Principle 2: Community Violence (Government)

The Government, in my mind, is the most fearsome monster ever imagined.

To understand why, you need to understand why we have government at all, and why government should instead be called “Community Violence.”

Governments form to fight wars and rid the world of evil. We count on our government to blow up the bad guys before they blow us up. We count on them to find and catch and prosecute the criminals.

When governments turn to do harm to the people, where are the people supposed to turn for protection?

Our country started with the idea that while governments can and should protect the rights of the people, when they begin to infringe on those very rights, it should be altered or abolished. That’s what compelled the Founding Fathers to rebel against England.

Most rebellions end up with a worse government than the one they started with. France’s rebellion of the same time period is certainly a case. So our Founding Fathers thought long and hard about what kind of government would not only preserve our freedom, but be superior to the system that the English had set up.

They settled on a government with strict limitations. Community violence could be used, they wrote and explained, but only in certain cases.

Our governments of today have exceeded all reasonable bounds. We are no longer free, not when you compare our freedom with that of our ancestors. Government controls every aspect of our lives. It controls what we are free to eat or do, what kind of businesses we can run and what kinds of things we can talk about. It has been a gradual movement from freedom to the current “soft” tyranny we are experience, but we cannot deny it any longer.

What would freedom look like? Quite different than what we have.

Rather than turning to gangs, poor minorities would be starting businesses doing all sorts of things. From the minority who wants to braid hair, to the kid who wants to shine shoes, to any number of menial businesses that require no education at all to run successfully, the poor minorities could be active participants in our economy. Instead, there are roadblocks from every government agency. You’d need an advanced college degree even to start your business. Trust me, I know, I tried. I was unable to navigate the mountains of regulations. Not for lack of trying, of course.

Police forces would disappear. People would be called upon to defend their own property and lives, and each others. Gangs wouldn’t be a problem. You see, if a gangmember threatened your business, you would form an ad hoc militia with your neighbors and drive them out with the point of your guns. Despite all the movies to the contrary, life in the “Wild West” was really quite peaceful. Crime was rare.

The laws would be much different. Even schoolchildren would be able to figure out what is and is not legal. You wouldn’t need a lawyer to go to trial, except in rare cases. In fact, most issues would be settled outside of court. Our litigious society would quickly turn to self-reconciliation.

Elections would be different. Anyone could say or do anything they wanted, with any funds they wanted to use. There wouldn’t need to be any reporting of any kind, since there is no legal requirement to report the exercise of your free speech rights.

The medical system would be different. Employers probably wouldn’t offer health insurance, since you probably wouldn’t want health insurance. The costs of health care would be so low, thanks to the elimination of all regulations and taxes, that you would be able to pay out of pocket for almost any treatment. Experimental, expensive treatment would, of course, be only available to the richest among us. But as with everything in a free economy, it isn’t long before costs drop and supply increases. After all, if I were a drug company, I would rather sell a drug that $10 million people would use for $100 than 100 people would use for a $1 million.

What about crime, fraud, corruption? A free society protects itself against these  things rather easily. Normally, these types of people aggregate to institutions of power. Case in point, the global warming movement. There is absolutely no weight behind any of their absurd claims, and yet here we are. Why? Because they are working through government. If they had to instead compete in the free market of ideas, we would’ve recognized and rejected their baseless allegations immediately.

When we turn to Community Violence to provide social services, we are asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Government tends to attract people who are less than scrupulous. They have no qualms taking our money, spending it on the poor, and then claiming credit for it. The only way to eliminate this kind of abuse is to stop the practice altogether. Government should be for those people who want to hurt and kill bad guys who threaten our freedoms. Let the churches and societies care about the poor.

Principle 1: Liberty

Conservatives believe in liberty.

Libertarians believe in something else.

Let me explain.

It seems odd that my first post about explaining conservative principles targets the libertarian viewpoint rather than the liberal one. But this is the core critical principle behind everything else we believe.

Conservatives and Libertarians agree that men are free to choose. To the conservative, this is God’s ultimate gift to mankind. To the libertarian, this is a fact of nature.

The conservative believes one thing that is in conflict with the libertarian: We believe we are free to do good. Namely, that our freedom expands when we do right, and contracts when we do wrong.

If I choose to eat healthy, exercise, and not do things like drink heavily or smoke, then my physical body will be as healthy as it could be. I will be able to work long hours. I will be able to play and recreate outdoors. I will be able to wrestle with my kids. My mind will be as clear as I can expect it to ever be. My economic contributions will help other people improve their economic situation. My contributions to family life will help build a stronger society. There is a lot of good that will come of it.

If I choose to eat junk food, slob around, drink heavily and smoke, then my physical body will not be as healthy as it could be. I will not be as great a benefit for society as I otherwise could be. There is an opportunity cost to myself and society by doing this, meaning good things that would have otherwise happened will not happen.

Now, I’m not saying that government should regulate what we eat and how we spend our time. We’ll talk about what the government should do or should not do later on. But I am saying that conservatives do not think the freedom to do what we like includes the freedom to eat junk food, slob around, drink heavily and smoke. That is, if we choose to do those things, we’re doing wrong, and we know it even though many do it.

The libertarian might believe that it really doesn’t matter what I do with myself, as long as I don’t hurt others. They often forget that by reducing your economic ability, you are hurting others. Even private actions, such as engaging in extra-marital relations or smoking a joint have long-term and expensive costs to society.

Thus, when God gave man freedom, it came with strings attached. If we choose to do good, then our freedom expands. We can choose to do more things. If we choose to do evil, then our freedom contracts. We will have fewer choices later on.

This core principle, the strings that are attached to our freedom, is our moral duty or responsibility. At the same time we say you are free, we say that you are NOT free to do everything. There is a sort of contract between you and God and society, and it reads something like this:

• God gives you freedom and life
• Society promises to not interfere with most things
• You promise to use your freedoms wisely, for the benefit of yourself and mankind.

Now, let’s talk about where our liberties end.

Libertarians are right: actions which directly harm people are prohibited. Mostly. The basic rule is found in the Mosaic Law: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. If you hurt your neighbor’s eye, you must restore that eye or you must pay a penalty of the eye, etc… This is the basic idea behind our tort laws, which can be traced back to the Bible. This is also why it makes a whole lot of sense to charge polluters for the cost of cleanup, and then allow them to pollute anyway.

Libertarians forget that we also have duties, things we must do.

• We have a duty to protect ourselves, our family, and each other from those who would violate our liberties.
• We have a duty to use our liberties for our benefit and the benefit of others.
• We have a duty to provide for our own food and shelter and wants, rather than relying on others to do so.
• We ALSO have a duty to help others provide for themselves, not to make them dependent or lazy, but to help them obtain the means to obtain their own support (more on this in a later post).

Conservatives understand where the freedom to do as we please ends and where we are “enslaved” to our liberties through out duties. We cheerfully and happily accept our duties as a small price to pay for our liberties. Some examples include:

• Soldiers who volunteer to fight so others don’t have to. People who pay their taxes knowing it is used to support those soldiers.
• Business owners who pay their taxes, knowing that it is used to provide common infrastructure for themselves, their business partners, their customers and competitors.
• Individuals who pay their taxes, knowing it funds the legal system which protects their individual rights.
• Individuals who give away their time, talents, and resources without expectation of remuneration, so that others can enjoy a better life.
• Churches which stand up for moral issues, such as the sanctity of marriage and the protection of unborn life.
• Organizations formed, without expectation of profit, so that people can learn or develop talents of their own.

Unfortunately, liberties and duties are not simple. It takes careful study and thought to understand how and why charity is a critical component of capitalism, pacificism requires a military, etc… We could spend our entire lives studying our rights and duties and never come to a complete understanding of them.

Nevertheless, we ALL have a duty to understand our rights and duties for ourselves. If we do not understand them, we will fail in our duties and lose our rights.

My Views on Muslims, Homosexuals, and Immigrants

Howard Dean ranted today about how the far-right elements of the Republican Party hates Muslims, homosexuals, and immigrants. (link)

Here’s what I truly believe.

It doesn’t matter who you are, or where you come from, you are equal to everyone else.

If you’re a Muslim, I welcome you, provided you do not violate other people’s right to life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately, many of the professors of Islam theology among the Muslims do not teach this. However, as long as you welcome freedom and liberty, and are willing to lay your life down to defend it, I will count you as a brother.

If you’re homosexual, either meaning that you have homosexual tendencies or that you actually engage in homosexual acts, then I welcome you as a brother. I warn and caution you that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s plan of happiness, and that you cannot be living in sin and find happiness, the kind of happiness that doesn’t go away but grows brighter every day. I will do all I can to help you overcome your sins and find life in Christ. As to the Muslims, whether or not you give up your sinful life and put your passions under control, as long as you will lay down your life to protect our rights to life, liberty and property, you are my national brother.

I may disagree with you on many topics. I don’t believe those who practice homosexual acts should be allowed to serve in the military, anymore than those who practice heterosexual acts outside of marriage. People who can’t control their bodies cannot be relied upon.

I also may disagree with you on homosexual marriage. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is in the best interests of the child, so much so that I believe every child has a right to a father and a mother who love them and love each other. This is part of the right to life. If you are not raised to live your life as a productive, happy member of our society, what life have you been given rights to live?

I also believe I have the right to teach my children right from wrong, and that homosexual activity is contrary to nature and God’s laws. Even if the government were to redefine its laws so that homosexual acts were not considered wrong, I would still teach it to my children. I believe you have the same right to teach your children right from wrong. But that we must also teach our children to submit to our laws, and that means we need to be careful that we don’t write laws that don’t expand our liberty.

To immigrants, I love you and I love that you want to live in our country, as long as your intentions are peaceful. Some of you, and you and I both know who they are, do not come here to work or to build up the country. It is for that reason and that reason alone that we must patrol our borders and use government force to protect ourselves. However, if you are here for peaceful purposes, then I wish our government was setup to welcome you with open arms. I envision a country without a social welfare system that could absorb all the poor people of the world at once, giving them an opportunity that wouldn’t exist anywhere else, to participate in our economy and find their own way to prosperity. However, our system is not that system today. We need to work together to eliminate the social programs, dramatically reduce government spending, taxes, and regulation, and free the economy so that a man who can barely speak our language is able to comfortably support his family doing what he knows how to do.

I don’t think Howard Dean was telling the truth. I certainly don’t hate Muslims, homosexuals or immigrants.

Of course, I don’t consider myself part of any right-wing ideology, so maybe he wasn’t talking about me. I believe in less government, limited government, a government that only protects our rights, but cannot grant or define them. A government that doesn’t participate in our economy, that doesn’t participate in charity, but only does those things which have the net effect of expanding our own rights to secure our own property and liberty.

Bill Whittle Explains Elitism

There is one thing in this world that I believe is worse than all other things: PRIDE. Elitism is pride in full parade in our political system. If I despise them and their positions of power simply because they think they are better than others, then that is enough.

Socrates summed up my feelings best. “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” Anyone who thinks they know anything more than nothing has more hubris than the best philosopher in history. Jesus taught that those who think they are righteous are the worst sinners. Physics taught me that the brightest among us are really stupid when it comes to something as simple and obvious as the real world. Being a father taught me that no one is qualified to be a father, or a husband, or a son, or pretty much anything in life. Need I go on?

Bill Whittle explains several logical, reasonable arguments why elitism is wrong. He ends with the conclusion that maybe those who support elitism aren’t as smart as they thought they were to begin with.

Democrat or Republican or independent, let’s all agree that no one is entitled to power, and one’s intelligence or birthright gives no one the right to rule over another.

I say, every election year, our default vote should be to throw the bums out, no matter who they are or what they profess. It is up to the politician to show to you that they actually didn’t squander your country before you should consider voting them back in.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

The Firewall: What We Believe

I find nothing to disagree with what this man just said. I hope to see plenty more.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

 

Fundamental Conservative Principles

I don’t think we can restate these basic principles enough. They are beautifully described in our founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence. If you believe these things, then you must needs be conservative. If not, then you don’t belong in the United States, but some other country which doesn’t share our core values.

1. We are children of God, each with their own purpose and each with divine potential. This is our equality. No one needs make us equal, for we are equal in our very nature.
2. God entrusted us with the use of our faculties to make decisions, big and small, for ourselves. We all have fundamental rights and responsibilities that reflect how we can use what we naturally have and in what way God asks us to use them.
3. The most basic human rights are the rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY. All other rights are connected to these rights.
4. Sometimes, in order to protect a right, we must infringe on the offender’s rights. For instance, we stop murder by killing the murderer. We restore what has been stolen by taking from the thief. We eliminate the freedom of those who have eliminated the freedom of others. This is justice, not revenge. No amount of mercy can deny the fact that murderers must be killed, thieves must be deprived of their property, and those who would imprison us must be imprisoned. Without this justice, no one has any natural rights, only rights they are able to secure by their cunning and power.
5. Governments are created by the people to be selected from people of the people to be run for the people. The only thing government can do is protect our natural rights from those who would infringe upon them.
6. Our elected officials are not elected to improve their position in life or increase their honor or wealth. They are elected to serve as servants of the people, using the sacred power they have been entrusted with to protect the rights of the people regardless of political affiliations or other relationships.
7. Government cannot give—it can only take and give only a part of what it has taken, corrupting everyone involved. Government makes a terrible business, a terrible charity, and a worse god. We cannot look to government for economic prosperity, charitable works, or worship.
8. Rather than raising taxes until they are unbearable, and spending the money to secure votes for the next election, our government should eliminate all unnecessary spending, keeping only those programs and services that actually protect the rights of all the people, and raise only as much money as is needed to operate these services. Tax rates should be kept so low that government struggles for the money it needs, and any surpluses should be immediately returned to the people.
9. Wars are evil, but a necessary evil. When we, as a society, find ourselves in a position where war is more desirable than peace, then we must fight the war with swift and cruel efficiency, using whatever means we can to crush the enemy’s spirits and bring them under our power. After the war is complete, then we can work to build a new relationship with our conquered enemies based on mutual respect of each other’s natural rights. Until that time, however, all our resources must be pointed towards complete victory.

Building our civil society on the basis of an all-seeing, all-powerful, perfectly just yet merciful God gives us the above. Any other type of God, or the absence of any God, would lead to a different kind of society where these concepts don’t exist. Our experience, as a human race, with different religions has shown us this. Ultimately, what made the United States of America possible wasn’t our brilliant forefathers or our unique land. What made it possible was the quiet faith of our ancestors who trusted God more than a king.

We Need to Put the Brakes on Congress

By: Frosty E Hardison

In a recent Gallup Poll (March 12, 2010 – Click Here) Congress’s approval rating is 16. That means on the average of 100 Americans only 16 folks think that Congress is still doing a swell job of representing them. That in itself should be another story being followed up on by the national media.

So, my question to you John & Jane Q Public: Who IS Congress representing?

I mean if the devil is in the details and government is going to get involved even more in heath care – You do know your costs are going to go up – right? That is a given any time government and the waste that goes along with anything government controlled, takes over anything in the private sector.

Do you work in the health care field? Do your doctors like what is coming? Are they whispering about moving to Australia, New Zealand, Japan or Texas? Will this bill limit a doctors’ ability to make a living? When and if the doctors leave, will health care still be all it is? Do you think Congress should have the ability to mandate limitations on such things while at the same time raise their own income on demand? Seems a bit self serving doesn’t it – to be able to raise your own salary and dictate how much others can/cannot make? What is that called? Is it a conflict of interest?

Again, Congress isn’t representing me or our country when they raise their own salaries when their approval rating is so low. So just who is it they are representing?

God help us.
Frosty E Hardison

Frosty E. Hardison is a graduate of Colorado Technical University with a degree in Business Administration. An MBA honors student with a 3.83 GPA, Frosty is most recognized for standing up against the Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown as a stand alone “science film” in his daughter’s science class in January 2007. Frosty is a Senior Business Analyst and Consultant to small to medium businesses across the nation. He specializes in data research and business analysis as well as work flow/production efficiency – to increase profits. For questions, see his website.

Political Fight Night!

In this corner, President of the United States Barack Obama.

In this corner, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the legislative or executive branch openly fight with the judiciary. See, the way our people have come to understand the government, the judiciary has the final say on what is and is not constitutional. Of course, this wasn’t ever the intention of the Founding Fathers, who wanted three co-equal but separate branches of government.

If President Obama wants to set an adversarial tone with the judicial, I would encourage him to do so. There needs to be a national discussion on how far the Supreme Court is allowed to go and who really decides what is and is not constitutional.

The way I see it, every branch of government, the people, and the states individually, should each have their own interpretation of the constitution. Each should exercise whatever power they believe they have to the full extent. That means:

• The president should only enforce laws he believes are constitutional.
• The legislature should only pass laws they believe are constitutional.
• The judiciary should only judge individual cases according to their interpretation of the constitution.
• The people should elect representatives according to what they believe is constitutional, and openly challenge the government’s interpretation of the constitution and go as far as exercising jury nullification to nullify unconstitutional laws.
• The states, as well, should write their own laws and judge their own cases and raise their own armies according to their interpretation of the constitution.

So I say, Bravo, President Obama! Go ahead and challenge the judiciary! Please, we need the executive branch to stand up and openly reject court decisions from time to time.

Of course, in this particular case, President Obama and the democrats are dead wrong. When the first amendment was written, it was written in such a way that laws that even hinted at obstructing the freedom of speech, or of the press were outright forbidden. Congress cannot legislate what we say, and how we distribute that message! If a foreign national wants to spend a billion dollars to run a political ad the day before our presidential election, it is his God-given RIGHT to do so! Let people speak and be heard! Let them use whatever resources they have available to influence the people in whatever ways they deem necessary!

I’m glad the Supreme Court recognized my right to gather a few friends together and speak, LOUDLY, about the political issues and candidates of the day.

I’m also glad that the president is not acting deferential to the judiciary and the legislature. Let them fight, fight, fight! The more they fight, the more liberties we will have!

I’m extremely glad that Obama now realizes how dangerous our government is to bad ideas. No, you cannot use bargaining or bribes or threats of violence to move ahead in our political system. You have to build consensus and campaign endlessly just to move the smallest issue ahead.

GOP Platform

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter published a pamphlet on the foundation of Republican Principles. (link) These are simply stated as:

1. Our liberty is from God not government. (“all men…. are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”);
2. Our Sovereignty is in our souls not soil. (“…to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”);
3. Our security is in strength not surrender. (The Declaration itself was a document asserting the Colonies right to use its military might in support of its principles);
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector. (“that {among these} unalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”); and
5. Our truths are self evident not relative. (“….we hold these truths to be self evident”).

(Hat tip: Big Government)

I don’t know any American that can disagree with any of these principles and still call themselves truly American, at least American by ideology.

However, how these five principles are translated to agenda items in our legislatures is where the rubber meets the road.

Reading through the list of ideas, I find very little to disagree with, and a lot to get excited about. In this pamphlet, I hear echoes of our past Republican visionary presidents, who recognized our true strength is in the individual, not the state, and who fought to keep the state small except where it did what no individual could do.

If this is the agenda the republicans adopt for 2010, then I expect to see even Washington State electing a republican. This is the change that the Obama voters voted for. This is the hope that we all have in the future.

There are a few minor quibbles in the pamphlet. I don’t consider China our biggest threat, I consider its form of government our biggest threat. This is made clear in the pamphlet if you read exactly what he says, but bringing “China” into it as if China carried the banner for tyranny and totalitarianism isn’t the best way to communicate.

Or perhaps it is, because we are rapidly approaching a country that looks like China.

What Motivates Them

To someone who is born and raised conservative, conservatism isn’t a choice between one political philosophy or another. Conservatism is a life-view built around the way life really is. Humans are despicable creatures that need to be tamed. Society can be an ugly thing without strict rules enforced. The only hope of mankind lies in a God whose wisdom and compassion surpass anything we can imagine. The only object worthy of desire or worship are abstract concepts of perfection: love, justice, mercy, and salvation.

To the other side, this sounds like lunacy. Despite the fact that this worldview and this worldview alone accounts for the dramatic success of Western European countries compared to countless millennia of human history, and in particular, the “New World” thirteen colonies we now know as the United States of America, they cling to their beliefs about the way things are and the way things should be.

There are many reasons why one might cling to liberalism like a vassal serving a failed lord. Of the several, I believe ignorance, or its sister weakness, naivety are to blame.

Let me expound.

To the liberal, socialism seems like a really good idea. However, we know from sad experience, that not even the most brilliant socialist can be trusted with power. Indeed, no one can be trusted with power. Take the most brilliant doctor of philosophy, or the most ardent supporter of religion, and make them a socialist African dictator, and the end result, inevitably, is death and inequality. Take a man who simply wants to make life fair and peaceful, and elevate him to power in Cambodia, and mountains of skulls pile up. Take a world vision for peace, and start it with a revolution in Russia, and the entire country of Ukraine, the bread-basket of Europe, starves to death by the millions.

To the conservative, no one can be trusted with power. That power must needs be distributed among the people individually and retained as individual rights. The government must needs draw their power from the consent of the governed. That government must be created in a way that only the defense of liberties is possible, and all else will result in a stalemate of conflicting interests. This is common sense to us, because we see the world for what it really is.

Socialist policies in the United States have likewise been a failure. Social Security was supposed to provide retirement for the masses. Its payouts are barely enough to sustain life in retirement, yet it takes so much out of the salaries of ordinary Americans. A similar amount of money, invested modestly, would return several thousand times more benefits than the costs. This program, too, was born out of liberal ignorance. Ponzi schemes simply do not work, except for the short time in the beginning. In the hands of government, it becomes a disaster as the surplus income is squandered on pet projects and corrupt schemes. Today, the Social Security program is a few short years away from bankruptcy.

Conservatives understood this, which is why they demanded no such program be created, and instead, the people be left to do with their money as they saw fit. While many people would be unable to plan for and properly prepare for retirement, it is no excuse to punish everyone together. Instead, if you want to help people prepare for retirement, you must educate them in the truth about reality.

Today, President Obama is pitching outright lies (or, as a former Greenpeace leader admitted, “emotionalisms”) to congress, the American people, and the world. He is proposing dramatic, permanent change away from the system of checks and balances upon government and between governments to address these lies. Why does he do it?

I believe he is ignorant and naive.

He doesn’t understand enough to realize that what he is advocating is not just dangerous to the US, but dangerous to himself. The same controls that keep him in power keep a mob of people from starting a civil war with Obama as the target for a lynching. We didn’t adopt this system because we were racists or hatemongers bent on keeping a segment of the population in subservience. No, this system was designed to provide exactly what it wants to provide: domestic tranquility. Topple the system that has worked, largely, for the past 200 plus years, and you lose the tranquility that came with it.

He is naive to believe that his actions are either benefitting himself or helping the causes he believes in (if indeed he really cares about helping the poor and needy and not establishing a tyrannical government.) While we get to choose what courses of action we take, we are not free to choose what effects those will have on ourselves and others.

From whence does the ignorance and naivety of the left come from? I propose several sources.

One is broken homes. Without a father and a mother, children do not receive the necessary education to survive in, let alone understand, the world around us. If there were a mother and father at home, then the only blame can be poor parenting. Parents don’t just have the right to educate their children, they have the duty to do so. If they fail, no one can fix the damage they have done to their children.

Two is substance abuse. We know from sad experience that chemicals like alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and other drugs damage the brain and change the personalities of people who abuse them. Barack Obama is an admitted cocaine and marijuana addict, in addition to an alcohol and tobacco habit. These things damaged his brain, irreversibly, and would make any hope of overcoming his ignorance and naivety difficult if possible at all.

Three is miseducation. As the saying goes, attributed to Adolf Hitler, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually it becomes the truth. Unless you are programmed to constantly seek the truth and always evaluate every claim with skepticism, it is easy to be led astray and come to believe things that are not. A good example of this is the amount of hatred poured on Christians for being ignorant and violent. This is such a common lie that is so easily refuted as to make it laughable to anyone willing to think for a moment on their own free from foreign influence. (Both the scientific and pacifist movements derive from the Christian religion.)

Finally, is moral depravity. To the Christian, truth, morality, Christ and God are all one and the same. You cannot be immoral and intellectual honest at the same time. You cannot be a liar, a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and a coveter and also be a true seeker of truth. The Greeks understood this. Morality and honesty are inseparable.

These attributes combine to create the perfect ignorant, naive liberal.

It is interesting that the Soviets understood this and used this to attack America’s foundation. By washing our country with broken families, families where education is no longer the priority, drugs and alcohol, miseducation and immorality, they hoped they could crack us and bring us down. Perhaps a weak United States would stop supporting nations in their moment of need, allowing them to degrade into the social chaos that must immediately precede true communism.

Unfortunately, the people of the United States have not all fallen victim to this trap. There are a great number of families who quietly, but effectively, raise children free from miseducation, moral depravity and substance abuse. These countless millions are today standing up, against the federal government, in defense of individual liberties.