Cooling Down Climate Change Alarmism

The only thing I find surprising at all is that anyone still finds such obviously weak arguments at all compelling, however, there are always many people who find blatantly fallacious arguments compelling.

The climate is changing. Full stop. No rational person is arguing that the climate is now or has ever been immutable, but expecting climate alarmists to care what we actually believe very obviously remains wishful thinking. Bill Nye the Science Guy recently reinforced this in an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, doubling down on an early assertion that anyone that denied climate change was suffering from “cognitive dissonance” (watch here).

Pointing out that the climate has always changed is a popular retort, but it clearly isn’t getting through to the Left, or, at the very least, it clearly isn’t getting through to Bill Nye. Since I absolutely love clarity in science and logic, let me be absolutely clear. In my opinion, Bill Nye has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about in regards to climate sciences. At present, I don’t believe that any climate scientists can be trusted, and the young science is irrecoverably tainted by political activism for at least a generation or two.

While I am pretty far from a climatologist myself, unless Bill Nye has secretly acquired a degree in meteorology or climate sciences, he isn’t one either. Bill does have a stronger background in science than I do, however, so I’ll address his argument from a broader philosophical and historical fashion and stay away from climate, meteorological, and atmospheric dynamics outside my expertise.

Point by point, here are actual statements made by Bill Nye during his representation of the current climate alarmist argument with Tucker Carlson.

1) “Cognitive Dissonance is not a delusion, it’s a feature – it’s human nature.” – Bill Nye
So, I just looked it up, and according to online psychology resources, cognitive dissonance “can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior“. That certainly sounds like a delusion to me. More clearly, it sounds like exactly the kind of base ad hominem that the Left resorts to when it wants to disqualify dissenting opinion. Here’s the problem for Bill Nye. Even if we’re really all as crazy as he thinks we are, this does not in any way address skeptical arguments against anthropogenic global warming alarmism.

2) “…You deny the authorities that are providing the evidence.” – Bill Nye
That’s an interesting choice of words: “deny the authorities“. It’s almost like Bill is making an appeal to authority argument. Actually, strike that, it’s exactly an appeal to authority argument. In Bill’s world view, there is a small cadre of expert and infallible scientists, and then there’s the unwashed masses of “maladaptive” deniers, who dare to question the proclamations of these “scientific elite“, of whom Bill claims to be one of, despite, as noted earlier, not having any classical education or experience in the field of climatology.

3) “It’s not an open question, it’s a settled question.” – Bill Nye
Yes, because as every school child knows classification of scientific knowledge goes: voodoo, hypothesis, unpopular kid in gym class, theory, Superbowl contender, law, and then “settled science“. Except, when I think back to my science courses in college, I don’t remember a designation of “settled being attributed to any scientific principle. What Bill Nye really means to say is that even though 95% of climate models have failed to accurately predict the temperatures for the last two decades, we should believe based on how many within the “scientific elite” and in the media are pushing the premise, not necessarily on the actual science. This is a fallacious appeal to popularity and does nothing at all to substantiate his argument.

4) “Don’t you have 4 children?” – Bill Nye
Did Bill Nye the pseudo science guy just imply a causal relationship between the number of children someone has and the validity of a hypothesis with a 5% success rate? Though, honestly, being that I’m a “maladaptive” denier, I was operating under the delusion that such an obvious appeal to emotion is not only unscientific, but philosophically fallacious and blatantly illogical. Like so many people who remain skeptical of the climate alarmism, I thought how I felt about the data has no bearing on the meaning of the data. Silly me.

5) “[The Climate] would look like it did in 1750… Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes.” – Bill Nye
Here Bill Nye’s argument finally approaches an objective argument with unemotional assertions and must be disassembled very carefully. First, Bill suggests that the climate would and, implicitly, should look like it did in 1750. Alright, so what was the observed mean temperature for 1750? Well, we have no idea, and we never will, because the data necessary to even ball park the climate in 1750 simply doesn’t exist, since there wasn’t a systematic, let alone global, method of acquiring that kind of data in the mid 18th Century.

Second, Europe was still in the grips of the Little Ice Age in 1750 and would be for another century. Does Bill Nye the pseudo science guy actually mean to suggest that Ice Ages are somehow ideal or even normal? Apparently so, because Bill suggests that the Earth would be in an Ice Age right now, if it weren’t for human activity. From a purely logistical and economic standpoint, since food production and biodiversity seems to strongly positively correlate with temperature, global warming seems to be a net positive for humanity and life on the planet.

Third, grapes were being grown in Britain during the Roman Empire during the Second Century and again one thousand years later in the middle of the Dark Ages. Given the lack of cars, planes, trains, or any heavy industry of any kind at either the century after the Crucifixion or the first Millennium later, the climate clearly can and does fluctuate immensely in the 1000 year range, from warm, to cold, to warm again, and grapes being grown in Britain, if that even can be any indication at all of the climate, is indicative only that the climate has changed, and this seems to be a good thing, if only for the domestic wine industry in Britain.

6) “Instead of happening on time scales of millions of years or, let’s say, fifteen thousand years [climate change is] happening on a time scale of decades and now years…” – Bill Nye
This is the most pseudo science of all of the pseudo science claims that Bill Nye made in his short interview. In order to know whether or not temperature data is changing “faster than ever“, for example, we’d need anywhere from 5 to 10 comparable sets of half century observations, meaning we’d need data going back to at least the early 1700’s and as far back as the 1500’s to compare to. Unfortunately for Bill Nye, again, that data simply doesn’t exist. Without that data, Bill’s claim isn’t science but hysteria.

So let’s look at the climate alarmist argument as Bill Nye presented it. Fully two-thirds of the alarmist argument is fallacious garbage, barely worth making fun of, though, I have to admit, it was fun doing so. The last one-third of the alarmist argument is based on less than 50 years of data, during the last twenty years of which there have been no significant increases in observed temperature. Only 60% of 33% of their entire argument holds up to any scientific, or, at least, philosophical scrutiny, and any conclusions that could be drawn from that 20% of their argument has no context outside of the 15 to 17 years of data that they have found alarming.

The only thing I find surprising at all is that anyone still finds such obviously weak arguments at all compelling, however, there are always many people who will believe such blatantly fallacious arguments. This, my friends, is why the Founding Fathers feared democracy as the tyranny of the weak minded that it always is.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

Stay Off of Reagan’s Grave

Here, however delayed, is a four point argument on the differences between Ronald Reagan, a titan of American conservatism, and Donald Trump, a populist, celebrity loudmouth.

Recently, there has been a push by the Republican Party’s propaganda machine to draw comparisons between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. In a recent article by Tammy Bruce, she focuses on parallels between how Ronald Reagan was treated in the media to how Donald Trump is being treated by the media, which would otherwise be a meaningless, but not inaccurate comparison had she not wrote one sentence in particular that put a burr under my saddle. She writes, “I do believe there are many similarities between Reagan and Trump.

No, Tammy, there really aren’t, and your argument not only fails to support that statement, it’s ridiculous on its face. On the first premise about the media attacks, I can’t remember a single modern Republican president or presidential candidate that didn’t come under withering and often vicious attacks from the American media. So suggesting that Donald Trump is somehow “just like Reagan“, because he is attacked by the press is a sophomoric argument. Cancer, tobacco companies, and oil spills have all come under withering and vicious attacks, so is Trump like cancer?

Reality check time. In no uncertain terms, comparing Donald Trump in any way to Ronald Reagan is nothing short of a slander of Reagan’s legacy, and I will not stand for it. In fact, I was so incensed by the implication that it’s taken days for me to trim this article from fireball to a somewhat polite retort. Here, however delayed, is a four point argument on the differences between Ronald Reagan, a titan of American conservatism, and Donald Trump, a populist, celebrity loudmouth.

1) Different generations.

Ronald Reagan was a member of the Greatest Generation. The generation that experienced the First World War, then fought through the Second World War, despite the terrible cost in human life, against the racist malevolence of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The generation that carried itself through the Great Depression. The generation that raised their children through the darkest hours of the Cold War. The generation that sent their children to fight against communist North Korea and their communist Chinese allies in the Korean War. Reagan’s generation saw the true heart of Communism and Fascism first hand. In every way, Ronald Reagan was a product of his generation.

“Our natural, unalienable rights are now
considered to be a dispensation of government,
and freedom has never been so fragile, so
close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this
moment.”
-Ronald Reagan, 1964-

Donald Trump is a member of the Baby Boomers. The generation that was born in the shadow of the Cold War, after the Second World War. They vaguely remembered the Korean War. When the last of the Cold War era battlefronts escalated into full out war, the Boomers ultimately lost to a broken enemy, abandoning thousands of American soldiers to die in hellish Viet Cong prisoner of war camps and disappear into unmarked graves, and spat on the veterans who survived for defending their country. Selfless patriotism fell out of vogue. Under the Baby Boomers, divorce became fashionable and abortion legal. Trump’s generation became the “me” generation. In every way, Donald Trump is a product of his generation.

“It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the
Vietnam-era. It is my personal Vietnam.
I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”
-Donald Trump, 1997-

2) Different ideological backgrounds.

Even while the president of the Screen Actor’s Guild, Reagan was already actively anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, and vocally pro-American. During the 1950’s, Reagan traveled the country as a spokesperson for General Electric, speaking on the importance of political and economic freedom to the American way of life. By 1964, when Ronnie gave the historic “A Time for Choosing” speech supporting the Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign, his political ideology had been sharpened by over a decade of public and personal exploration. By the time Reagan took the presidential Oath of Office in 1981, becoming the 40th president of the United States, his conservative ideology had grown deep roots for over three decades.

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
-Ronald Reagan, 1962-

Since 1987 alone, Donald Trump changed political parties no less than 6 times. During his campaign for president, Donald Trump espoused political positions on both sides of dozens of policy issues, from public land use to taxation, from minimum wage to health care. Before 2010, Donald Trump gave substantially more to Democrats ($686,250.00 total, from 1989 to 2010) than to the Republicans ($520,390.00 total, same time period). In fact, only after first flirting with running in the 2012 presidential election did Trump stop writing checks to Democratic politicians. The only thing that is certain about Donald Trump’s guiding ideology is that he clearly doesn’t have one.

“In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat.”
-Donald Trump, 2004-

3) Different professional backgrounds.

Ronald Reagan came to prominence as a celebrity, possessed of a personal charm and movie star good looks. Unlike Hollywood celebrities of today, Reagan didn’t “study” to become an actor. Instead, he majored in economics and sociology, and, though not an outstanding student, he graduated with a well rounded education. After college, he went into sports broadcasting, which lead into his career as an actor. His involvement in the actor’s union took him into more political realms, especially after he became president of the Screen Actors Guild. After serving in the Army Reserves during World War II, he found himself more and more interested in political philosophy, most specifically in the growing threat of Communism. It was this personal investment in pro-American ideology that lead to his run for governor of California in 1967 and ultimately for president in 1976 and 1980. Ideology, not personal celebrity, guided Reagan’s political ambitions.

“There are no constraints on the human
mind, no walls around the human spirit,
no barriers to our progress except
those we ourselves erect.”
-Ronald Reagan-

Donald Trump was born into the real estate business built by his grandmother and father. His obsession with his own personal wealth and celebrity began immediately. He studied at an Ivy League school, a fact he repeatedly reminds people of, studying business, though his academic records, like Obama’s, remain sealed. He was already involved in his own business ventures in college, and the degree, something his father insisted upon, was only tangential to his pursuit of wealth and celebrity. By the time Trump was in his 40’s, he was already a world famous billionaire, known mainly for slapping his name on everything from board games to airplanes, from frozen meat to luxury casinos. Almost all of these companies have crumbled into bankruptcy, still his personal brand persists. Personal celebrity, not ideology, guides Donald Trump’s ambition.

“I don’t even wait. When you’re a star, they
let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em
by the pussy. You can do anything.”
-Donald Trump-

4) Different personal backgrounds.

Ronald Reagan was born in a small town, the child of 2nd and 3rd generation Irish and Scottish Americans. Reagan’s father was a salesman and his mother a homemaker, both deeply religious people. Ronald went out into the world, becoming a sports announcer, which lead him by chance to Hollywood, where he started acting. It was in Hollywood that he met his first wife, Jane Wyman, with whom he two children, and adopted a third. His involvement in the screen actor’s union created an irreconcilable difference between himself and Jane, and she divorced him in 1948. A year later, Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis, and the two dated for three years, before marrying in 1952. They had two children and spent over half a century together, until Ronnie’s death in 2004.

“Whatever I treasure and enjoy… all would be
without meaning if I didn’t have you.”
-Ronald Reagan, to his wife, Nancy-

Donald Trump was born in Queens, New York, the fourth child of 3rd generation German American and 1st Generation Scottish American. From very early age, Donald was involved in his father’s real estate business. Accustomed to wealth, Donald grew into an unruly and cruel young man, bullying other students at his school. He became so unmanageable that his parents enrolled him in a military academy, hoping to reform him. At age 31, Donald married Czech model, Ivana Zelníčková. Their rocky marriage ended in 1991, Donald having later admitted to numerous infidelities, the final straw being with actress Marla Maples. Donald married Marla in 1993, then divorced her just 6 years later in 1999. In 1998, Donald became involved with his current wife, Melania Knauss, who he married in 2005 and then allegedly cheated on in an affair with Karen McDougal.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what
(the media) write as long as you’ve got a
young and beautiful piece of ass.”
-Donald Trump-

I have long since personally written off the Republican Party as philosophically bankrupt, and this misbegotten attempt to take credibility from Ronald Reagan and staple it cheaply onto Donald Trump’s rudderless presidency simply goes to prove just how bankrupt the Party of Reagan has become. This is why the GOP is desperate to draw political connections between the historically popular Ronald Reagan and the historically unpopular Donald Trump for obvious reasons.

While many Americans view Donald Trump negatively (55% disapproval per Gallup), his political agenda in Congress remains politically dangerous for members of Congress who would ultimately pay the price for aligning themselves with him. Loss of control of Congress would be devastating to the Republican Party’s hopes of pushing through any long term legislative changes. This is why these propagandist vultures are trying to open up Reagan’s grave to carve off pieces of his legacy.

This must not be allowed to happen. For better or, more likely, for worse, Donald Trump’s personal political circus is his own. To Tammy Bruce and all of the other GOP pundits I say leave Ronnie’s legacy alone. Don’t taint his memory with Donald Trump’s dishonor. If Donald is going to somehow succeed as president, he will do it alone, and evoking Ronnie’s memory isn’t going to save him one moment of shame, nor should it.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

Rediscovering Capitalism

As long as there are those that believe the state has any claim to any portion of the wages, salaries, or properties of any individual, then we are not a capitalist society

A man wakes up at the first sign of dawn, as the first rays of sunlight lift the darkness filling his small home, barely large enough for his wife and three children. He and the eldest son put on their simple woven outer clothes, and head outside to tend the chickens while his wife sees to the younger children and starts a morning fire. Outside, the fields are covered in a creeping fog over the rows of wheat that fill the small field behind a low stone wall. As the first smoke curled from their small chimney, father and son walked back with a few eggs for the morning meal.

The rumble of approaching horses break the peace of the moment. The father hands his clutch of eggs carefully to his eldest, as he tells the boy to head inside and keep everyone out of sight. The father picks up an ax and begins chopping some wood as the riders come over a hill. The lightly armored fighting men bear the pennants of the new king and his freshly installed vassal lord and ride horses colorfully barded with the lord’s house colors. The father watches as the riders approach and rein in their horses in front of his home.

After the briefest of greetings, the lead rider informs the father that the new lord had laid claim to the man’s farm and its vicinity for his private hunting grounds. By the authority of the king, the father is ordered to remove himself, his wife, and his children and relocate to the hamlet north of the castle. The father, knuckles white on the shaft of the ax, bites back a protest and nods. The riders ride onward, leaving the father to stare at their backs in impotent rage and despair, his story joining the untold millions throughout the history of man’s tyranny over other men.

“In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize,
or money is called 
his property.”
-James Madison-

It was from within the chains of monarchism and mercantilism that capitalism was born, the truly revolutionary idea that the right to own property was not limited to the blooded elite, born into both political and financial power, but all people should have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” (Fourth Amendment) and to better themselves to the limits of the productive use of their property, talents, and personal ambition.

Unfortunately for humanity, capitalism was not the only ideological reaction to centuries of the tyranny of blooded elite. It occurred to some that the “right of property” itself was the problem, not merely the bejeweled elite that lorded it over others, and thus collectivism, the absolute moral antithesis of capitalism, was born. At the root of this philosophical ideology is that no one should own anything, and that ownership of property necessarily required the exploitation of the labor of others.

These two competing ideologies took root in western societies, beginning centuries of political and economic struggle: capitalism, which elevated property rights of all to that of kings, and collectivism, which reduced property rights of all to that of peasants. It was capitalism that sparked the American Revolution and the broader western Capitalist Revolution that followed. Collectivism infected the eastern nations of Europe, finding its deepest roots in Russia.

The west, imperfectly embracing the blessings of universal property rights for all, bore the fruits of innovation and personal ambition as free people maximized the use of their labor and property to their fullest potential. The east, denying the property rights to anyone, fell to famine and death.

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to
pay for what he does not want 
merely because
you think it would be 
good for him.”
-Robert Heinlein-

However, even as central as capitalism has been to American culture, the political and economic dominance of western countries, and even what it means to be free, no principle of Conservatism has been so violated by both major parties for the better part of the last 100 years. The Founding Fathers, who fought a war against arguably the most powerful European power of their day over taxes amounting to a few pennies on trivial items, would scarcely recognize the political and economic servitude that their posterity has subjected themselves to in America.

Even self-professed “conservatives” vehemently defend the seizure of property through confiscatory taxation to pay for “needs of state“, as if tax revenue cannot be raised in any way other than shaking down private citizens of their hard earned wages. Today, Americans hand over their property in amounts that even King George III would have found unconscionable. When individuals no longer enjoy absolute dominion to their own property, can we really claim to be a capitalist society anymore?

Too many Americans have abandoned the very principles of ownership that the American militiamen fought and died defending. The American public has ceded absolute political and economic power back to our governments, and, while the economy remains at least superficially capitalistic, there’s no denying that collectivism has saturated American politics. Sadly, even those who think they oppose collectivism are, push come to shove, functionally collectivists who clearly don’t understand either capitalism or collectivism.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that
property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice 
to
protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

-John Adams-

As long as there are those that believe the state has any claim to any portion of the wages, salaries, or properties of any individual, then we are not a capitalist society. As long as the wages, salaries, or properties of individuals can be confiscated by the government “for the good of the collective“, then we live in a collectivist society. For those of us that are true capitalists, believing, without reservation, in the sacredness of private ownership, we have a duty to restore that which has been lost and to conserve the revolutionary idea of real freedom of which capitalism is a fundamental and necessary condition.

How can an individual consider himself or herself a Conservative if they do not strive to conserve every right and principle of the Founding, of which, property, as much as life and liberty, is absolutely necessary? Clearly, they cannot.

For more information, read The Liberty Tax: Defanging the Serpent.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

A Short Word: Restoring Order

It has become abundantly clear that instead of trying to restore constitutional rule of law in government, the GOP is content to join the Democrats in redefining it.

“I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where
Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to
rally folks around the country on this mission.”
-President Barack Obama-

By the time ObamaCare was passed in March 2010, there was little room for doubt that the the Democratic Party was no longer interested in a pluralistic power sharing government, representing all of the people. Despite intense opposition from across the aisle, when given the opportunity, the Democrats unilaterally passed ObamaCare, a constitutionally questionable law that forced millions of Americans to participate in the health insurance industry, whether they wanted to or not.

Under Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leadership continued to dismantle rules that had been established for generations to effectively force the majority party to work with the minority party to find common ground. This caustic political climate reflected the shrill radicalization of mainstream American Leftism lead by Michael Moore, Kieth Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, who mistook Barack Obama’s political ascendancy as the final crumbling of the Conservative movement.

In November 2010, after bitter midterm campaigning, the Republican Party retook the House of Representatives, armed with a mandate from American voters to dig in against the tyrannical Democratic Party. Without the House, then President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate suddenly had no legislative path to push forward their radical agenda, of which the “Affordable Care Act” promised to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Instead of meeting the GOP Congress halfway, Barack Obama and Harry Reid pursued 6 years of unprecedented executive and legislative overreach, setting the stage for the very backlash that would lead to Donald Trump’s 2016 election win.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity
to do things you think you could not do before.”
-Rahm Emmanuel-

Incredibly, the same GOP voters, pundits, and politicians that once clutched their pearls over Democratic majority tyranny a few years ago are now defending Donald Trump as he and the GOP do exactly the same unconstitutional nonsense? That phone and pen so exercised under the Obama administration find themselves just as exercised now, as Trump signs executive orders infringing on the Liberty of the people and violating his oath to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States by ordering the government to not enforce the admittedly onerous ObamaCare law without congressional action.

It has become abundantly clear that instead of trying to restore constitutional rule of law in government, the GOP is content to join the Democrats in redefining it. Conservatives must demand a restoration of constitutional order, including the reassertion of States Rights, allowing states to control which insurers may contract within their jurisdictions and which, because of poor performance or complaints, may not. Instead, the GOP and Donald Trump prove they are enemies of the 9th and 10th Amendments by continuing the federal infringement of political authority into powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people“.

Congress must fully repeal ObamaCare without any unconstitutional replacement.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

A Short Word: Guilty As Charged

So I am evil, apparently.

I’m told by the Left that I’m evil, because I don’t believe in failed political and economic fantasies that have provably destroyed the lives of millions of the poor and minorities in the United States alone who have been sold a lie for over a century. I’m told by the Right that I’m evil, because I don’t believe in a tyrannical autocrat who justifies his personal attacks and vile bigotry with flag waving and nationalistic jingoism harking back to the same fascist European imperialism that our grandfathers fought and died to defeat less than a century ago.

I’m evil because I believe that the proper role of government should be leaving you, me, and everyone else alone, and that their hands should be more than full with building roads and securing borders, neither of which they seem interested in doing anymore. I’m evil, because I believe that the government should no more write a check to Goldman Sachs than it should to Solyndra. I’m evil because I don’t believe it should cost $15,000 and 15 years to become a US citizen, limiting the “land of the free” to the world’s elite, while turning our backs on the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free“.

I’m evil, because I believe that who I contract, congregate, contemplate, or copulate with is none of the government’s business, so long as both parties are legally consenting, and no one is harmed. I’m evil, because I believe that the Founding Fathers understood that most people, push come to shove, will abandon rule of law and liberty for autocracy and tyranny, just to feel safe.

I’m not suggesting I’m absolutely good. God knows that I’ve done plenty of actual evil in my lifetime. I’ve done and said things that are both evil and wrong, and that cross I must bear, while I try to give it all to Jesus one splinter at a time. But as far as people saying I’m evil, because I demand to be free?

All I can say to them is molon labe.

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

The High Road: Walking the Walk

What is just, what is honorable, and what is dignified has long since been abandoned by both major political parties.

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
-Robert Frost-

There is no question that the deep political divisions torn through our national fabric for 8 years under Barack Obama made the election of Donald Trump inevitable. There is also no question that Donald has brought his own particular brand of polarizing politics to the Oval Office, not the least of which being his childish habit of responding to any and all criticism with petulant whining and petty insult that might at one time have shamed his millions of supporters into silence. This, quite obviously, is no longer that time.

This begs the question of how the American right came to be such an unabashed reflection of the American left’s worst stereotypes? The answer begins with the contentious finale of the 2000 presidential elections. After the Gore v Bush decision in 2000, despite all of the scandals, the infidelities, and the rising partisan wrangling, Democrats became convinced they were somehow wrongly cheated out of another 8 years of power in Washington.

After all, the economy seemed to be on track (thanks to the compliant media minimizing the bursting dot com bubble), the incumbent president seemed to be popular (thanks to the compliant media minimizing the revolving door of White House scandals), and the world seemed to be at peace (thanks to the compliant media minimizing the rising threat if Islamic Jihadism). How could an insurgent political campaign by then Governor George W. Bush usurp the heir apparent, Vice President Al Gore?

Just 16 years ago, the Al Gore lost because the Democrats had vastly underestimated the desire “to restore honor and dignity” to the Oval Office after 8 years of scandal. Oh, what a difference 8 short years under Obama has made.

“I did not have sexual relations with
that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
-Bill Clinton-

It was in no small part because of the media’s muted reporting of Clinton scandal after scandal that caused American voters in even swing states to demand better from their White House, and they didn’t believe anyone attached to the Clintons could deliver. George W. Bush ran on that “something better” and won because he wasn’t part of the intolerably corrupt Clinton machine. The Democrat political apparatus, however, did not go quietly into the night.

The American media gorged themselves on the political blood of the Bush administration during his first months of office, attacking him constantly on every issue, from his quirky speech patterns to his political policies. Bush weathered the ceaseless criticism with the quiet fortitude that was the hallmark of presidents going back to Washington, with few exceptions, and a cordial Texas charm that was all his own. Then, on one sunny and clear Tuesday morning in September, everything changed.

Amidst the despair and horror of the ash and smoke of where the Twin Towers once stood, that quiet fortitude became fierce resolve, and a peace time president that had run on tax cuts and domestic policy reform became a war time president. For the Democrats, Bush was suddenly unassailable, at least unless the Democrats wanted to risk looking as though they were trying to undermine the president’s leadership while America was at war.

The American media, however, had the story of the century to cover, and, just two years later, would have the ammunition they needed to begin what would become the media’s main weapon against Bush: The Second Iraq War.

“The first casualty when war comes is truth.”
-Hiram W. Johnson-

In the year and half between the start of the Iraq War in 2003 and the election in 2004, the mainstream media went all in on defeating Bush. Dan Rather reported an unsubstantiated narrative attacking Bush’s Vietnam service record that backfired on him, CBS News, and broadcast journalism. Cable news outlets spent precious political capital on assassinating Bush’s character and defending John Kerry’s flailing campaign. Even NPR, after decades of feigned nonpartisan reporting, became openly critical of Bush.

Which stories mainstream media would report and which they would not depended on if it benefited the Democratic Party as much as it did on ratings. Unfortunately for the media and the Democratic Party, the truth won out. After George W. Bush handily won reelection in 2004, despite the combined attacks on “his” Iraq War by the Democratic politicians and their allies in the media, the Democrats finally became completely unhinged.

Radical elements within the Democratic Party realized it was no longer enough to merely have a compliant media. They needed to have a complicit media and to completely control the cultural narrative. It couldn’t be about journalism anymore. The future of their party was in propaganda. With the help of their younger demographics, the Democrats soon fully integrated their platform into the rise of social media platforms, such as Facebook (2004) and Twitter (2006).

The propaganda “meme” war against Bush and the Republican Party was on, and they were taking no prisoners.

“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
-Kanye West-

From that point on, it wasn’t enough to merely suggest that Republican policies failed to address the needs of minority communities (whether they did or not), or that Republican attempts to defend religious liberty and family values might cause discomfort to those with alternate life styles or beliefs, or that Republican attempts to trim entitlement spending might cause economic difficulty for the poor. The policies became “racist“, “homophobic“, “greedy“, “agist“, “sexist“, and “fascistic“.

With “Republicans are racist, homophobic, sexist, greedy, agist, bigots” on full blast, the left elevated the least qualified human being they could possibly find to run for president, Barack Obama. For 8 long years, any criticism of Obama, no matter how well founded or from what quarter it came, was dismissed as the angry rambling of bigots and racists. Dissent was not only not tolerated, it was openly persecuted.

Innocent Americans were treated as though they were complicit of the worst injustices of the past and present, and once it became obvious that they were convicted of gross bigotry no matter how they acted, most simply stopped caring. Embracing the mantle of “racist, homophobic, sexist, greedy, agist bigots“, these people elevated the least qualified human being they could possibly find to run for president, Donald Trump.

“The creatures outside looked from pig
to man, and from man to pig, and from
pig to man again; but already it was
impossible to say which was which.”
-George Orwell-

Never in the history of the presidency has there been a man so totally unconcerned with “honor and dignity“, whose claim to infamy was based almost entirely upon personal infidelity, an obscene obsession with his own personal wealth, shameless self promotion, and a callous vindictiveness that still defies definition. As the left and right tussle in the mud beneath the golden pig, both sides have falsely laid claim to the high road.

What is just, what is honorable, and what is dignified has long since been abandoned by both major political parties. Out of their evil, nothing good can come, so our only salvation lies in abandoning them to their petty mud slinging. As conservatives, we must rededicate ourselves to the principles of Liberty, not to dirty politics, and to Justice, not to vile slander. We must patiently and mindfully take the road less traveled: the high road.

While both high and low roads will have the same destination, it is which path we chose in getting there that defines who we are once we reach it.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

The Mainstreaming of Bigotry

If we are to hold to the principle of pluralism that those on the left and the right both at least pretend to seek, we have to reject the purposeful intolerance of those whose political ideas may be antithetical to our own, so long as they do not harm others.

The first time two people came over a hill, took a long, hard, look at one another, then decided they simply didn’t like the look of one another, the evil of bigotry was born into the world. Since then, of course, there have been many hills and many long, hard looks, and bigots have only ever become more and more numerous. Villages have been turned to ash, armadas of slave ships built, and cattle cars filled with weeping humanity in an ever escalating tide of evil born of ignorance and prejudice.

Among many horrible things, 2016 revealed that bigotry was now mainstream in the United States, as millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle revealed just how little tolerance they had of opposing political views and values. It is this intolerance of ideas, not just skin color or ethnicity, that is the putrid heart of bigotry. It eats away at the bridges of society and civil norms until all bonds of country are so wasted that they simply collapse under the weight of blind hatred.

When we reduce each other to “evil, greedy, rich white people” and “stupid, lazy people, who need to get a job“, what is there to discuss? If simply “getting a job” solved all problems, poverty could have been eradicated eons ago. If “white people” are what’s causing all of the problems, why are so many nonwhite nations not utopias? What does any of this have to do with solving the problems that have plagued humanity since we started living together in multi-family communities in the first place?

“An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.”
-Mohandas Gandhi-

Our culture is at an impasse created by the constant appeal to the lowest common denominator, exacerbated by politicians who have abandoned any pretense of rational political discourse. This may have something to do with the large numbers of people that have abandoned the major political parties altogether, as many Americans have simply had enough of the fact free, anti-intellectual political rhetoric of the last 20 years.

The norm, not the exception, is that most wrongs will simply never be righted. These injustices, both perceived and real, will never be punished, not because justice is invalid or unnecessary, but because the actual perpetrators of the injustices are dead and buried. To be absolutely clear, I’m not denying there are people who are so ignorant and maladjusted that they believe other people are inferior, simply because they are different. I’m not denying that people have acted maliciously upon these vile ideas.

What I am denying is that all people of any particular group are somehow complicit simply because they share similar skin pigmentation or blood relation with transgressors of any group. The superficial bigotry of racism is only the ugliest form of bigotry. Condemning others based on their racial identity, their political affiliations, or upon any other point not related to their actual deeds and words is the very definition of prejudice. The very thing the left and right both claim to abhor has become normalized in both camps.

People are individuals, not groups, so no one can nor should be held accountable for anyone’s wrongdoing but their own. While people may agree on certain things, even form political parties in order to further those goals, in the end, we’re still all individuals, subject to our own faults and fears.

“When they kept on questioning him,
he straightened up and said to them,
‘Let any one of you who is without sin
be the first to throw a stone at her.'”
-John 8:7-

Without common ground, society cannot function. If we are to hold to the principle of pluralism that those on the left and the right both at least pretend to seek, we have to reject the purposeful intolerance of those whose political ideas may be antithetical to our own, so long as they do not harm others. However, even when we hold people to account for the harm they do, we cannot simply dismiss their ideas. Jefferson said that “The people cannot be all, & always, well informed..“, but he held that the people always retained the right to rebel.

I hold that conservatives must defer to Jefferson’s judgment here, because in the pursuit of justice, fueled by the passion of youth, the wrong actions made for the right reasons, even if based on fallacious assumptions, will happen, and, indeed, in a free society, must happen, if the society hopes to retain its freedom. The confusion of these young leftists is not solely, or even predominantly their fault. The groundwork for their misinformation has been laid for decades before their birth.

For a young man or woman to understand differently than the prevailing culture is almost a miracle when we consider all of the forces at work at every level of our society to lead the young astray. Regardless, there is very little we can do to force leftists to hold themselves to a consistent moral standard. We are the only people we can hold accountable, and we cannot legitimately hold anyone to any standard of behavior, if we aren’t, in fact, holding ourselves to that same standard of behavior.

Every bigot is also a hypocrite.

Liberty is For The Win!


We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW