Here’s a thorough response to several very common misconceptions.

Unscrupularity is a fog under which ignorance and evil thrive.

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Just a harmless class jingle respecting the office of the president? Not if considered in full context.

This type of occurrence is not exclusive to this president, this political party, this country, or even this century. The historical record of every socialized nation reveals that government seizure of the educational apparatus is inevitable. However, America wasn’t founded as a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist nation, it was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of individual rights - on such principles no justification for socialization of any market can be logically based. There certainly is no justification either morally or practically for Government to involve itself in the field of ideas.

When Government assumes control over a country’s education, it must assume the management of the funding for such a system. If it controls the funding, it must also control the subject matter being taught. When a government controls the subject matter being taught, they are, in effect, dictating ideology by force - a student cannot pass without compliance with the established curriculum. Wrangling the ideological essence of a population by force is a crucial component to directing the herd. This power was precisely why the 10th condition for transition in the Communist Manifesto was “free public education”.

We must take this very seriously.

Progressive, socialized education is not only systematically destroying our youth’s ability to think conceptually across all subject matter, it also effectively facilitates the level of indoctrination necessary to destroy America.

For America to survive, public education should be adamantly opposed on moral and (obvious) practical grounds. So long as the system remains, we don’t have a chance. Public schools will be the death knell of this country. This is not about optimism vs. pessimism - this is a logical fact drawn from just the numbers.

Rational, self-reliant, individualist minded people, the type of individuals who founded America, i.e., Capitalists, will simply be outnumbered by the irrational, collectivist sheep-like types that socialized education breeds. The ideas and cognitive guidance that a child is exposed to in its formative years ingrain ideals that after years of reinforcement are very hard to think out of. Our government has hijacked our children, by force, throughout those crucial years. The ideas being cast on our youth today bear faint resemblance to any of the founding principles of this country. The work and thought of the patriots of the American Revolution, as well as all the scientific, and creative ingenuity of the 19th century is being tactfully undermined by modern (anti) philosophy and by the dysfunction and incompetence of our socialized system of education.

Before any might take offense, let me clarify one notion; there are good people in our schools - I know because I am married to (a former) one and I know many others - but in a bureaucratic system essentially immune to fundamental economic laws (their customers can’t say no), the most competent and passionate educator doesn’t stand a chance in a non-objective system ruled by the whim of political engineering.

The proper role of Government is to protect individual rights - period. There is no rational, logical or economical justification for socialization of education.

The best thing we as parents can do for our children, and the only chance for America is throw aside the yolk of public education to the extent that we can. The very nature of the system is intended (on egalitarian grounds) to prevent citizens from any other options, and for many that is the unfortunate reality. If a man is taxed for education funding beyond his choice, he very well may not be able to afford to fork out even more of his hard-earned money for opting out of the system. This is the hidden sinister nature of public education - it all but eliminates feasible competition for the vast majority of citizens.

Once the moral sanction is granted, they’ve got us. They can take our children, by force… they can bus them across the county for racist social engineering… by force, and they can then proceed to teach (indoctrinate) them any ideals (regardless of how offensive or irrational those ideals may be) by force.

Take a moment to consider the reality of that last paragraph. For those who can, get your children out of public schools and into private (rationally guided) or home based schooling - schooling that enforces the principles and ideals that you hold sacred. Do whatever you can within your means, adjust your finances, move to a different area, consider home-schooling, but don’t sanction the hideous violation of your rights by doing (or saying) nothing.

If nothing else, and more importantly, understand the principles at hand and vocally oppose socialized education at every opportunity. This is a critical time.

When children are exposed to irrational, collectivist ideals from age five to twenty-five, they’re much easier to rouse by any leftist leader to support any collectivist cause. Socialized medicine, environmentalism, progressive taxation, “net-neutrality”, and the perpetuation of all other anti-capitalist, anti-man, anti-life bad ideas, past and present, are now fueled by voters thoroughly brainwashed in public schools. As the indoctrination continues to intensify, the scope of power afforded to our collectivist rulers will approach free-reign - we’re almost already there.

The best thing we can do for ourselves, our children, our country and the entire world is to fight public education in America as passionately, articulately and as loudly as we can, by every means available, on the basis that man has the right to exist for his own sake, and the the proper role of government is to protect individual rights - not violate them by forcing men to pay, neither for himself nor others, into an inherently corrupt system that spreads ideas contrary to his convictions as well as the founding principles of America.

I’ve been unusually busy writing a new semi-dynamic persistence layer for work - an effort that I’ve been thoroughly and pleasantly engaged in. I have only a few minutes to post, so I thought I’d plug a book that I’ve enjoyed reading.

I highly recommend these reads by Craig Biddle, which are highlights of his book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

Most people are skeptical of a code of morality based on reason, but here Biddle lays it out very clearly.

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Part Five
• Part Six
• Part Seven

There was a point in my life where her writing was almost therapeutic, but disgusted sympathy is the only response I can muster to this luke-warm call to arms by Peggy Noonan.

Like a basketball team which never identifies which goal to shoot for, or a football team who narrows it down to a only a few plays in the huddle, conservatives have no unified goals or principles. Philosophy drives ideas and any group based on an alleged ideology void of explicit principles will be ineffective. Noonan understands that unity within her party is non-existent and makes an attempt to define some basic tenets. Just like other pragmatists, the prescription is a call to abandon principles.

The poles that keep up the tent are the party’s essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third—and how many poles there are.

I can’t argue with the first, which is about the only position of the right that stands to reason. After the first, however, we get the same vague, implicit notions that the republicans have coasted on for decades.

Less demanding and intrusive? In what manner should we seek less demands and fewer intrusions? Should a proper government in a free society be demanding at all? Less intrusive? Should it be intrusive at all? In what way might it rightfully intrude?

Affection for tradition? To what aspects and to what extent? The American tradition imparts a shift to statism, should that pattern be upheld?

Respect for life? Absolutely, but in what sense? I can only guess this means violating the rights of women to their own lives by banning abortion.

In summary, here we see the same worn-out bromides that have defined the right for the last 50 years:

• The mixed economy is proper, so long as men can still produce.
• Uphold the status quo, whatever that might be.
• Tie it all up with theocratic underpinnings.

Noonan, like the troops she’s trying to rouse, shares the same moral base as the left - altruism. Hers is only decorated by trivial subtleties, tinted by religion, and hued by an implicit “common sense” provided by a foggy understanding of how freedom equals prosperity.

The ground is shifting. It’s hard to get your footing in an earthquake. As Republicans on the Hill try, they must also try to steady their party. It needs a greater sense of realism about its predicament. It needs less enforcement and more encouragement. It needs to inspire the young and the politically unformed not with bloodlust but with ideas.

Right, but which ideas? There’s not a single mention of the proper role of Government, individual rights, or any supposed alliance with the founding principles of this nation.

A great party allows everyone in, and allows prospective members to self-define. If they say they’re Republicans, they should be welcomed and helped to find a place where they fit. A great party has a lot of such places. A great party is expansive. A great party has [to] give. [emphasis and edits mine]

Abandon principles (which have yet to be defined), be flexible, give in, cooperate, compromise - the only thing that matters is what group one professes to belong to. So long as the jersey has an ‘R’ on it, they’re on the team!

By her prescription, not only will the conservatives remain pathetic in the defense of rights, freedom and Capitalism, they’ll continue to shift further towards the statism of the left - leaving America to choose only between two variants of the same collectivist nightmare.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent tribute to the superficial nature and impotence of the republican party.

Daniel Hannan is a wonderfully refreshing voice.

In general, Hannan is absolutely right in that we’ve abandoned the essence of America, in particular, we’ve discarded the notion and sanctity of individual rights. Rights, if revered, facilitate freedom. Freedom enables productivity. Productivity generates wealth. Wealth creates prosperity. Prosperity benefits life. To the extent that the root of this logical sequence is hampered, so each subsequent link suffers the same diminution.

Americans, in general, have never fully understood the source of this country’s greatness. None of the commonly mistaken notions; religion, race, or resources, can explain the unprecedented achievement by America. Only one concept, rights, i.e., freedom from compulsion, did and can ever facilitate the American ideal. Until our culture learns the meaning of that concept, its logical roots and obvious repercussions, the thrust of America is completely neutered - we’re running on the fumes of reason and justice, and time is running out.

Here’s another example, just as in all cases, showing the left is ideologically bankrupt.

As a result of the American economy and culture circling the drain, many citizens are fed up with the collectivist path our country has taken. Oppressive taxation, crippling regulation and the ever-growing statist cloud overcoming the US are taking their toll on individuals trying to live and prosper in the remnants of freedom. Resurrecting a pivotal link to American Revolution, citizens organized tax protests which appropriately took place on April 15th. Concerned individuals are taking an absolutely justified stand of self-preservation against an unprincipled and tyrannical government that shows no signs of letting up.

The result from our leftist media is not sincere consideration, professional discourse or any other objective commentary. Instead, acting precisely like the mouth-breathing idiots they portray all non-leftists to be, the greatest nation in the history of man is being annihilated and these anti-intellectual cheerleaders for death respond in the only way they can - by cracking ignorant wisecracks.

There is a very poignant conclusion to be drawn from this disgusting spectacle. As irrational pragmatists, leftists (altruist-collectivists) have no intellectual opposition to offer. None of their whims stand to reason, thus the ability to respond with any substantial thought is neutered. Emotional ad hominem is their only option. Adding sexual innuendo at least makes them look cool amongst their peers in addition to the primary purpose of diffusing any factually prudent discussion - nothing more than an evasive facade for changing the subject.

Leftists are in denial. Sundry media chumps, politicians, even center-left leaning friends and acquaintances are adamantly opposed to tossing out the labels Fascism or Socialism. The thought of explicitly naming the deadly fact that they so earnestly long for is very unpopular and met with passionate challenges to justify such declarations.

Have we really become what they dream of, yet dread to name? I think this question by Myrhaf explicitly drives home the point:

If the state is firing CEO’s and telling businesses how much in bonuses they can get, how is this not fascism? At what point does a mixed economy that is heading toward fascism actually cross the line to fascism?

Driven by the primacy of consciousness, where reality is only a arbitrary product subject to their mental discretion, so long as they don’t call a spade a spade it can remain any object of their choosing. Such evasion enables them to still consider the irrational altruist-collectivist-keynesian nightmare that America has devolved into as a progressive society of hope, so long as they don’t label it with any unbecoming title. Conforming to their moral code, altruism, collectivists seek all the essential aspects of Socialism, but implicit, lingering filaments of reason and rationality demand that they stop short of its full embodiment. They realize that the whole charade rests on the fuel of individual freedom. They want the benefits of freedom but also to wrangle it with statist power, to enjoy the prosperity of Capitalism but under the control of tyranny, to have their cake and eat it too.

Historical fact places them within a precarious quagmire - fact vs. wish. The brutal and undeniable record of statism has ingrained negative connotations in the minds of most luke-warm leftists such that explicitly applying Fascist, Socialist and Communist labels to America would present very uncomfortable contradictions - ones that would be impossible to evade.

As a result, they must try to find a way to camouflage the attack, both to the victims and themselves. One tactic is to think up a lofty title wreaking of sincere benevolence - Universal Health Care, Smart Start, Paycheck Fairness etc. - the other is to debate inessential technicalities in order to persuade that our version of collectivism isn’t pure, or represents a unique approach to establishing stagnant misery.

Societies are in constant movement either towards or away from freedom - in almost all cases away. If we’re not moving towards freedom and the individual, i.e. prosperity, we’re heading towards statism and the collective, i.e. misery. Since this country has long abandoned the former, only the latter remains as our final destination.

Does America more closely resemble laissez faire Capitalism or Fascism? I think without any question the latter.

As part of a promotion at audible.com, several books are on sale including the unabridged version of Atlas Shrugged.

I highly recommend the audio book version. Not only has it proven to be a very convenient format for enjoying the story, but also a way to share the story with others. I keep the stack of 50 CD’s in a case that I leave in my car and occasionally will put on my desk at work. I’ve loaned it out on two separate occasions - both of which were facilitated by the format of the media.

To get this life-changing novel for $4.95 is a incredible value.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, I just realized that you must be a member to get the sale price. This fact was conveniently excluded from their add as well as the site. Still a great deal if you were to join for 3 months (minimum) @ $7.95/month, which would allow you three books at no additional charge plus the sale price on Atlas. Essentially, one could get 4 books for $28.80 total.

by Craig Biddle at 8:23 PM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.

Well, the day has come when America has elected a president of a different race than all that preceded him. The usual suspects boast of America’s progress and lament how proud Martin Luther King would be - as if their collectivist triumph, which happens to be championed on this particular day by a man of mixed race, carry the same moral nobility as Dr. King’s genuine crusade for a colorblind world.

MLK correctly promoted that men abstain from taking the crude intellectual shortcut of assessing another man based on his genetic lineage, i.e, overlooking an individual in favor of a group. Yet, in this great day of change, a tremendous number of people did exactly that, and on a more fundamental level, they elected a man who’s an avowed collectivist, i.e, one who overlooks individuals in favor of a group as his exclusive method.

Draw your own conclusions about progress.

A man’s philosophy drives his every decision. When such decisions extend into the realm of wielding force against a nation of individuals, the importance of his philosophy is immeasurable. How he regards our rights to life, liberty, and property, how he reveres the proper scope of government, his sense of justice – these are the keys one should consider when evaluating a political candidate, especially one looking to rule a nation.

I didn’t vote. Given the choice of poison or venom - I’ll stay home. Yes, the current dimwit imbecile is on his way out - good for America. No, we won’t be harnessed by a theocratic regime - great for America. At least our march into collectivist stagnation will be orchestrated with the style and class of a charismatic and well-spoken dictator.

Race, like sex, doesn’t determine one’s philosophy, intelligence or ability. However, for a country plagued in its infancy by the irrational collectivist disease of slavery, and since longing to be colorblind - today is one of symbolic significance. For a culture rank with sloppy attire, unintelligible slang and nearly void of aspiration to achieve anything of rational value, a neatly dressed, extremely well-spoken man in a successful and honored position is a unprecedented role-model and cultural icon. This is good for America.

What the man will do is not. Obama is a collectivist by his every statement. He does not regard individuals with any degree of sanctity. People are merely spokes in the wheel of his vision. This is bad for America. Obama will treat men as property of the State, and as such, what should properly be considered as rights will be treated as privileges. When property is a privilege, wealth can be confiscated, guns can be collected, and business regulations can be enforced. When men are seen as means to a collective end, any portion of their life, liberty or property can be used as the ruler desires. As in every collectivized society in the history of man, individuals drained of their rightful motive and means to survive will stagnate in passivity. This is bad for America. Men wrangled with regulation, dictates and plunder, while also being denied the proper means to protect themselves from other men in desperation from the same oppression is a society doomed to resort to animalistic survival. This is bad for America.

If instead of an avowed collectivist, this candidate were a rational-minded individual who valued justice, freedom, and rights, this day could be one celebrated by all Americans. Instead, such a day of pride for many Americans coincidentally spearheads a likely fatal stab in the back of all Americans by way of undermining our essence. I’d like very much to share the celebratory sentiment, but in the context of freedom and individual rights, today is a very dark day.