Heroes

To Our Fallen

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and ...has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill--

God Bless Our Veterans!!

I post this, and will continue to post patriotic Pro-American videos throughout the weekend to combat the growing number of weak-minded anti-war cowards from the left, and now the right as well (thanks Alex Jones, you disgusting pig) who claim the war on terror is unjust and my brothers and sisters in arms are murdering innocent people. It is truly a tough pill to swallow each day that we risk our lives for your freedom to spread such vile garbage. God bless every veteran who has protected our freedom throughout history!

Alex Jones is a Fat Disgusting Pig Who Needs Medication

I am used to hearing this type of banter from the left. So many leftists will come right out and say it these days. They look at members of the United States Military as individuals with lower intelligence than them. They see us as citizens who could not find success in other ways, and settled on the military as a fall-back option. Here is just a small example of the statists view that we, the military members, do not offer an educated opinion on conflict and do not have enough intelligence to know the wise things they do.



How pompous can you be? That's just one extreme example, right? They don't really feel that way. Here's another...



If you listen to them on a good day, they'll even reveal that they think we are terrorists...





Sadly, this is nothing surprising or new. Anyone who pays attention knows that the liberals possess a certain disdain for the military and their mission in our Republic. What is becoming a growing concern is the new fringe element which attempts to cozy themselves up with the conservatives, and espouses the same lack of respect for the military and their valiant sacrifices.

This new element is none other than the 9/11 "Truthers" led by supreme nutjob Alex Jones. All of these certified tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theory schizo's believe that all of the conflicts our nation has been involved in are created by some mysterious wealthy bourgeousie who benefit financially from it. They go a step further than merely calling the military uneducated. They call us naive and belittle every brave conflict we have undertaken as a manufactured war by the wealthy upper class of both parties.



How does anyone actually listen to this guy? He is merely making money out of scaring the entire population with self-created fairy tales, and the military is stupid?? The loonies that believe this fat lazy bum who does this because he can't handle a real job should really ask their doctor about mental illness meds.



This is like listening to "Coast To Coast" radio. We used to have nuts like this approach our gate from time to time in Twentynine Palms, CA when I was stationed there. They would claim we were hiding aliens in one of our hangars or something similar. They were hilarious!! Now, thanks to this moron they're mainstream.

We're approaching another Memorial Day weekend and fewer people will honor what our military does thanks to the idiots shown above. It saddens me that the bravest and the smartest that I have met over my last 16 years in the military are making the ultimate sacrifice every day so that these "wastes of oxygen" can daily express such stupidity. Alex Jones would never say what he said in the video to a Marine's face...trust me!

Why Ron Paul Cannot Be President

As we begin to edge closer to the midterm elections this fall, an obvious pattern is beginning to develop. Anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time high, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, it seems that when the people of our nation are dissatisfied with the party holding power, they tend to go to extremes in the other direction (see Barack Obama). The recent success of Ron Paul in Republican polling has me, at a minimum, raising an eyebrow.

Many of my fellow, alleged conservatives, have jumped on his bandwagon and I pray it is not the beginning of a trend. I know, I know, Ron Paul is the popular choice these days, but I cannot lend my support for many reasons. First and foremost would be the obvious...he is not a conservative. Ron Paul is a Libertarian and he can run under the guise of any party he wishes, his beliefs are still Libertarian. Don't get me wrong, I am firmly on board with many Libertarian beliefs and these days the line seems to be getting blurred between conservatism and libertarianism. I wrote an article earlier this year noting my concerns over this growing trend.

Concerning Strange Bedfellows

Quite simply, we cannot allow Ron Paul to be President for one huge reason. Ron Paul is an isolationist, as are many libertarians. As much as the majority of Americans want less government intrusion into their daily lives, we must not accomplish it by neglecting the safety and defense of our nation. Too many nations detest our way of life and would like nothing more than to bring it to a conclusion. Ron Paul does not believe in getting involved in the world's conflicts. It's an easy stand to take, and no doubt garners present day support from many Americans who have not the stomach for the ongoing “war on terrorism”. However, the easy decision is not always the correct decision. It would be easy to withdraw our troops back home and stay out of these affairs. Unfortunately, if this foreign policy were adopted it would be but a matter of time before this hatred for our nation hits us within our borders again.

It's actually quite amazing how short-term our memories are when it comes to our safety. After 9/11 everyone supported the strengthening of our defenses, the beefing up of our border security, and the war on terror. It took less than two years for the anti-war lobby to regain the voice of naivety they have been for the last forty years. Do we need to be involved in every conflict which takes place on this globe? No, but isolationism is a foolish recipe for disaster. We must protect our interests at home and abroad. The failure to accomplish this weakens our nation and emboldens our enemy; who, unlike our cowardly administration, I have no problem stating is Islam.

Al Qaeda and all of it's other radical muslim splinter groups have been quite vocal that their strategy involves ongoing, debilitating attacks. They proudly claim that they know Americans do not have the stomach to see such a conflict through, and so far they are correct. We, as a nation, having once again achieved a general feeling of security within our borders and have immediately gone back to our ways of taking it for granted.

In the book Endless War by Ralph Peters he described our conflict with radical muslims by claiming, “we're playing checkers, they're playing chess.” If you dig deeply into world history and the current exploding population of Islam throughout Europe you will see that this is not a time in our history that we can support isolationism. It would simply be suicide for our nation. As much as nobody likes the idea of it, war is often necessary to defend the freedoms which this great nation provides. That, quite simply, is why we must not abandon conservatism for libertarianism.

Take a trip to Arlington National Cemetary and you will see rows upon rows of men and women who knew that if we are to maintain liberty, war is an unfortunate requirement from time to time. This will always be true as long as there is evil in our world. Those who refuse to accept these cold hard facts had better be prepared to kneel on a cold hard floor. I, for one, prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees.

Those Pesky Miranda Warnings

Miranda Rights warnings...they are all the news this week, as Attorney General Eric Holder stated on the weekend Obama administration propaganda shows that he is open to modifying when the warnings are required. The question seems to be centered around these questions: A) Should we give foreign terrorists a Miranda Warning? B) Should we give a U.S. citizen Miranda warnings if they have been deemed a "terrorist?" C) When should law enforcement officials be required to give Miranda Warnings?

Disturbingly, I have heard a lot of commentary from the conservative crowd that immediately provided a blanket answer to the debated questions. Their minds still fresh with the anger of the Obama administration ordering law enforcement officials to Mirandize captured terrorists last year, upon taking office. Allow me to explain my position on these questions and hopefully prevent some from thinking too much on an emotional level regarding these matters.

First a little background. I am a U.S. Marine, but I am also a law enforcement official in the U.S.M.C. so I have a bit of experience regarding Miranda rights, which differ slightly from the Article 31 rights that we use in the military; nonetheless, are in place for the same purpose.

Okay, let's begin with question "C"...I know, an organized person would have started with question "A" and gone in order...I gues you now know something more else about my personality. When do we read Miranda warnings? Without getting into a big legal discussion and boring the pants off of the 30 or so people (I don't know if you know this about me, but I'm kind of a big deal) who read my blog, I will briefly explain:

Miranda rights are required by law enforcement if they are going to ask incriminating questions of a person they suspect of committing a crime who also is in custody. If I wanted to go legal mumbo jumbo I could go on about the specific definitions of "incriminating" "suspect" and especially "custody" but I enjoy my 30 or so readers and wouldn't do that to you, so let's move on.

Many would ask why then, could authorities question our Times Square bombing suspect for multiple hours without advising him? There is a "public safety" clause which was added in 1984 (I think) that allowed for law enforcement officials to question suspects if there was an immediate danger and they could show that the immediate questioning was required for public safety; i.e., a bomb was found in a building and a suspect was identified. Law enforcement officials can question the suspect immediately regarding any other bombs that may be in the building and any other questions necessary to prevent harm to society without stopping and advising the suspect of their rights. So, for the ACLU and any other radical fringe leftist organization that wants to come to the aid of Faisal Shahzad and state that his rights were violated, you are wrong. Eric Holder is correct on his statements from Sunday.

Now to the other two questions, which; unfortunately, many conservatives are bleeding together and referring to as if they are the same. This can happen when people think emotionally instead of logically...we've all been there.

A) Should we give foreign terrorists a Miranda Warning?

HELL NO!!! Any questions??? Seriously, Miranda rights fall under the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. A foreign individual does not rate the rights of a document drafted by our nation if he/she is not a member of our nation. It's really not that difficult.

B) Should we give a U.S. citizen Miranda warnings if they have been deemed a "terrorist?"

Now here is where it gets interesting. Many are merely blanketing these questions with an overall, emotionally driven opinion that says HELL NO!!! Terrorists don't deserve Miranda rights!! The problem with that answer regarding this question is it is simply incorrect. Any U.S. citizen, whether they be charged with a terrorist act or not, has constitutional rights, which the government has no right to infringe upon. Liberals love when they can get the conservatives thinking on an emotional plane instead of a logical one. Liberals live on an emotional plane and every misguided regulation or bill they introduce is fueled by getting Americans to view it from emotional standpoint. You need look no further than the healthcare debacle from last year. They, rather than debate the logical issues and problems with the bill, attempted to cover them up with emotional stories about little Timmy who suffers from a rare form of some crazy disease, who lives his life in pain every day because his parents can't afford healthcare. The saddest part of that was they made up a large number of the stories. Back to the point.

If there is one thing conservatives must stick to, in order to be successful, they must stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution. By stating that you don't think any terrorist should be allowed their Miranda rights, you are (1) violating the Constitution, and (2) opening a very scary new door which would give the government even more power over your daily life.

I don't know very many people who trust the government with much of anything anymore. Why would we trust them on this one? Anything coming from this administration that sounds good on the surface needs to be examined in depth. It doesn't take much of an investigation of this to see a possible motive for it.

If we remove the requirement for the government to Mirandize a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism, it may look like a good idea on the surface, but we have to dig a little deeper. Tell me this, who defines "terrorist" or "terrorism"? What is to prevent the administration from later passing an executive order to the effect that any protests or anti-administration rhetoric will be deemed "terrorism"? Now the Tea Party would be a terrorist organization. You don't think that's possible. Obama is already hinting at tightening the grip on free speech in this nation. He just spoke this weekend about the problem with too much information being available to people these days. This, at the same time as his administration is attempting to regulate the internet and talk radio. There are clues everywhere when we stop watching stupid TLC television shows that talk about strange addictions like girls who are addicted to tanning beds or eating chalk (thanks for the material on that one Sharon from The Liberal Heretic) , and get involved in where our nation is headed.

Yes, that's right...I am not lauding the administration today for allegedly moving more to the "right" on terrorists rights because I see their motive in this, and it is certainly not become more "moderate." Call me cynical.

Kitty Werthmann: Eyewitness To Hitler's Takeover, Draws Many Parallels to the Present.

This was a commentary written by Kitty Werthmann, who was a young girl in Austria when Hitler began his takeover. She draws many haunting parallels between Hitler's tactics and the state of our own nation today. This is a very worthy read for any freedom-loving American.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away
By: Kitty Werthmann

What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food.. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need.. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.
The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it.. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

"Mercy Killing" Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded.

When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps - Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

"After America , There is No Place to Go"

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

The War On Freedom

Reposting this outstanding article from the Canada Free Press. Funny, our media would never print this type of truth about our own nation. Increasingly, we must go outside of the United States media to get logical information.

Political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish

The War on Freedom By Daniel Greenfield Tuesday, May 4, 2010

How do you take away the freedom of a free people without putting tanks on every street? You do it by transforming their culture. By turning the very idea of freedom into something ugly and shameful. A foul thing to be associated with extremists and other bad folk that good citizens are advised to avoid. The goal being to convince the people that their freedom is a thing they should be happy to give up, rather than having to forcibly take it away from them.

And so the political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish. In this new narrative, freedom is a lie because there is no such thing as freedom in America. The very idea of freedom is an arrogant and privileged entitlement held by “rich white males” and used to oppress “people of color” and all the other officially designated minorities by the Commissars of Political Correctness.

In place of the old fashioned idea of freedom, we have the far more “equitable” system of social justice with its myriad of organizations and departments all created to ensure that everyone does what they’re supposed to, thinks what they’re supposed to, and has as many rights as they’re supposed to.

Newspeak: Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom

As Orwell’s 1984 accurately predicted, in Newspeak, Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom.

As the new liberal narrative would have it, the only people who want the freedom to keep what they earn, write what they think, choose their own health care, elect their own leaders, read what they like and live lives apart from the great machinery of the state—are the White Male Oppressors, (who are simultaneously ignorant clinging to their religion and their guns and yet at the same time are part of a privileged elite). Freedom is clearly a bad thing, then. It’s a symptom of selfishness. And selfish people are the oppressors; the greedy ones who don’t want a welfare state, illegal aliens, impossibly priced products, inaccessible lifesaving medical procedures, recycling bins in every room of the house and all the other wonderful benefits of Socialism.

People who want to be free are no longer Americans. Certainly not Constitutionalists. Instead, paradoxically, they’re the new parasites, the people who refuse to be cogs in the great machine of socialism. The selfish Kulaks who hoard their wheat. The businessmen who make too much money. The hardworking housewife who won’t pay double for a “Green” labeled product. These are the worms in the apple of the socialist state. The people who refuse to contribute to what the government and the alliance of unions, left wing front groups and media pundits label as the Public Good.

The USSR began by portraying independent small farmers as greedy monsters who were responsible for the people starving because they refused to give up their land and join collective farms. Collective farms whose workers had nothing could not even travel without a permit and had to steal the food they grew in order to survive. And so war was declared on the independent farmer. Millions were shot, deported, or imprisoned in labor camps. However, by eliminating the independent farmer, the Communists also eliminated Russian agriculture. The collective farms were an abysmal failure. Within a generation, Russia was stuck importing wheat from the independent farmers of its worst enemy, the United States of America.

By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States

By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States. The decline of the US economy is closely tied to the war on small business. To the replacement of the businessman with the speculator, the inflation of the dollar, the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the transformation of the US into a service and sales economy, not that fundamentally different from the rest of the Third World.

But the left’s war on the small businessman is about more than just seizing wealth in order to finance their own operations. That of course is a large part of it. The left has always believed that it must live off the land. And from the French Revolution to their modern day grandchildren, the Communists and Nazis, they have always know that wealth distribution is needed to be able to live off the land. But what they never understood is that their idea of government as a robber baron practices a multi-generational form of economic destruction that there is no full recovery from. It is possible to replace lost gold and silver. But replacing an economic niche when you have wiped out the people who used to fill it, and culturally blotted it out, can be next to impossible.

Yet that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish. Its goal has always been the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the people who are living proof that hard work and economic aspiration leads to social mobility and political freedoms. These the left considers banal, selfish and rotten. Their existence a subversion of the left’s own revolutionary ideology, because they have achieved freedom through work rather than ideology. Because they believe that those who work should be the masters of government rather than properly qualified university graduates who have spent five years penning screeds about the unfairness of having to work for a living. And so like the Kulaks, they must go.

The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism’s uncontrollable spending or nanny statism. It is the whole point
The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism’s uncontrollable spending or nanny statism. It is the whole point.

The Founding Fathers understood that economic freedom was also political freedom. That is why the Boston Tea Party played such a key role in the race toward political independence and self-government. Liberal revisionist historians typically deride the American Revolution as a Middle Class revolution, which of course was exactly the point. Distance and opportunity had made political aspirations possible in America. But economic opportunity had made them meaningful. Thus the difference between the revolt in Haiti and the one in the 13 colonies. Much as Israel’s independence differed from the independence gained by so many other former British colonies in that part of the world.

One cannot have political independence without economic independence on the national level and on the individual level. Where economic independence is compromised, political independence soon follows. And the decline of individual liberties in America can be directly traced to its split between socialism and corporatism, two seeming opposites drawn together by inertia to form one great economic black hole. A situation that the last few years of bailouts and toobigtofails, useless regulatory bodies and political power grabs should have amply demonstrated for anyone.

The War on Freedom, therefore, is geared toward portraying freedom as selfish and greedy. As a dangerous anachronism out of place in the modern day socialist country. There is no such thing as freedom, they will say. Only privilege. The idea that you could believe what you wished, say what you wished, elect your own leaders and make your own economic decisions was all part of the arrogance of the entitled. But now there will be people who will distribute that privilege equally to all, within the parameters of the public good. The public good in their eyes being indivisible from their own good, and that of the system of redistribution that they oversee. And that is how tyranny begins and freedom dies.

Freedom, real freedom, isn’t perfect. It is the freedom to make one’s own mistakes rather than having the state make everyone’s mistakes for them. At the same time. Freedom is not a selfish thing that obstructs the public good, it is the public good, because the public good is best served by individual freedom, not by a collective yoked together in the same of an impossible ideal. The tyranny of the collective has never created its heaven on earth, but it has instead produced no shortage of hells. It is left to the individual to pursue his happiness, and in the process helps others find theirs. The collective has never changed the world for the better. Only individuals have.

Liberalism insists that freedom is a shameful thing. A rebellion against their idea of the public good. Their War on Freedom is in truth a war on the individual. And it is one that we must win, if freedom is to prevail.