You’re invited to join other Young Professionals at a Summer Mixer on May 23rd to support Chris Wight in his campaign for Congress.

Details:

Where? Met Club, 122 E. 83rd St (between Lexington and Park)
When? Wednesday May 23, 6:30 PM
Contribution? $50

You can buy your tickets in advance here.

Chris’ Bio:

Chris has spent the last 14 years helping the world’s largest investment banks cut costs, manage operations, build client relationships, and increase profitability.

Most recently, his efforts to build strong internal governance with his employer’s top-tier clients has helped to strengthen the firm’s business and brand. He is highly results-oriented and focuses on specific action plans with measurable and impactful change.

Prior to his current position, Chris spent five years working for Deutsche Bank where he managed an operations team. He completed large cost-cutting initiatives, tightened internal controls, and performed audits.

Before Deutsche, he spent four years as an analyst with Goldman Sachs where he studied equity markets on a buy-side trading desk and supported fixed-income trading and operations.

Chris grew up in Toledo, Ohio attending public schools where his mother was a fourth-grade teacher. His father was a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force and served during the Korean War.

After receiving a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from The Ohio State University in 1997, Chris moved to New York City.

He lives on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and has been a resident of the 14th congressional district for ten years.

Mr. Stephens:

As a relatively recent college graduate (2007), I was disappointed to read your blanket attack on the Class of 2012.  While your anecdotes may serve as evidence to confirm the suspicions of those who feel a palpable decline in educational standards, the tone and presumptuous condescension of your missive were hardly constructive.

It’s true that many of my peers are woefully unfamiliar with history.  In fact, this April a mixture of dismay and horror spread across Twitter as several young people admitted ignorance of the historical Titanic.  Comical and despairing, the event was emblematic of a disturbing trend among educational institutions; namely, they seem to have lost their staid insistence on academic rigor.  Furthermore, I agree: it is imperative for the public good that journalists are intimately familiar with the topics about which they presume to opine.  Memorization of historical facts, dates, and actors is undoubtedly a prerequisite for informed and judicious journalism.  No further proof of this assertion is needed than to pick up a typical periodical on the newsstand and notice the glaring holes in the author’s analysis.  Whether the topic is Middle Eastern politics, economic policy and history, or warfare, the paucity of erudition in journalistic circles is all too apparent to a reader who is even casually familiar with the topic at hand.

Rather than blame today’s students for their ignorance, however, you may have asked what generation of professors developed their curricula.  A person born in 1990 can hardly be held responsible for the decisions made by Democrat Presidents and Congresses of the 1930s and 1960s to create financially impossible entitlement programs.  It was Richard Nixon in the 1970s who cobbled together the EPA from disparate regulatory boards, creating the precedent for so many of Obama’s attacks on private property today.  Going back further, it was John Dewey and legions of subsequent progressives who successfully supplanted the tenets of a classical education with what could be aptly described as  today’s “therapeutic” educational system.

Recognizing as you do the misleading character of an Ivy League credentials, prudence and genuine concern for prosperity dictates not public scorn, but tutelage.  I have been critical of my generation’s overwhelmingly blind support of Obama and their lack of sound political thinking.  But my intentions when engaging them in conversation are to spark their curiosity, encourage them to read more, and discover a world of learning that will provide them a lifetime of genuine insight and vocational aptitude.  A funny thing happens when you stop the putdowns and provide incentive to learn: people do.

Yet your article goes beyond mere unproductivity.  It borders on vindictive, even anti-American.  Americans are, on the whole, better educated than Ireland, France, Spain, and India.  We are more economically productive.  As you (wittingly or unwittingly) insinuate, our young people fight bravely on foreign battlefields in greater numbers than any other country’s youth.  There have been no massively destructive riots in the United States as a result of the Great Recession, OWS included.  The same cannot be said for the U.K., France, Greece – or, for that matter, the United States in the 1960s.  Generation X-er politicians meanwhile (that’s your generation, Mr. Stephens), have been complicit with Baby Boomers in expanding the size and scope of the Federal government.  Still today they have not thought it imperative to stop the spending.  As a 39 year-old father of three, I find it a perplexing priority to lambaste a particular crop of students who are, as you say, living with their parents.  Surely the Journal’s august pages could be more effectively utilized to help thwart a global financial collapse.  Or was the article merely Mr. Stephens’ own puffery?  “Advertisements for Bret?”  I noticed it achieved #1 most read on wsj.com.  Precious little “emotional restraint” from you, but plenty of attention.

The root of the English word educate comes from the Latin educatus, which means to “bring up.”  Socrates did not ask questions to humiliate and belittle his interlocutors, but to raise their awareness.  It is the duty of those who are better informed, who have spent time cultivating their own minds, to encumber with facts those in society who have been derelict in this task.  Snotty remarks aimed at millions of young people do nothing to but breed resentment and promote further political disaffection.  And no, hiding behind admiration for a girl who is braver than you does not make this OK.

Sincerely,

William Palumbo
New York, NY

In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.

If I may confess a little ignorance here… I was under the impression that Obama had actually killed Osama bin Laden himself.  With all the fanfare promoted by the White House, I’m sure you understand.

Team Romney take note: your opponent is delusional, desperate, and will say anything.

h/t Ulsterman:

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/05/01/blockbuster-navy-seal-says-obama-did-not-make-the-bin-laden-call/

Date: Sunday, April 15, 2012
Time: 1:00pm
Location: The National Debt Clock, outside of 110 West 44th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues)

Refreshments will be served.  More information can be found here.

This will be a powerful reminder of the failure and legacy of Carolyn Maloney’s tenure and the tenuous state our nation finds itself in given a $16 trillion (and growing!) national debt.

For more information about candidate Chris Wight, to donate to his campaign, or to join as a volunteer, visit his website at www.cw2012.com.

Benjamin Franklin, 1787

A little while ago now, in the two years immediately following the coronation of Shah Obama, I remember observing the Glenn Beck agenda from a distance.  Although I could never count myself among his dedicated fans, his passion and intellectual curiosity intrigued me; and, so until he was unceremoniously disavowed by News Corp like a hound that could no longer hunt, I tracked the broad arch of his unique brand of journo-evangelism mainly through second hand sources.  It seemed he was rapidly evolving from a political neophyte to a serious student of history and political philosophy, and doing so in an unusually public manner.  Sometimes I blushed for him.  (All conservatives go a little too libertarian for a period, wanting to legalize everything from pot to nuclear weapons, but it’s a rare spectacle to see this transformation in front of an audience of millions.)

One evening, after a long and satisfying discussion with an honest and intelligent friend, I found myself alone ruminating on our political crisis.  The Supreme Council (we called it “Congress” in keeping with our American tradition) had just passed Obamacare and the doublethink inspired “Stimulus,” and had “reformed” our financial institutions through regulatory manacles and muzzles.  As a student of economics, I knew the arguments against such meddling – their divine inspiration aside – were logically resolved through the reflection of 18^th and 19^th century economists, “worldly philosophers.”  I knew that centralization of daily minutiae leads to poverty, despair, and economic decline.  Bastiat, a witness to early French socialism, wrote the proofs long ago, elegantly and with disarming rhetoric.  All that was required was for Republicans to dust off the old books, imbibe their wisdom, update the names and places, and deliver rousing homilies to the citizenry; to repackage conservatism, in the classic Burkean manner.  Yet they didn’t.

1. I got to thinking more about this conundrum, and granted myself the obvious as starting assumptions.  Economic logic was faultless and depended ever-so-humbly on self-evident truths.  I knew this to be true and so could anybody else who had the courage to follow their convictions.
2. Republican leaders at least nominally believed in freedom, and its brainchild, the market, which births not only material abundance but sturdy morals.
3. The American people, steeped in a 400 year old culture of independence and self-reliance, instinctively understood that private citizens and not government made America the beautiful country she is and has been.
4. Still, Barack Obama ably hypnotized the electorate and was busy dismantling the work of generations with every new industrial strength fatwa.

These were the facts, the reality.  Regardless of personal dogma, this much had to be admitted by fair observers.  If plain truth were failing to persuade, what then was the malady that had so corrupted national politics?

* * *

I have a confession.  I was raised and confirmed in the Catholic Church, but for months, sometimes years at a time, never attended mass.  Spiritual life in my teenage years mattered about as much as saving for retirement.  Although never an atheist or agnostic, I was a functional agnostic who occasionally prayed… mostly to relieve anxiety.  Religion of your youth, however, is something that, like language, never goes away and will unconsciously mold your thoughts despite neglect.

It was that night when, in quiet contemplation, I first understood the power and meaning of spirit.  The character of the American people had changed, at least enough to elect a Marxist in a once free republic.  Shah Obama’s election was no less significant a moment than when Rome rejected her civic virtues and deteriorated into a land where bread and circuses entertained blissfully ignorant and mean citizens.  In the early years of the Roman decline, the people could have reverted and saved the Empire.  But history records their choice to embrace a new creed and doom Europe to a thousand years of darkness.

Well, my memory leaves something to be desired, but I believe it was sometime after Beck began to pull back the curtain on Democrat fundraising and associated non-profits, and before his swan song of outing Soros.  I remember it was a day or two after I had come to the same conclusion.  America, to persevere, needed a spiritual revival.  Needed religion.  Needed conviction and steely resolve to quash ideological evil that is socialism/collectivism/utopianism –whatever – and that had planted itself in the seat of government.  Nihilism would no longer do.  Shortly thereafter Beck held a rally in the Capitol to preach just that.

* * *

People get uncomfortable when political writing turns religious.  For obvious reasons, many people associate sanctimonious politicians with an older and crueler order.  Countless civilizations spanning history have languished under stultifying religious rule of one stripe or another.  America remained the peculiar exception.  The land of the free was established by emigrants fleeing religious persecution, and grew mightily from their labor.  The first generation of Americans wrote the first Amendment, guaranteeing that no monolithic central government would ever impose a theology on the people.  Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, for that matter atheists – all worship freely (or don’t) in our blessed land.

Yet operating in parallel with each faith is a common civic religion.  It permeates our spirit and binds us like any other creed shared by a people.  It was expressed beautifully in the Declaration of Independence, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Behold the uniquely American gospel of tolerance and earthy peace.

From these words grew a nation dedicated to individuals, not classes, factions, or sects.  A decade Jefferson’s masterpiece inspired the Constitution, the oldest and most successful political compact in the long annals of failed states.  By diffusing power across a meticulously crafted co-equal government of three branches, the Framers harnessed the natural inclination of ambitious men to seize undue authority, and did their best to see that it was stymied by natural jealousies of others.  While the national government was in competition within itself, it was also distinct in responsibility from powerful State governments.  Distrustful of pure democracy for its tendency to devolve into mobocracy (and finally violence), the Framers conceived a dynamic and vast representative republic that vested enumerated powers on the federal level.  In the People, not the President, Congress, or Courts, they reserved ultimate sovereignty.  The idea was stunningly simple: if government, while bounded by a strict rule of law, maintains good order and provides protection, then society will tend to and improve itself.  America’s glory can be attributed to the grand idea that government should primarily check unsocial behavior, so that humanity’s natural social tendencies may give rise to spontaneous splendor.

* * *

There is nothing menacing in a civic religion whose decalogue sanctifies individual liberty.  It is the antithesis of state religion, which demands obedience and subservience of conscience.  In America today, nothing typifies a modern state religion quite like Obamacare.

Ah yes, universal healthcare.  What could be more humanitarian?  If a parallel could be drawn today with the medieval practice of selling indulgences, it would be the mindless and unequivocal support for universal healthcare.  A staple of liberalism in Europe and Canada, the self-righteous moralize from high that only in America are we selfish enough not to provide medical services to all citizens (and non-citizens, but that’s a whole other matter).  To disagree with the proponents of socialized medicine is to fall from grace.  Free speech?  Meh, how 1700s.  Free healthcare, now that’s caring!  Now that’s license!

Repeat:
We believe in one, universal healthcare system.
We acknowledge one provider and the centralization of power.
We look to Obama for coverage,
and the Hope of timely treatment to come.

Like other state religions, Obamacare requires blind faith.  Supply and demand dictate that as demand grows and supply remains constant, so rises price.  But as Lazarus rose from the dead, after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was made flesh, natural law no longer applies.  Now coverage can be expanded to millions (higher demand), hospitals can close (lower supply), and still prices will fall, so help us Obama.  Avarice on the part of doctors and insurance companies is no more.  The new Priestess, Secretary Sebelius, has taken a veritable vow of poverty.  The cathedral of HHS is, believe me, not concerned with profits.  They are only concerned with cutting costs – their costs, that is.  And their costs just happen to be our surgeries, therapies, and intensive care treatment.  We suffer nobly thanks to comparative effectiveness research; we are anointed when sick with euthanasia.  Freedom of conscience is protected by the individual mandate.  If you can’t see the light, write your Congressman and request your very own copy of this thousand page Sermon on the Hill.

As good as it all sounds, come Judgment Day, Obamacare’s ten million commandments preclude non-state religions entrance to Heaven.  And, unlike Revelations, this prophecy has already been fulfilled.  The Vatican was recently surprised to learn that Obamacare meant subsidizing birth control and abortions.   Rabbis, ministers, and imams quickly realized that their First Amendment too was scheduled for serious revision.  Not since the civil rights movement have religious communities been so unified against government policy.  Control of healthcare, they said, meant control of the body.  But few at the time predicted it also meant control over the Body.

* * *

As you may know it’s the Lenten season.  These are the 40 days prior to Easter (excluding Sundays), during which Christians are called closer to their God and Savior.  It is customary to “give something up” as sacrifice for Lent, but this year I decided instead to do something – namely, attend Church on Sundays.  (Yes, I know, this should be perfunctory.)

When at Church, I pray for my family, friends, and neighbors to be well, to act with virtue, and to take things as they come with grace and resolve.  If a loved one is acting foolishly, it’s my wish that they willfully change their habits.  I suspect these are common sentiments among supplicants.  I’ll also say what I do not pray for.  I do not, will not, and never have prayed for my Congressman, Senator, Governor, or President to forcibly make my family, friends, or neighbors change their behavior.  I suspect that such prayers are rare; for to do so is to invert good and evil, and deny another of his conscience.

The future of Obamacare, a secular religion with a sordid history and a future that portends grave bureaucratic sin, now sits with the 9 men and women of U.S. Supreme Court.  Reports indicate that at least five of nine Justices seem hostile and given to driving the Act out of the Federal Registrar with whips.  Let’s hope so.  If narrowly saved from Obamacare we should count our blessings.  But the sobering fact remains that it was an American Congress and American President, both duly elected, which enacted this monstrous law.

There is reason for hope.  Tea Party groups have reawakened the People and sparked in them a curiousness of the Founding.  Every day, more ordinary Americans familiarize themselves with Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison.  Providence has provided a time machine across the Atlantic, and we can see decrepit results of socialism writ large.  Though our institutions are badly battered, the safeguards of liberty – free speech, freedom of association, and free elections – ensure that if we are willing to take brave political action, our fate is not yet sealed.  Now, not tomorrow, is our time to get religion.

Note to hecklers: You! STOP right there!  I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim any more than I believe he is a Jew.  For all I know, he could be a Scientologist, a Zoroastrian, a Shaker.  Remember satire?  P.S., if you want to be an atheist, go right ahead.

One thing – please don’t write me with hysterical complaints pleading the need for “civil” language and political correctness.  Political correctness is largely responsible for the Marxist residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and once in a while it is refreshing to read free speech uncensored… this is a private citizen, so deal with it.

…did you hear the violent encounters overnight in Brooklyn, and Oakland? Surgically precise, and a show of military coordination.  Do you still think they are just a loosely knit group of clueless druggies and well meaning “students” fighting for the social injustice perpetrated by society?  I hope I’m wrong but I see this becoming more prevalent as the election gets closer ; and god help us when the first casualties begin to appear and reasons are manipulated for political advantage ; I have no doubt the orchestration of the “American Spring” will advance with double time progression with exact timing provided between each individual event so the public has the time to digest the “reason” why this is inevitable because of evil banking practices while ignoring the fact that the financial institutions were by law forced into these actions by the government.  repeal of the Glass-Stiegel act of 1934 by the Clinton administration in 1994; as the election year goes forward there will be more of these incidents occurring with such casual frequency that the public will pay no attention, as more “regulations” are put in place for the good of the people; each taking freedom with the eyedropper of political correctness.

Can the elections become compromised as a result o.w.s ? is postponement that unlikely? the dangerous ‘social unrest’ will be the reasoning for amended constitutional interpretations given the desperation to justify the deployment of martial law … with the protection of the “masses” from the radical, religious, and economic persecution, brilliantly orchestrated as the ultimate endgame. While a clueless public watches reality shows and makes decisions based on the hysterics du jour … dictated by any third world nation … after which this administration has modeled itself … so criticism of their policies becomes politically incorrect, and shows the caring nature from this regime and the callous disregard of the opposition who still believe this country is worth saving …

The continued repetition of manufactured distractions worked for Hitler with the Jews.  It now works for Obama with the rich … and anybody independent of the government’s teet.  Only time will tell.

think i’ll start a blog….only thing is that may become illegal too.

Ronald Reagan, quoting Winston Churchill, 1964

April 29, 1775. April 12, 1861. July 28, 1914. These dates are memorized by school children as signifying the apparent outbreak of three major wars. Yet to merely know the date that hostilities began is not to understand the cause conflict. During the years that precede any armed combat, factions are engaged in a largely non-violent struggle on the battlefield of ideas, vying for the loyalty and support of citizens. Zealous partisans engage in campaigns whose main weapons are rhetoric, propaganda, and, occasionally, truth. Leaders employ not military tactics, but calculated stratagems designed to enhance their own standing and erode their opponents’ support. Famous battlefields in this eternal war of ideas include Religion, Politics, and Ideology.

In the decades before the Declaration of Independence, the American colonies had developed a system of self- government, a model we can recognize clearly in Mayflower Compact. Religious refugees from Europe left their home countries and established self-rule, and for the first time put sovereignty in the People. European natural rights theorists throughout the 17th century expounded the newly recognized Laws of Nature as they pertained to Man, looking across the ocean for inspiration. In America, the great English philosopher John Locke saw a system of self-government that respected the rights of the individual in society. America had no Sovereign; new taxation therefore required the consent of the governed; without representation, legislation was illegitimate. These ideas, the American contribution to political thought and posterity, were hostile toward an English Parliament and King who viewed the colonists as subjects rather than citizens, and in this fundamental disagreement sparked the American war for independence.

The political disconnect that led to the Civil War was a cousin of that that led to the American Revolution. The Constitutional Convention had resulted in a truce on slavery. Many in the North wished it did not exist, but in fact, aside from Vermont and Massachusetts, all States had slaves at the time of ratification. No less than John Jay wrote in The Federal in 1786, “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” Although the Framers ensured that the importation of slaves would end in 1808, this did nothing to address the question of slaves already in America. Ultimately the question of human rights crystalized as the nation expanded: while the North did not want to extend slavery into the territories, the South did. Each side sharpened their pencils and their theories of man. Many in the North, referencing the Declaration, insisted that rights applied equally to all races. The South, unable to convincingly argue that blacks were not men, argued the issue under the cover of States rights. A people can only tolerate a glaring inconsistency for so long, and in 1861 the festering wound burst and resulted in the bloodiest war in history up to that point. Only after the death of 625,000 Americans was the question that confounded many prior generations finally settled.

World War I, and its sequel World War II, were the direct results of nationalism. Although many people are unaware of the true meaning of nationalism, it actually signifies pride in a linguistic identity. The Germanic people were spread throughout Eastern Europe, in Austro-Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic States. Germany, at the time viewed as somewhat backwards, was lagging in industrial development compared to other European powers. As a direct result, German wages were falling relative to the other great European powers. This injured their pride. The German academy could not come to terms with this economic reality rationally, and instead enacted protective barriers aimed to support wages. Like other acts that aspire toward autarky, they were ultimately counterproductive. However, what Germany did possess was the finest standing Army in Europe at the time. This combined with millions of German speaking people across Europe was enough to convince German leaders that war would be a profitable endeavor.

Winston Churchill, that great defender of Western civilization, is known as a warrior. And indeed, a warrior he was. He saw active duty in British India, the Sudan, and was a hero in the Second Boer War. There was no question that Churchill believed in the righteousness of the Empire, and he never compromised away her interests for political expediency. In the lead up to World War I, few European leaders recognized the German threat like Churchill. While Home Secretary, Churchill had visited Germany and seen the Imperial Army (Reichsheer) first hand, and was terrified (Johnson, Paul. Churchill. 2009.). He remarked, “I can only thank God there is a sea between England and Germany” (ibid). Furthermore, Great Britain’s uncontested control of the seas was being challenged with passage of the German Naval Law of 1912, “which increased their battleship construction rate by half again” (ibid.). Churchill did not want war, but he did accept the obvious: Germany was preparing for war, and Britannia had to duly react. Much to the consternation of politicians at home, and at great cost to British taxpayers, Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, commissioned the largest battleships ever made, the Queen Elizabeth class, weighing 27,500 tons (ibid.). If not for this precocious precaution, Germany may well have won the war. Though during this time period Churchill endured one of his worst failures, the Gallipoli campaign, his determination for victory and later genius as minister of munitions undoubtedly helped the Allies to victory (ibid).

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell

Today the United States is engaged in a political battle that will determine whether we perpetuate as a Constitutional Republic or continue the drift into despotism, and the political division is clear. The election of 2012 is the grandest of battles in this long war against the Constitution that began in earnest during the Progressive Era, and won decisive and major victories under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. On one side there are those who believe in individual sovereignty, our founding principles, and limited government; the other crows for an elite, dedicated to supplanting the decisions of individuals with their own detailed plans. The latter group of political professionals coalesce around one of America’s dominant political parties, the Democrats. They and their allies and supporters are serious and disciplined, using a potent mix of propaganda, class warfare rhetoric, and manipulation of government institutions, which they largely control. While the tactics and goals differ among Democrat constituent groups (e.g. environmentalists vs. GLBT vs. peacenicks vs. et al), they share a common overarching strategy: expand the reach, scope, and budget of the Federal government. For only can additional control by an enlightened political class curb greenhouse emissions, end pollution, mandate same-sex marriage to the States, end war, and wring out the imperfections of man… or so they believe.

To be sure, there is a serious and disciplined opposition to these (what radio host Mark Levin terms) Utopian Statists, but it is not the Republican Party. They include the giants of talk radio, like Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh; sturdy think tanks such as Heritage and Cato; academic institutions like Hillsdale College (and their eminently likable President Larry Arnn) and the Claremont Institute; public intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and John Lott; authors and journalists like Mark Steyn, Joseph Curl, David Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin; activists like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck; outspoken members of Congress like Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, and Paul Ryan; and finally the backbone and muscle – Tea Party activists and leaders. Currently, and all-too-tellingly, they spend equal amounts of time criticizing a bland and impotent Republican Party as they do the real political enemy.

The individuals listed above are Generals in their own right. They rouse not armies but communities; inspire rallies, not charges. These individuals in particular target the essence the left’s delusions: that the world would be a better place but for the messiness of democracy and capitalism. These veiled attacks echo the left’s ideological forebears, the Marxists, who viewed capitalism as anarchistic. Many of them expose the left as hypocrites and liars. For all these reasons they are despised, maligned, attacked, and intimidated by their increasingly hardened and emboldened adversaries in the Democrat Party.

Excuse Me While I Save the World

Perhaps none infuriated and enraged the left like the late Andrew Breitbart, who died on March 1 this year. Talk about walking into the line of fire – Breitbart stepped out into a firestorm with each new scandalous exposé. Whether it was ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, or Anthony Weiner, Breitbart did not miss his mark. In addition to attracting ire from the political left, Breitbart never failed to ignite an almost obligatory raucous, self-serving frenzy about what constituted “legitimate” journalism across the mainstream media. Listening to Breitbart speak, his eyes flashing and pointer finger raised in defiance, it was clear that he was more passionate for his cause than virtually all others. To get a sense of how Breitbart viewed his role, and his disdain for the left and their pliant media, look no further than the title of his last book: Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World.

Over the last two weeks, much has been speculated about Breitbart’s death at 43. Breitbart had a known history of heart disease, and, according to friends, suffered a prior heart attack. Larry Sinclair, who met Brietbart on February 9 this year, reported that Breitbart had told him, “Wait till they see what happens March first.” We now know that Breitbart intended to release a video showing Obama holding a rally for the racially motivated professor, Derrick Bell. (Note: the video was released – posthumously – on March 7.) Sinclair also relays odd inconsistencies with the information he received from UCLA Medical Center. Moreover, recall that at CPAC, Breitbart promised to vet the President this election season. The autopsy is apparently complete, but a search on Google News for “breitbart autopsy” and “breitbart cause of death” shows nothing since March 2. A strange news blackout, given the man’s place in national politics and media. The more inquisitive and conspiracy-minded can see here a video offering one ostensibly plausible scenario. I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions, whatever they may be, because the media hasn’t provided any for the public.

While we ponder what could be taking that coroner so long, a fair postmortem assessment can be conducted on the reactions to his death across the political spectrum. Most on the right lamented the death of an invaluable ally, though there were some exceptions. The RINO’s RINO David Frum, for example, took the opportunity to smear Breitbart’s career as “poisonous.” The left, meanwhile, danced eagerly on his grave. Rolling Stone’s resident leading light and practitioner of yellow journalism, Matt Taibbi, entitled his grotesque reaction “Death of a Douce” and wrote “Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.” Blogger and bore Matt Yglesias tweeted “world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart [sic] dead.” These are only the most prominent of many, many more indecent examples. It’s clear the professional left rejoiced because Andrew’s fighting spirit was a serious threat to their agenda.

Another recent event exemplifies the political divide, but differently. In Rush Limbaugh’s Slutgate we observe the seriousness of the Democrats et al., and the insouciant unseriousness of Republicans. The left’s reaction was sadly predictable, especially by Limbaugh. No less than President Obama encumbered himself in the controversy, claiming he did so for his daughters. The shrill witch Pelosi sanctimoniously claimed “I wouldn’t want those words repeated in my office,” before claiming that Limbaugh and Republicans were against women’s health. Ethically-compromised Rep. Claire McCaskill accused him of waging a “war on women.” The Democrat National Committee used the occasion to raise cash. Hack attorney Gloria Allred and enemy of free speech even went so far as to suggest Limbaugh face criminal prosecution. For more than a week the national discourse revolved around a man calling a woman a slut, relegating the imperiled republic’s grave problems to back page news. You see, walking in lockstep has its advantages, and the Democrats do it so well.

What about Republicans and conservatives, for whom Limbaugh does so much? They were of two minds. Mark Levin would not pass any judgment on his friend, except to say that he approved of Limbaugh’s apology. Squish Senators John McCain and Scott Brown weren’t so diplomatic. The 2008 Republican candidate for President called the remarks “totally unacceptable” “in every way” and said they “should be condemned.” Brown, occupying the late Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, tweeted “Rush Limbaugh’s remarks are reprehensible. He should apologize.” Is it any wonder why Levin went on to admonish fellow conservatives for turning their back on the nation’s most popular conservative? (For my money, nothing beats Mark Steyn analysis, who plainly declares we have gone nuts.) With friends… no, with brothers-in-arms like this, who needs enemies?

Question: In a political battle in which one side fights as a single unit, and the other shoots their compatriots in the back, who would you bet on winning the day? The left, in their apoplectic giddiness, sacrificed free speech, reasonable discourse, and even threatened prosecution. Half the right all but joined them.

Disarm and Conquer

Given the choice between going to battle or the preemptive surrender of the opposing force, why fight? If you’re wondering why Republicans cannot seem to mount an effective counteroffensive, allow me to suggest that they’ve succumbed to Democrat political correctness. Want to cut welfare? You hate blacks and other minorities. Want to reform entitlement programs before they go broke? You hate senior citizens. Want to limit unemployment payments? You lack compassion for those in need. Want to reduce the number on food stamps? You’re kidding me, right… you really want to starve the poor? And so it goes.

Republicans are tongue-tied and stupefied, rendered inert, and consequently trampled underfoot.

And then there’s double standard, a magical tactic. Recall when that schizophrenic maniac murdered six people and injured thirteen others in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011. Democrats could not have been quicker to denounce harsh political talk, even blaming Sarah Palin. President Obama, the ringleader as usual, squandered the opportunity to bring together the nation and instead pontificated on what was acceptable speech. Americans, he said, should speak to each other “in a way that heals, not in a way wounds.” This would be the same Barack Obama (thankfully there’s only one) who encouraged Latinos to “punish their enemies” and said the Republican victory in the midterms meant “hand-to-hand” combat. James Hoffa, Obama ally and Teamsters Union leader said just a few months later in May, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march…Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

To too great an extent, political correctness has destroyed the potency of the Republican message. The noose tightens with each new regulation, executive fiat, and entitlement program. Hope is lost when speaking of liberty is tantamount to libel.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne (1572 – 1631)

The author of that famous verse is John Donne. Donne was an English Catholic who lived in the decades after Henry VIII banned Catholicism. His family had long history of martyrdom, and Donne himself knew well the meaning of religious persecution. The poem inspires us to act out of duty to one another.

Surveying the political landscape today in America, it is clear that both sides in this epic clash are hardening their views. The difference is that while one side controls a political party and its apparatuses, the other is almost homeless, or at least in the guest room. Lest you think this exaggeration, consider that the federal debt is growing faster after the Republican victory in the 2010 midterms. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell cannot effectively wield power, and this is disheartening their constituents. I believe there is a reason that Reagan chose to title his speech in which he quoted Churchill “A Time for Choosing.” More than identifying with one party or another, it was imperative to support the cause with a definite end in mind: like Churchill would gesture with his two fingers, that end is Victory. In his time, Reagan meant victory over the welfare state and the Soviets. With the current crop of Republican leaders, our latest was hollow.

Winston Churchill signals V for Victory

Each generation is tested and judged by their response to societal danger. Generations prior sacrificed their lives to establish and defend this land of free people from external foes. Rather than soldiers pitched in mortal combat, America today needs a spiritual awakening. Abraham Lincoln asked, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” Breitbart, in his “Big” way, did much in life to see that our way of life should not perish from the earth.

Remember, it tolls for thee.

The implosion of an empire is always complicated, the perspectives controversial like all Monday morning quarterbacking.  Take Rome: St. Augustine blamed Rome’s decline on the moral corruption of her citizens, mainly attributable to an inherently immoral paganism.  Edward Gibbon blamed deteriorating civic virtue and Christianity.  Others have blamed militarism and high taxes, which eventually led to the serfdom and the breakdown of trade.  America’s problems are likewise complex.  There are several notable pathogens with discernible effects.

Finances: The federal government is more than $15 trillion in debt, and running trillion dollar plus deficits.  On the current path, the Congressional Budget Office predicts a “shut down” of the economy in 2027.  To relieve the pressure of massive deficits, the Federal Reserve has America’s printing press running in hyperdrive, and is keeping interest rates at historic lows.  It’s estimated on average that each private sector worker (not citizen, worker) owes $38,721 in state debt, on top of federal debt.  In 2011, the cost of one government program alone (Obamacare) soared by $111 billion, approximately one-quarter the value of total outstanding Greek debt ($436 billion).   Meanwhile, the Chinese continue to offload our bonds, suggesting that they’re not so sure we’ll pay it all back.

Control of daily life: Federal bureaucracies of one stripe or another manage and control virtually all aspects of life, from security, to consumer products, to health insurance to health care.  Citizens are no longer free to buy certain light bulbs, or send their child to school with homemade lunches that don’t conform to the official federal nutritional schedule.  Toilets are under strict guidelines to conserve water.  Tobacco smokers are treated like second class citizens.  Weekly, we learn of new bills aimed at curtailing internet freedom.  The taxpayers richly reward their harassers; with each new quarterly deficit report, government administrators make more money than workers in the private sector, and are entitled to extravagant benefits and guaranteed vacations.

Institutional decay: The Constitutional principle of separation of power is quickly eroding with each new executive branch fiat, such as implementing cap and trade through the EPA (rather than law-making Congress).  Obamacare, still young, is already making mincemeat of  the Founding ideal of limited government; religious organizations now must violate their consciences and provide cost-free contraception and abortions. The Constitution is flouted routinely.  For example: the administration’s appointment of officials without the consent of the Senate, Obama’s refusal to implement all parts of a bill, declaring them unilaterally to be unconstitutional (after signing the bill into law), and the non-defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed under President Bill Clinton.  The executive branch – the President and his czars – is beginning to act as a legislative branch as well, severing the Constitution’s connection to the ideas of the great Montesquieu.

Blind watch dogs:  There are several high profile scandals that the media, for the most part, ignore – Fast and Furious, Solyndra et al., and the willful and politically motivated misrepresentation of deportation records.  The press eagerly reports the trivial gaffes as well as decade old writings and speeches of Republican candidates, but can’t seem to figure out that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has it in for us.

Activist judges and scorn for the Constitution: Federal courts are all to eager to comply and push the left’s agenda, twisting and contorting long-established legal interpretations to advance left-wing political goals.  If the recent overruling of California’s Prop. 8 doesn’t make that clear, what would?  Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg derided the American Constitution and praised foreign sources of law as more modern.  The New York Times features op-eds that dismiss the Constitution as embarrassingly outmoded and in need of significant revision.  Americans are told to look to Canada, Sweden, and South Africa for inspiration.

Broken system: The United States Constitution established a federal government based on representation, limited government, and separation of powers (note: an excellent, free course about the Constitution is available from Hillsdale College).  Today there is a sovereign executive branch and compliant judiciary, rendering Congress nothing more than a rubber stamp at best.  At worst, they act to aggressively leapfrog the executive and prove themselves even more “progressive” than the bureaucracy and courts.  Unfortunately, there is no representation through bureaucracy; bureaucracy, by definition, makes and enforces rules.  If Congress care not to stop them, then the rules multiply by institutional inertia.  As the saying goes, “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”  Obama and the Democrat party couldn’t be happier about this expanding leviathan, for they control it.  All pillars of Constitutional government are thus systemically undermined.

. . .

In a well-functioning democracy the natural check against such egregious abuses would be the opposition party.  They would spell out the dangers to the electorate and rally the citizens to begin a gradual process of reform – before it was too late.  Presently, this should be the role of the Republican party.  Sadly, it’s apparent that only some candidates are focused on what is at stake this election, while others are more content slinging mud and playing politics as if there were no looming catastrophe.  It speaks volumes that while unemployment remains officially over 8% (the actual number being much higher) and food stamp recipients stands at an all-time high, the national media and half of the Republican party are talking about free birth control and Rush Limbaugh’s (accurate) terming of a 30 year old student and political hack as a “slut.”  They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and to many this may have once seemed like anecdotal hyperbole.  Yet after witnessing interminable Republican pettiness and insufferable media nonchalance while the American spirit chokes to death, to think an Emperor would entertain himself while his capital was swallowed by flames no longer seems far fetched.   Perhaps Obama will blame Rick Santorum as Nero blamed the Christians?

Defeating Barack Obama and restoring Constitutional rule should be of paramount importance in the lives of all Americans of good will.  Do you know many people who feel this way?  Do you get the sense that the Republican leadership feels this way?  Outside the Tea Party, do you many Americans with a genuine sense of political urgency?  I suspect not.  And I wouldn’t expect it until one major party acknowledges – or validates for others – the existential threat manifested in the debt and lawlessness of our government.

The great worry of so many is that President Obama will be re-elected as a lame duck president, making him even bolder. Let’s assume, as is probably at this time, that Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.  Governor Romney, in collaboration with Ted Kennedy, signed into law proto-Obamacare; he once described himself as a “progressive”; he does not have the support of the party’s base, the conservatives; he can’t call Obama a socialist; his record as a flip flopper is unmatched.  Many other concerns exist and are well known by Obama’s reelection team.  What happens, God forbid, if the electorate is dispirited and unroused by Mitt Romney, and he loses?

A few things are likely.  The economy will almost certainly collapse under the weight of the debt.  Nitpicking rules governing the minutia life will multiply without respite, as they are now.  America will lose her influence in the world to a great extent, and the currently American dominated world will be replaced by regional powers such as Russia, China, and possibly a Middle Eastern caliphate.  The fates of Taiwan and Israel, not to mention several other less powerful democracies (e.g. Eastern Europe) will be serious jeopardy.  Politically, the Republican party would likely fracture, leaving a very dominant, very power hungry Democrat party in control for what would be the foreseeable future.  Welcome to not only to the post-American, but post-Western world.

. . .

Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout human history.  The duty of the few to preserve the ideas civilize through periods of anarchy and disorder thus has ancient roots.  The biblical name for this group of intellectuals is called the remnant.  The prophet Isaiah was told by God, in the charming words of Albert Jay Nock:

There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.

The monasteries in the middle ages filled this role, preserving the ancient texts from which civilization re-emerged during the Renaissance.   Through a millennium of turmoil and anarchy, monks, scribes, and scholastics kept safe the ideas central to Western civilization until the printing press could proliferate them once again.  The internet and knowledge won’t die overnight – no.  Technology will not regress as it did once Rome dissolved.  But liberty will.  Prevailing ideas and habits dominate politics, and a society that rears its young in a culture of entitlement, envy, and enmity will not nurture the vital, self-reliant American spirit.

Nock goes on to explain how the Remnant differ from the masses:

The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

Notwithstanding Nock’s characteristically misanthropic attitude, the moral of the story we can recognize today.  Europe, not yet twenty years ago freed from the yoke and shadow of Communism, finds itself mired in debt, unable to cobble together a lasting solution lest the rioters act up and torch a row of homes.  America, for her part, witnesses this transatlantic economic calamity and confidently follows suit.  As I write this, 45% of Americans still approve of President Obama, apparently undaunted by his glib abuses of power.  Romney, admittedly the likely candidate, leads the President in a hypothetical matchup by a mere 2%.  To be blunt: the masses are failing to accurately diagnose the political pathogens that are bringing down civilization as we know it.  Without a clarion call from the Republican Party candidate, whomever that may be, the political naifs (that is, the majority of the country) will doom themselves.

There are millions of American citizens who instinctively reject the massive expansion of government.  They are patriots who fight, politically, to save their way of life and the traditions of their native land.  What they require, practically, is a political leader.  Is the Republican Party so broken that it cannot identify such a man or woman to defeat a Marxist?  Is the press so ignorant that they cannot recognize a genuine threat to the perpetuity of a free and good people, and instead focus on non-issues like free birth control and the monologues of Rush Limbaugh?  Are the people too corrupt to demand accountability from their politicians and seriousness from journalists?  On these questions our future and the safety of the free world hangs.

. . .

I was on a Q train to 57th Street yesterday.  Looking at the advertisements like a good caged commuter, I began to notice that virtually all were public service announcements paid for by New York City.  There were seven different city government ads in total, five viewable from my seat.  They “advertised” for:

1. Filing your tax return
2. Hepatitis C testing
3. Public school teachers
4. Cat spaying/neutering
5. MTA capital improvement projects … walking to the other end of the car now …
6. Anti-littering campaign
7. Food portion control/anti-obesity

Again, this was one subway car.  With the economy in the gutter, can only the city afford advertising space on NYC transportation?  Or does it suggest that the people can no longer manage their own lives, and require incessant prodding to adequately perform basic civic tasks, keep hygienic, and be a decent human being who doesn’t litter, cares responsibly cares for felines, and maintains a reasonable weight?  Probably both to some extent.  But what it suggests undeniably is the psychology of a people that no longer views government as a dangerous servant, but instead as a buddy and partner throughout life.  This type of government prefers to keep adult citizens as children, and suspend their privilege of making decisions that involve significant even marginal risk.

I cite this example to demonstrate that the debate over the role of government is no longer academic; the totalitarians have already conquered much ground, and the forces of liberty are in full retreat.  There will always be among the people some who resist the stultifying designs of the planners, the health nannies, the busy bodies, and the would-be masterminds.  Such men and women – the Remnant – will remain free thinking and morally erect against the tide of politically correctness and state coercion.  In their thoughts and actions, they and their children transmit the kernel of civilization through the intellectual darkness of their day.  Slowly they argue their cause, build a coalition, and wait patiently for circumstances ripe to seize control of long-neglected institutions and re-establish a free and just order.  It could be decades, centuries.  Depending on the outcome of the 2012 election, this tragic fate may be ours.

Obama and his nannies have now managed to get the full attention of the Catholic Church, after decreeing that Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools, and universities must provide birth control, including contraceptives and abortions, for employees.

Secretary Sebelius at Health and Human Services issued the decree, citing authority under Obamacare.  The administration, despite public outrage, has robustly defended the measure, which they claim is a women’s health issue.  Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today, explaining:

One of the key benefits of the 2010 health care law is that many preventive services are now free for most Americans with insurance. Vaccinations for children, cancer screenings for adults and wellness visits for seniors are all now covered in most plans with no expensive co-pays or deductibles. So is the full range of preventive health services recommended for women by the highly respected Institute of Medicine, including contraception.

Cut away the agreeable platitudes that serve only to get half the population nodding in zombie-like fashion.  This isn’t about health.  It’s all about power.

The first amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Forget for a moment that Secretary Sebelius is not Congress, and that bureaucrats should not have this kind of law making power.  That’s a different crisis.  Interpret Congress to mean “the federal government.”  Is there any doubt whatsoever that this law demands that Catholic institutions violate their faith?

I was baptized in the Church, confirmed by the Church, and still attend mass (though admittedly not as frequently as I should).   My understanding of Catholic theology is satisfactory, and I’ve spent periods of my life studying various aspects of Catholicism.  Allow me to give a very basic thumbnail sketch of the Church’s teaching of the body, sex, and birth.  (Note to readers: feel free to correct me.)

The body is imperfect; it has been corrupted by Original Sin.  It can be glorified by virtuous acts, but is not divine in origin like the soul.  It is infirm, prone to disease, and is not intrinsically good or evil.  It manifests appetites, which can turn to vice if not controlled by reason.  Among these appetites is the sexual appetite.  Apart from God and outside His institution of marriage, sex is a base instinct.  The reproductive potentiality of men and women are in their very essence divine, and likewise the physical manifestation of love is to be regarded as mysterious.  It is a creative act, unique, which results in a new person with a divine soul.  The associated pleasure is “the icing on the cake.”  It is not in the providence of man to interfere with God’s intent in this domain.

You’ll notice the mix of ancient Grecian philosophy, Roman philosophy, and Christian philosophy.  The view is old world, and in the true sense of the word “catholic” (i.e. universal).  It takes into account man, nature, and man’s place in nature.  It looks to heaven for a larger meaning, and clearly proscribes man’s temporal authority to intervene in divine affairs.

Now: you may agree, disagree, laugh, scoff, or hold this view in reverence.   But the Church, likely the oldest continuous institution of Western civilization, takes Her view very seriously.  To violate it would be to endanger the souls of Her believers.  If push comes to shove, they will sooner shut their doors than violate their conscience.

Obama and his administration, deliberately, have acted in blatant defiance of America’s greatest freedom: freedom of religion.  Catholic bishops are now responding forcefully.  One Pennsylvania Bishop said recently:

“In the totalitarian government, they would love our system. This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.”

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the head of Roman Catholic military chaplains, said that regulation “is a blow to a Freedom … for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

Locally, Bishop Timothy Dolan of New York responded :”You bet we got a disagreement… It’s not about contraception. It’s about the right of conscience.”  Dolan continued, “The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church… This is not a Catholic issue, it’s an American issue. We’re strong on this issue of conscience, and that’s what’s at stake here.”

The gloves are off.  I suggest that excommunications should not be ruled out for a president and party who seek to remake America in Obama’s image.

November can’t come soon enough.

…

Just remembered this.  Obama had Notre Dame cover up the letters IHS (Jesus) when he spoke at their in 2009.

Take, for example, this ridiculous paragraph:

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as “Romneycare” is just a word game, on the order of acting like a “gun” has the same properties as a “gunny sack,” or “fire” is the same thing as a “firefly.”

Question: If I impose an immoral piece of legislation on 6.5 million people, and then another imposes the same basic legislation on 310 million, does the legislation affecting “only” 6.5 million people become somehow moral because it affects less people?  Of course not.

The individual mandate is what conservatives rightfully find absolutely appalling, and it is the keystone in both Romneycare and Obamacare.

Continues Ann,

While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.

I like the Heritage Foundation as much as anyone.  But if the Heritage Foundation woke up one day and supported abortion, would I support abortion?  No.  Would Ann?  What if Romney did, again?

The problem, Ann, is that when you lose all mooring to principle you lose the ability to think straight.  You’ve twisted yourself into so many knots you’re not sure which way is up.  Matter of fact, so low your standards have fallen that you’re now quoting the unfunny, unserious, creep Jon Stewart to attack Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

Quoting a liberal icon to attack Romney’s opponent is as pitiful as Romney’s opponents attacking Bain Capital.  To nominate a liberal Republican to run against President Obama (a Marxist of the first order) would be dangerous, stupid, and ridiculous.

And I don’t even support Newt.  My candidate is Santorum.

Ann Coulter, Conservative.  May that career RIP.