thick British accent regarding a monarch. Mockery, in its most sincere form, is a derision of another’s foolery.  Dana Carvey’s President Bush is still my preferred way to order Moo Shu Chicken.  Steven Crowder and Greg Gutfeld send a thrill up my leg!  I can even appreciate Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert because the guys are funny.  There is a problem, however, when a charade becomes the foundation of certainty – and that is the problem today.  Too many plant their seeds of understanding in the bedrock of farce and give little charity to the arguments presented from their opposition.

Again, it is not just the left who fall victim to this pitfall.  As my opening quote reveals, we cannot allow bad arguments to be present in our struggle for liberty and limited government.  If we do, we leave open the door to mockery.  We must battle those bad arguments within with just as much fervor as we battle the ones made against us.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal


The USA and the USSA : Maybe it is Time to Go Our Seperate Ways


Maybe it is time to split the blanket. The politically Left and the politically Right peacefully co-existed, more or less, for around 200 years. But, since the sixties, the two groups have become more and more polarized. Today it seems the differences are irreconcilable.

The left doesn’t like our constitution. For them it has long out-lived its usefulness. We on the Right love the Constitution. We believe it defines the very best form of government that man has ever devised. The Left believes in the collective while the Right believes in the individual. The Left believes in an all-powerful centralized federal government while the Right believes in a small Federal government where most of the power lies with the states and the people. The list of differences could go on and on; but you get the picture.

To me, It is becoming clear that the Left, dominated by progressive/socialist thought and the Right, dominated by conservative/libertarian thought are never going to be able to find a balance of policy where they can peacefully co-exist. so, what I am suggesting is that, before things evolve into civil war, maybe the two sides should just agree to disagree and go their separate ways. We agree to divide-up the country such that the Left could establish their United Socialist States of America and the Right could re-establish the United States of America as our Founders intended it to be.

Okay! Okay! I know this is never going to happen, although maybe it should. But, play along with me if you would. Let’s fantasize about what we on the Right would do if we had the opportunity to start all over again. Let’s assume we could resolve all the issue of dividing the territory, dividing the military, dividing the national debt, renegotiate all international treaties, etc.,etc. What would you want to do to ensure, that given a second chance, the American experiment would not fail again? Would you want to make any changes to the Constitution for the sake of clarity? What government agencies would you eliminate or modify? How would you want to fund government. What would you do different with our current monetary system? What would do differently in the area of education? How would you suggest we protect our borders? What other issues do you think it would be important to discuss?

Although we are play a game of fantasy, I am looking for serious ideas. I urge you, dear readers, to use the comments section to share your ideas. On a one time basis, I encourage you to invite your friends to come by and take part. Even though we are playing at fantasy, I think we might learn something from this process.

Have fun with this. I’m looking forward to a lively discussion.

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire


Conservatism as the New Idealism


For too long, it has been common knowledge in our society that leftist political philosophies contain within them the ingredients for an ideal state of affairs in the world. The perceived “humanism” and liberalism (in the classic sense) of the leftists emerged from the stark contrast between their ideas and that of the “establishment.” History is riddled with examples of how the “establishment” has wronged mankind, held back the spirit of progress, and led to countless atrocities. From religious wars to despotic rule to exploitative capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, the Old Order seemed to keep us all in a dark age where the few ruled over the many with an iron fist.

In general, revolutionary forces tended to be “leftist” while Old Order proponents were called “rightist,” terms originating from the French Revolution. Yet as leftist philosophies matured in the 19th century and the vestiges of the Old Order of monarchies and all-powerful Churches subsided, the leftists started to refine their concepts and better define the future ideal societies they had in mind. This refinement led to schisms among the leftists and today we have socialists, communists, anarchists, social democrats, progressives, and so on. In the United States, the characterization of the Left as the progressive, common-man political ideology has firmly established it as the idealistic philosophy… but modern Leftism in America is very far from idealistic.

From its foundation, Leftism and Progressivism in the United States is an ideology that focuses on a peculiar type of equality: equality of outcome. In itself, this may seem to contain an idealistic character, but that is only on the surface. From matters of race to gender to economic status, the progressives wage war on any sort of inequality that they are conscious of. They aim to shatter distinctions in gender, reform public expression to make it more palatable for people of all backgrounds, institute racial and ethnic quotas to make the distribution of power, wealth, and influence more “equal,” and use government as a means of preventing any one individual or group from acquiring an “undue” share of wealth.

Underlying this philosophy is the idea that man, when left to his devices, will always wage war on others, will always try to take from others, and must be told what is right and what is wrong. It is a philosophy that takes away from people the freedom to make their own decisions and empowers a central authority to redistribute all capital, be it economic or social, as it sees fit, all for the good of the whole. The progressive does not assume that people will act in the best interest of society on their own but rather that they will inherently do evil things and must be stopped. Leftism is pessimistic about the nature of humanity. To them, human beings are children who need constant supervision otherwise they will steal all of the other children’s toys and resort to bullying. This is evident in their approach to most social, political, and economic issues. They address gun violence with abolishing the right to bear arms. They address economic inequality by taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. They insist on price controls, market intervention, strict regulation, and are almost religiously opposed to making profit of any kind. Given this reality, the fact that Leftism is regarded as the “idealistic” ideology seems to be more a matter of tradition than a matter of careful analysis.

In America, there is another political philosophy which takes a different approach to the question of how society should be arranged. Specifically, this philosophy says that society should not be explicitly arranged, just allowed to live and prosper in freedom. This philosophy is Conservatism. While not as extreme as libertarianism, which advocates for even less power to be given to the state, conservatism advocates a sort of middle way where there exists a government limited to a certain role.

In the United States, the Constitution provides a political framework whereby the government can operate through the consent of the people. The underlying principle of conservatism is freedom… and ultimately that human beings can and should make decisions for themselves, be responsible for those decisions, and be entitled to the fruit of their labor without heavy government interference. This idea is revolutionary in modern-day America where the continual expansion of the size, scope, and power of government is the paradigm. Not only is this idea revolutionary but at its core it posits that human beings have the capacity to run their own lives. It is a philosophy that is optimistic about man, while at the same time being realistic about the need for some sort of agreed upon authority to enforce contracts and rules. It is an idealism based on real conditions. The equality that conservatism guarantees is equality of opportunity, not outcome, because to enforce a uniform outcome is to deny the right of a person to benefit from or be held responsible for his or her actions.

Modern-day conservatism represents the hopes and dreams of all Americans, to be free, to be successful, to have a voice in our government. This is why conservatives emphasize respect for state’s rights and the separation of powers in government, because history has shown that central authority has the propensity to abuse power. This is why conservatives demand that judges be neutral arbiters of the law and not activist “re-interpreters” of the Constitution. This is why conservatives are opposed to increasing government interference in the economy and in our everyday lives. Conservatives are the new idealists. We believe that a better society is possible if we free the creative and productive powers of human beings. We do not merely believe that we should be free, we believe that we have the fundamental right to liberty. There is no limit to this right. It is absolute. And if we fall as a people in our exercise of this liberty, then we will learn and we will do better… and by iterations, our society will move forward, will improve, and our world will be better off for it.

So when I hear people in positions of power explain to me and my fellow Americans that we need to be guided by the gentle hand of government bureaucrats, that our rights need to be limited for the common good, and that we cannot reap the rewards of our own sweat, I do not consider them idealistic in the least… I consider them despotic. Leftism has become, not a total repudiation of the Old Order tyranny, but as an alternative, more acceptable New Order tyranny. This is neither “progressive” nor ideal for any society.

I hope that new idealistic souls will rise up and declare the old ideas over and done with. The sad part is that these idealists are attacked and portrayed as being part of that Old Order by the leftists, for they convince their followers in true Orwellian form that when we conservatives say “freedom” we mean slavery and when we say “individualism” we mean racism and class-ism. For the moment they control the major means of communication in our society, so revolution will be slower than we would like, but with new technology the message of optimism in our fellow man will breach the wall of disinformation that currently exists. To those conservatives out there who believe that we can live in a better world that is free, let everyone know that we are indeed the last idealists.