Taking the Time to Thank Our Patriotic America-First Broadcasters

Buoyed by the liberating belief that "We the People" have finally got it, and are now more vigilant and protective of our liberties and way of life than I could have ever imagined possible just one short year ago, my self-imposed posting hiatus remains relatively intact.

Believing now that the people better understand the "hope and change" menace confronting us all, for the past 30+ days I simply haven't felt the urgency to raise the usual alarms by profiling those menaces on this or on other sites.

Though there are certainly a plethora of unsettling threats out there still generating some level of chomping at the bit on my part, e.g. the unconstitutional government takeover of healthcare, socialist infiltration at the highest levels of our national government, the ruthless progressive assault on our Constitution, economy and liberties, and the erosion of American military and economic power and prestige around the world, for the moment anyway I haven't felt the burning need to expound on those clear and present dangers. In any event, other bloggers more talented than I are doing a very fine job of expounding on those issues.

And while the spontaneous Tea Party Movement may properly be credited for this patriotic grassroots resurgence and awareness in America, in fairness we simply cannot overlook the many diligent conservative broadcasters out there, e.g. Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Church, Quinn & Rose, Spencer Hughes, et. al, without whose scrupulous attention and analysis the American electorate would still be blindly and haplessly plodding on, unaware of the imminent threats to their way of life posed by an alarmingly disconnected and tyrannical government. Sure, these broadcasters are all well recompensed for their efforts, but we still owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for their public service.

That said, I'd be entirely remiss were I to violate my self-imposed, albeit temporary, silence without singling out Glenn Beck for special recognition.

To my humble way of thinking, Beck probably deserves the Medal of Freedom, or at the very least the Peabody or some such award, for the probing educational services he has rendered to the electorate of this great country.

When it comes to Beck, I honestly cannot recall when Americans have been better served by a mere media talking head and entertainer. And despite his flamboyance from time to time, I believe many fair-minded Americans might well agree with this positive assessment of his effectiveness.

Unencumbered by political correctness or myopic party loyalties, for the past several years in particular Beck has filled what would otherwise have been a perilous educational void which, had other principled American broadcasters not taken up the slack, would have surely served to blunt Americans' ability to distinguish fact from fiction and reality from illusion in the realm of government, history and current events.

Not an easy task for the most gifted and inspired pedagogue, Beck, but a self-educated and self-effacing mortal himself, has, to me, brilliantly managed to make social studies, history and current events fun, informative, relevant, and intensely interesting for everyone. But for their narrow progressive nearsightedness, many instructors in public and private schools and universities could well benefit from this maestro's example.

Relying on a thoroughly entertaining and self-deprecating delivery style, in graphic, probing and easy to understand detail Beck has consistently made "fair and balanced" investigative journalism and analysis an art form. It just can't get much better than that.

Relying on meticulous research, eschewing political correctness at every turn, and boldly inviting on-air reproval from both public and government viewers alike during his TV and radio broadcasts, Beck's common sense, penetrating, honest and enlightening analyses have, for me, characterized a man of superlative presentation skills and a broadcaster possessed of a genuine sense of humble and well-intended civic-mindedness. In short, he is a broadcaster who, like only the finest teachers among us, appears to care much more about informing opinions than in merely shaping them. And this is just what any people in any healthy democracy needs. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied upon to set them to rights". And so it seems to be at this critical juncture in our nation's history.

And though I strongly disagree with Beck on one particular issue of enormous national importance, i.e. Obama's eligibility problem which Beck has only casually commented upon but which he has failed, so far, to properly research, for a inveterately busy and distracted citizenry unaccustomed to forming judgements based on anything but simple-minded sound bites, willful media disinformation and self-serving partisan talking points, on the whole I believe Beck's overall performance and his unique service to the people of this country have been nothing short of spectacular. Frankly, I have waited years for a media talking head who is truly committed to objectively educating and informing the American public at large, upon whom the republic's health is so utterly reliant. And in Glenn Beck I think we have found that man.

Finally, undergirding Beck's approach is his unapologetic commitment to reviving--not fundamentally transforming--the United States of America. And it this lofty and thoroughly American goal which remains the driving force behind his broadcasting efforts. Not to disparage other similarly skilled broadcasters, but as an American I couldn't be happier or more relieved to know that I can count on Beck for generally flawless, in-depth and objective research, analysis and education.

I sincerely thank Glenn Beck and his "traditional American" broadcasting compatriots for a job well done!

("An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight..." Thomas Jefferson)

("I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Thomas Jefferson, 1820)

("The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." Thomas Jefferson, 1779)

Obama Unfairly Attacks Supreme Court

Yes, unquestionably, Obama grossly mischaracterized the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v FEC.

Despite the predictable muddle of misinformation and tortured sky-is-falling screeches from the left, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v FEC was constitutionally unassailable and long overdue. (For me anyway, the most distressing aspect of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision is that there were four dissenting justices at all, those being--not surprisingly--liberals Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Stevens.)

To briefly clarify, this ruling struck down that portion of the onerous McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, a woefully unconstitutional and deeply flawed “beltway fix”, which barred union and corporate-paid issue/advocacy ads in the closing days of election campaigns. It also overturned the 1990 Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce ruling by allowing corporations (both profit and non-profit), advocacy associations, organizations, unions, and other groups to directly spend from their own treasuries on political campaigns. Important to note is that while the Citizens United ruling allows these entities to finance political or advocacy ads, the prohibition on direct donations to candidates or their campaigns remains in place.

As even the liberal New York Times reported, “the core of the Citizens United decision said corporations have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in candidate elections” and that “only a constitutional amendment, which is exceedingly unlikely, could undo that core holding.” So, I gather that Obama and his minions, always the schemers, can forget effectively nullifying the ruling by executive fiat or congressional usurpation.

For purposes of definition, “contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their campaigns; “independent expenditures” are funds spent by third parties on things like political ads without any coordination with the candidate. Thus, the court did not touch the ban on direct contributions to candidates. That is still in force. But, it correctly decided that the ban on independent political expenditures was unconstitutional.

In effect, the ruling overturned a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, thus rejecting the proposition that government can decide who gets to speak and to ban some from speaking at all. The ruling found that speech rights under the First Amendment may not be dependent upon a speaker’s financial situation; that deep pockets alone cannot diminish a speaker’s First Amendment rights. As a Heritage Foundation analysis clear-headedly points out, the First Amendment “is written in terms of speech, not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.”

Of immediate concern to me is that despite Obama’s tasteless and ignorant scolding of SCOTUS during his State of the Union address earlier this week, the infusion of cash from foreign companies or foreign nationals is still prohibited by 2 USC Section 441a. This section of the law prohibits all “foreign nationals” inclusive of foreign corporations, from proffering “a contribution or donation of money or anything of value or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with federal, state or local elections.” So, contrary to Dear Leader’s assertion that this ruling would open the “floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections”, the unvarnished truth is that foreign corporations and individuals are absolutely and incontrovertibly prohibited from making any contribution or donation, directly or indirectly, to any committee of any political party and are forbidden from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication…” Got that, Barack?

And to ensure there were no unseemly loopholes, Heritage researchers affirm that “only US domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can establish PACs, and only if these PAC’s donations and disbursements derive entirely from funds generated by US operations of the subsidiary and all decisions concerning the donations and disbursements are made by US citizens or permanent US residents.”

Though at first blush this ruling appears to unfairly subject our unwary electorate to the corrupting influences of deep-pocketed corporations, unions and other special interests, one must bear in mind that these special interests have been playing a huge and often corrosive roll in the political arena already, but often under the cover of darkness, e.g. billions of dollars in congressional earmarks, special tax breaks for political backers, backroom healthcare reform deals with AARP, SEIU, UAW, Merck, etc--and this without the electorate’s full knowledge. To my way of thinking, these secretive practices are, far and away, more sinister and corrupting than anything publicly aired corporate or union ads could possibly perpetrate on the American electorate.

At long last, the Citizens United ruling requires transparency, an apparently inimical governing concept these days, and real-time disclosure of the ads’ financiers, thus enabling a vigilant electorate to follow the money to easily determine which organizations and corporations may be in a particular candidate’s pocket or good graces whether it be the ACLU, AARP, big Pharma, Sierra Club, ACORN, NTA, IBM, NRA, NARAL, Goldman Sachs, AIG, or whatever. And given the explosion of information and the plethora of diverse opinions on the internet, corporate and union ads alone will be hard-pressed to easily misguide the electorate. Ah, the cleansing effect of sunlight.

What we need is more, not less, free speech. Clearly, an informed electorate can, over time and with a modicum of digging and attentiveness, easily distinguish sleaze from fact and separate out talking points from meaningful messaging. To deny Americans that right is dangerous and terribly shortsighted. As T. Jefferson asserted, “Errors in opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it; information is the currency of democracy."

And for the strong 2nd amendment supporters among us, another benefit of this ruling is that groups like the NRA and firearms manufacturers can now finance ads in support of candidates which defend the Second Amendment. Also, American sugar refineries, for example, can openly support candidates who favor higher taxes on imported sugar, and Boeing can now spend money to support candidates who are fighting to keep the Air Force from awarding its refueling tanker contract to European companies, thus saving American jobs. So, under closer scrutiny, the economic and free speech benefits of this ruling far outweigh any possible perils to our Republic.

And though the perception is that Republicans garner more corporate support than Democrats, given that both parties are receiving huge amounts from corporations and interest groups already, one would have a very difficult time proving that this ruling somehow unfairly favors either side. For example, Goldman Sachs donated more money to Obama than to any other candidate and corporations were the number one donors to his campaign. The short of it is that Obama set the record for corporate donations, to say nothing of very generous donations from fat-cat union bosses. Thus, accusing SCOTUS of playing favorites is specious at best, blatantly dishonest at worst. Historical analysis clearly demonstrates that corporate donations are fairly evenly split (50.5% GOP v 49.5% Dem), although Dems far outpace Republicans when it comes to union donations.

Also, let’s not forget that those mean ‘ole corporations are groups of individuals who also have constitutional right--the workers, the CEOs, the shareholders. Individuals shouldn’t have to surrender their rights merely because they come together to magnify the effects of their donations. Think about this: George Soros, a dangerous socialist dingbat, can and has spent millions in support of socialist/Democratic policies and candidates, but when you and a hundred other citizens get together to spend your money for the same purpose that’s unfair? Twisted logic, indeed.

As George Will succinctly commented, “The dissemination of political speech requires money, so restricting money restricts free speech.” Pretty straightforward , I’d say.

Finally, to any but the leftist elites, Obama clearly owes the Supreme Court an apology for his boorishness and slander. But, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

November 2010 and 2012 can’t come soon enough. Lord help us all and the Constitution ‘til then.


"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." Thomas Jefferson

"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgement, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." T. Jefferson)

Will the GOP Finally Get It?

Couldn't resist briefly weighing in on Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts last night. Frankly, it's akin to a ton of bricks being removed from my shoulders. Haven't been this relieved and hopeful for a very long time.

So, hooray for Independents! Capturing over 70% of Massachusetts "Indies", Scott Brown, grassroots Americans everywhere and the Republic triumphed last night! Big time!

But, will the GOP machine get the message, or will the tin-ear plague which has ravaged Democrats in D.C. infect and throttle the Republican establishment as well? In short, will the GOP blithely ignore the message and continue to myopically accommodate the Left, thus continuing to destroy themselves and the country in the process. Will the wisdom borne of this seismic victory be squandered by the GOP? Will Republicans finally understand and digest what has just happened?

Let's just hope this Progressive reversal in the bluest of the blues finally brings clarity of principle, honest self-appraisal, gumption, moral fiber and enlightenment to the GOP--indeed, to all political leaders.

On Front Page this morning, I commented in a T.Sowell post on this subject:

 "While it's always politically risky to speak the truth to voters, conservatives must do exactly that! There's something remarkably elevating and liberating about telling it like it is. More importantly, it is the responsible thing to do. To prevail, commonsense and conservative American principles--not parochial self-interest--must drive the GOP message: talk about what makes America work and why liberal policies don't, not what handouts can be expected of government. Republicans must relentlessly and roundly expose the outright lies, elitism, shameful hypocrisy, adolescence, illogic and destructiveness of the Left. And, yes, APOLOGIZE for having shortsightedly accommodated Progressive policies in the past merely to get elected. The trick, of course, is to no longer succumb to temptation by adopting the Left's insanely self-serving and destructive policies merely to achieve a "big tent" and fleeting political power. Conservative Republicans should no longer allow--indeed, no longer need to allow--Democrats to shape the debate, the GOP candidates, the issues, the nation's priorities. To continue to allow this is exasperatingly stupid and politically suicidal. Is it any wonder so many voters don't perceive a whit of difference between Dems and Reps? When liberals talk about cap and trade & national healthcare, don't get sucked in. Openly and forthrightly dissect those policies head-on for what they really are: careless, self-serving expedients to achieving personal political power and absolutely nothing more. Doggedly shift the debate to the real issues which are fundamental to the economic and social well-being of the country. Progressives will have a hard time with that. Control the debate! Continually shift the ground from beneath them with truth and objectivity. With cataclysmic upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, by now the Republicans must surely know what they have to do. The question is will they have the courage, fortitude, clarity and integrity to do it. Frankly, I have my doubts."

Finally, a word of heartfelt gratitude and encouragement to the Tea Partiers whose courage, activism and unstinting dedication contributed so signficantly to the string of recent Progressive defeats. Don't throw in the towel just yet, and don't become complacent or in any way veer from your America-first mission.

And to those regular Joes or Jills out there who so earnestly desire a return to limited and responsible government, now's the time to throw your hat in the ring. Be that Constitution and America-first "citizen representative" our founders so cherished and whose time may have, at long last, come again.

Tea Partiers Must be Cautious, Vigilant

What prompts this post is a RedState.com post by Erick Erickson on January 11th. It struck home for me and for some of my conservative friends as well.

First, for better or worse, human nature implies a natural proclivity for corruption. That's just the way it is.

And so it is with well-intentioned groups, organizations and movements whose scruples and lofty missions may have attracted enthusiastic grassroots adherents--at least at the beginning of its principled journey, that is.

However, in his post Erick expressed concern over what may have been Sarah Palin’s recent unwitting acceptance of an invitation to speak at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. Why? NTP is charging attendees $500 each (not including transportation and lodging). And if that doesn't raise some well-founded concerns and questions, well, you're simply not conscious.

Says Erick, albeit without malice and with some reluctance: “I think the tea party movement has largely descended into ego and quest for purpose for individuals at the expense of what the tea party movement started out to be.” And human nature being what it is, I think it would be foolhardy and delusional to deny such a possibility.

Noting some local exceptions around the country, Erick alluded to individual tea partiers who had expressed to him their disenchantment with the Tea Party organization in their areas as well as with the national organization. In short, among tea partiers around the country there has been a growing perception that the movement’s leadership may be morphing into a matrix of self-serving elites with their own agendas. Given the historical nature of mass movements and of human nature itself, this shouldn't be at all surprising.

Erick’s greatest fear is “that a bunch of well meaning people from across the nation…will grow disaffected or burn out”…and that Sarah Palin might “harm herself unintentionally” by her close association with the national Tea Party movement.”

To me, both very unsettling and perfectly rational concerns.

Some of RedState's commenters expressed their concern that without vigilance and a clear commitment on the part of tea partiers and their leaders/organizers to continually self-correct and clean house as needed, the Tea Party organization, both at the local or national level, might well be hijacked by nefarious entities from without or, indeed, from within, who would be intent upon discrediting the movement; that the movement might descend into a disastrously divisive third party movement which would ensure leftist dominance; that corruption within local and national leadership circles might well destroy the purity and credibility of the movement itself, thus exposing what had been a well-intentioned spontaneous grassroots effort to ruinous embarrassment, leftist ridicule and all manner of opportunism from within and without. The members' America-first principles would, of course take a beating.

As a Tea Partier myself, for good reason I too have harbored these doubts and concerns and, as a result, have opted to studiously avoid active participation in organizational meetings or activities requiring a donation. Though supportive of the Tea Party movement's mission to restore Constitutional governance and fiscal responsibility, absent acceptable standards of accountability and transparency in all areas of operation, I have necesssarily distanced myself from active engagement in the local movement. And I am not alone.

So, a gentle word of advice to Tea Partiers everywhere: always be vigilant, demand an open, participatory grassroots approach to the organization's management and be wary of a top-heavy style of management. And, very importantly, assiduously demand proper accounting of donations and both rigorous and demonstrable compliance with pertinent local, state and federal fundraising and election laws. In so doing, you properly protect yourselves, the movement, your honor and the purity and viability of the mission’s purpose.

If violations of trust or perceptions of corruption or unaccountability are perceived, speak out! It’s your organization. Keep it that way. If you don't feel comfortable with the direction of management or the movement itself, simply move on. There are other grassroots organizations which share your views, concerns and approach.

Finally, Glen Beck advises all Tea Partiers, both members and organizers alike, to “hold to the truth”, “never be afraid to speak”, and “question boldly.” As Tea Partiers, it's YOUR grassroots organization. It is not the property of the organizers. For the good of the country and the success of the mission, you and the activist organization you hang with must always be above reproach. Accept nothing less. America First!

("None of us is guaranteed against failure or corruption of any kind; witness what's going on the world in this moment, the follies of human nature and the failures of human nature; all institutions are prone to corruption and to the vices of their members." Morris West, Writer: "The Devil's Advocate", "Shoes of the Fisherman")

("Even in the realm of TEA party infrastructure, corruption can still smell the allure of easy money." John McSherry, Patriotic Resistance Blog)

Why Doesn't Rep. Chris Lee Support HR 450?

Recently, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) announced he was not running for re-election in November. A solidly free-market and limited government conservative, he will be a great loss to Congress and to the country.

As you may recall, it was Rep. Shadegg who introduced HR 450 (The Enumerated Powers Act) which would require Congress to specify the source of Constitutional authority for any laws enacted by Congress--an honest and straightforward patriotic attempt to keep Congressmen true to their pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.(For more details, please refer to my HR 450 post dtd April 11, 2009.)

Specifically, HR 450 stipulates that "each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement (subject to review by the Supreme Court) of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act," and that "the failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress." For many of us, this is pure, unadulterated American poetry! At long last, a fundamentally transformational bill which could finally stem the tide of brazen congressional overrreach.

Stoutly co-sponsored by 59 patriots in Congress and 22 patriots in the Senate (S 1319)--all Republicans, of course--HR 450, not surprisingly, has now been languishing in the dustbin of liberal dominated subcommittees since its introduction in January 2009.

Disconcerting, however, is the prominent absence in this stellar lineup of patriots of our own Rep. Chris Lee(R-NY26). And I have to wonder why.

What is he waiting for? An engraved invitation from his Republican compatriots? What is it about HR 450 which he finds so objectionable or, perhaps, irrelevant or unworthy of his momentary attention? Or is it simply a matter of benign neglect or just being so overwhelmed with so many, shall we say, more important matters? Well, frankly,I can't think of anything more important for a Congressman in these acutely precarious times than to defend the Constitution which shaped America's greatnesss and exceptionalism but whose despicable neglect of late by Congress has been inexorably destroying the Republic.

To my way of thinking, Mr. Lee's co-sponsorship of this fundamentally transformational bill would lay to rest any doubts among his constituents about his commitment to limited and efficient government. For what better, simpler, more straightforward way for a Congressperson to help achieve this meaningful goal than to extend his or her co-sponsorship of HR 450?

So while I genuinely believe Mr. Lee intends to be a different type of politician, one more committed to "we the people" than to self-serving me-first party politics as usual, and that he is determined to do his part to return this country to its once inviolable free enterprise and Constitutional roots, his apparent reluctance to co-sponsor this enormously important bill justifiably gives me serious pause.

In truth, it has been acutely disappointing that, to date, and despite several communications to him on his website, Mr. Lee, for whatever reason, has failed to proudly add his name as a co-sponsor of HR 450.

For the moment, I will grant this busy legislator the benefit of the doubt, but November draws near and his constituents deserve an explanation.

A conservative Republican, I, like many of his other constituents, am an American first and foremost. And that is precisely what I want my Congressman to be as well.

At long last, let's get our legislative priorities straight. Bread-and-circuses, entitlement and cynical vote-getting legislation must now take a back seat to putting our house in constitutional order. Now is the time for our leaders to get our country back on solid Constitutional footing before it all comes crashing down around us. HR 450 is an opportunity none of our leaders in our once hallowed halls of Congress should squander. Much too much is at stake.

The Odious Copenhagen Deception

Published 12/23/09, CITY News
Smugly impervious to scientific reasoning and appeals for open scientific debate, an international cabal of histrionic socialist ideologues, authoritarians, politicians and academicians in league with a greedy rabble of financial opportunists and sell-outs in the science community continue to shamelessly assert that menacing man-made global warming is a done deal, that there is a “scientific consensus” on that score, and that the growing number of respected scientific critics are but terribly misguided "crackpots", "Neanderthals", and heretical “flat earthers”.

Absent unassailable scientific data to support their claims of cataclysmic global warming, and with mounting objective evidence of fraudulent manipulation of that data, in archetypal Leftist fashion the elitist global warming gang has resorted to the usual mindless torrent of tedious ad hominems to both intimidate scientific critics and to altogether shut down scientific debate. How very reassuring.

Predictably, capricious Leftist ideology is again trumping commonsense, rationality and responsible stewardship. And, once again, “we the people”, meticulously disdained by our patrician overseers here and abroad, are expected to compliantly pick up the lavish and painful cost of their spectacular folly.

Thus, their cynical goal remains the same: the fundamental transformation of the Western World into a wonderland of mediocrity, enforced equality and diminished standards of living--but, of course, with these illustrious intellectual giants in charge of every facet of our worthless plebeian lives.

In a nutshell, isn't this precisely what it's really all about? When will this madness stop?

Positively mind-boggling!

Understanding Liberals

I knew that casting flip-flops and profanities at the endless parade of sneering and unctuous liberal talking heads and spinmeisters on TV simply had to stop. I realized I had to take control of my reactions to them or run the risk of either ruining a perfectly good TV set or subjecting myself to a costly regimen of antidepressants.

Long annoyed and distressed by liberal hypocrisy, mendacity, arrogance, recklessly muddled thinking, and, for me, their barely concealed contempt for the proverbial unwashed masses for whom they profess empathy and solidarity, I decided to at least somewhat mitigate my irritation by better understanding what liberals were REALLY all about. By better understanding why they behave as they do, I figured I’d be better able to more objectively deal with them and to moderate my reactions to them. Regaining my composure and keeping my blood pressure in check were my goals.

By attempting to psychologically define the stereotypical liberal I felt I would no longer be unduly stressed by their grossly sophomoric view of reality, intolerable smugness, reckless irresponsibility, their authoritarian proclivities, childish rants and scurrilous ad hominems. Thus, this quest for answers ensued.

Much to my surprise and relief, a respectable amount of thoughtful research on this very question has been compiled by many fine writers, historians and psychologists, many names of whom I have simply forgotten. But, among them are luminaries like Eric Hoffer, whom I had always considered the working man’s philosopher and whose brilliant and penetrating books about mass movements and ideologies I so thoroughly enjoyed both in my high school and college years.

I also relied on the insights of Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of “The Liberal Mind”, Eric Alan Beltt, writer for Frontiers of Freedom, John Ray, contributor to Front Page Magazine and my most illuminating resource, as well as a number of other thoughtful writers, professionals and thinkers to gain a better understanding of this thing called "liberal".

First, a brief definition of liberalism:

“Classical Liberalism” generally refers to the liberalism which existed before the 20th century which emphasizes rational self-interest, limited republican government, individual moral and social responsibility, equal opportunity, free markets and the inherent rights of individuals to pursue life, liberty and property. (Think America’s founders.)

Classical Liberalism shouldn’t be confused with modern “welfare liberalism” which de-emphasizes the individual by advocating the predominant role of the state via collective class and group action.

Classic liberals espouse the concept of “negative rights” meaning an individual’s freedom from the coercive actions of government and other people. Conversely, modern liberals adhere to the concept of “positive rights”, meaning that individuals have the right to be provided benefits and services from government and others.

Very importantly, modern liberals are more inclined to violate the rules of natural law and of human nature by attempting to impose behavioral/attitudinal norms and intellectual standards by way of paternalistic state-directed collectivism. So, in a real sense, classical liberalism more closely resembles conservatism and libertarianism while modern liberalism embodies socialist and collectivist principles.

That said, Alan Beltt posits in one of his essays that “liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology – the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.” This fundamental assertion is worth remembering as we move forward.

According to Beltt, a liberal ideologue’s thinking is driven by an aversion to being ostracized and by a corresponding desire “to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance and reverence”, but Belt cautions that this characterization of a liberal ideologue is quite apart from the non-activist self-identified liberal who may, from time to time, agree with liberal ideologues owing to parochial self-interest or simply ignorance, e.g. an otherwise politically conservative member of a teacher’s union.

Belt states that the liberal ideologues' common bond is “their straight-forward simplicity” which shuns “real solutions to real problems.” (Like the gov’t takeover of healthcare to expand healthcare services and reduce costs without affecting the quality of healthcare.)

Further, he reasons that the causes for which a liberal fights is “relevant only insofar as different causes stroke different needs [like] moral superiority, intellectual superiority, group acceptance, aversion to emotional trauma, etc.” (Wow! Sounds eerily akin to an adolescent’s emotional and psychological profile, huh?)

Beltt goes on to assert that because liberals are so concerned about their egos that they tend to gravitate to academia, news and entertainment, and the legal professions; that since “liberals want to be society’s elite and powerful” being a part of an elite social circle is extremely important to them; that because they want to feel good about themselves they’re wholly dependent upon how others feel about them. Thus, what better way to earn others’ respect and awe than by being a successful academician, entertainer or lawyer, etc (Therefore, cannot it be safely said that emotional immaturity and a child-like need for peer acceptance are dominant liberal indicators?)

To feel a sense of superiority, liberals unquestionably regard the poor, the uneducated, southerners, conservatives, religious people, and minorities as inferior. (Remember Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” screed?) By feeding the poor and downtrodden, liberals seek expressions of gratitude and praise, and, in turn, an affirmation of their superiority, which is, of course, their overarching goal. Wow! It's finally coming together.

Liberals also continually regard international acceptance and popularity as a must. (Does Obama’s “apology tour” come to mind?) Why? Because one can’t feel morally and intellectually superior if others don’t look up to you. To the liberal, then, personal affirmation, personal consequences and avoiding unpopularity invariably take precedence over national security. This fits nicely with the modern liberal’s opposition to “unilateral action” since negative consequences of such actions would fall squarely upon them rendering them morally accountable to their international elitist peers.

Conversely, any negative consequences of “multilateralism” can be shared with their liberal allies around the world. (Thus, their unstinting support of the UN and other international/globalist organizations.) So, in short, it’s really all about ego. (Thus, it seems that some of us simply never outgrow our adolescent insecurities.)

Beltt nicely illustrates the egotism of liberals by describing the manner in which they argue and debate. As he succinctly observes, “to conservatives, debate is about issues…but to liberals it is about them.” (Ah! Now I get it. Like debating with a self-centered teenager.)

In a debate, the liberal “either wants to prove his superiority or the other person’s inferiority, or both”, and rather than lose the debate, the liberal invariably relies on ad hominems, wild-eyed claims of bigotry, and evasion—the psychological defense mechanisms of the insecure and the narcissist.

Obviously, this can be very infuriating to the unwary classical liberal, conservative or libertarian who seeks substantive dialogue and fact based solutions. For liberals, however, the purpose of politics is to stoke their egos, and political power is the ultimate affirmation of that superiority. So, in a very real sense, political power is the means to personal gratification. (Thus, it’s likely distressingly true that genuinely selfless service is very much an alien motivator for most liberals, but, I’m sure, for some other politicians of different political stripes as well.)

Gee! I’m feeling better already. Knowledge really is power. So, in effect, what I (and you) have been dealing with are neurotic me-first kids in adult bodies. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, Beltt suggests that liberals tend to be “intellectually lazy”. Their fixation with “shades of gray” and moral relativism is stereotypically liberal which inevitably leads to ethereal and feel-good answers that merely “sound right” (like affirmative action, gun control, socialized healthcare, anti-war movements, aversion to tax cuts) but which are, if more carefully weighed, simply illogical or intellectually indefensible. Relying upon rational thought clearly means abandoning their pursuit of vainglorious personal affirmation, a frightening risk the liberal would surely avoid like the plague. And since deeply delving into an opponent’s argument could factually disprove a liberal’s position and thus diminish his sense of intellectual superiority, such an intellectual exercise would, of course, be routinely avoided. (And since “it is much easier [for a liberal] to just assume someone has different values than it is to try to understand why they believe what they believe,” I have to wonder if a typical liberal would as objectively examine the conservative mind as non-liberals have examined the liberal mind. Very doubtful, as this would require some uncomfortable level of self-examination and self-discovery as well. Oops. Can’t have that.)

Moving on, John Ray posits that “Rightists [as opposed to Leftists] have no need either for change or its opposite and may oppose change if they see it as destructive or favor change if they see it as constructive.” To liberals, however, their motive for changing society is to “draw attention to themselves…as being wise, innovative, caring, etc.”

In a somewhat less tempered manner, Mr. Ray discusses a variety of liberal positions which, for him, illustrate the liberal phenomenon:

1. Human Nature: Leftists reject the immutability of human nature and heredity. To the liberal, virtually all human behavior can be molded and shaped, and acquired characteristics can be genetically passed on. (Among other things, this might well explain their attachment to high-minded “restorative justice”, social engineering and their single-minded attempt to dominate public education.)

2. The Church: Leftists are generally antagonistic toward ecclesiastical authorities which “enforce conventional morality” for the purpose of ensuring societal and familial order. Having infiltrated many churches, secular Leftists hope to further erode Christian power and influence while expanding their own. (For example, the accommodation of same-sex marriage on the part of some churches today is illustrative of this infiltration.) Leftists generally favor abortion, contraception, those more primitive religions which are less threatening, oppose religious schooling and financial support for parochial schools. To Ray, Liberals attempt “to exploit Judeo-Christian teachings of love and compassion [in order to] promote the usual Leftist goals of enforced equality.”

3. Anti-Racist Hypocrisy: liberals camouflage their own anti-Semitism and racism by viciously and unrelentingly attacking others who disagree with them for harboring those feelings. (Classic Psych 101 “transference”.) Marx, Hitler and Stalin, among other Leftists, were notoriously anti-Semitic and racist and always justified their actions in the name of “the people”. It’s worth noting that all the mass murders of the 20th century were perpetrated by Leftists and “virulent racism” can and does, in fact, exist on the Left. Spiro Agnew described Leftists as “limousine liberals” who seldom opt to actually live in neighborhoods with a sizeable number of minority residents. Also to Ray, the profusion of documentaries about Hitler in the liberal dominated media and the relative paucity of documentaries about Stalin attest to the Left’s barely disguised “obsession” with Nazism. This is not to say that modern liberals are Nazis, only that they are cut from the same psychological cloth.

4. Racism: liberals “tend to characterize as racist almost anyone who is honest about his or her perfectly normal feelings of group identity.” Why? To earn personal acclaim for their compassion and adherence to “equality” and, of course, to weaken intergroup cohesiveness. (Race-baiting is a means to divide and conquer.) With respect to Americans and capitalism, Ray sees an uncomfortable commonality of disenchantment among liberals, Muslim fanatics, and “Green” extremists. He also examines the Left’s hypocritical level of intensity when it comes to strongly condemning European or Western “atrocities” (like the “infamous” Abu Graib, Guantanamo, America’s treatment of illegal aliens) while seldom excoriating Pol Pot’s “killing fields”, Stalin’s “gulag”, Japan’s raping and pillaging of China, Kim Il Sung’s death camps, and a whole host of “mini-holocausts” perpetrated in Africa and other developing areas of the world.)

5. Equality & Moral Equivalence: “In the name of bringing about equality, Leftists get an excuse to tear down the whole of existing structure of society—something that they need to do to give themselves any chance of fulfilling their dream of taking over all power for themselves. It is the fact that they are not in charge of everything that the leftist most of all wants to change.” (The so-called “dumbing down” of America’s educational system and the accent on promoting self-esteem over healthy competition and achievement is an excellent example of liberalism’s enforced equality. Exempted, of course, are the liberal elites themselves who foist defective public education standards on the general public while dispatching their children to private schools. You’ll notice that school vouchers are robustly opposed by the left.) This pursuit of “equality” invariably leads to their advocacy of redistribution of income, progressive taxation, inheritance and death taxes, generous foreign aid, feminism, gay rights, and socialized medicine. Further, Leftists express their amoral belief in “moral equivalence” by, for example, asserting the moral equivalence--or equivalent blameworthiness or praiseworthiness--of Islamic terrorists and Christian fundamentalists. Mr. Ray describes their amorality as “the mark of a psychopath--the moral imbecile” which simply can’t tell the difference between right and wrong and, therefore, cannot be held accountable for any brutality and unpleasantness which might result from such simplistic and coldhearted shallowness. (Sounds eerily akin to the way our justice system views underaged criminals, huh? So, it shouldn’t surprise us that KSM and his terrorist buddies are being accorded due-process protections and trial by a civilian court in NYC.)

6. Political Correctness: leftists attempt to change our views of other groups by arbitrarily altering the words we use to describe them, e.g. undocumented immigrant vs illegal alien, but also by ensuring the inability of airport security to more carefully examine those who are more likely than other racial groups to pose a terrorist threat, and by willfully ignoring the militant Islamism and anti-Americanism of the infamous Maj. Hassan all in the name of empty-headed “diversity”, etc. So, while they talk a good game about breaking down barriers, providing a “big tent” and encouraging an open discussion of racial and cultural differences, the Leftist’s real game is to quash honest dialogue, knowledge and debate in order to divide and dominate.

7. The Leftist Appeal: “liberals are attracted to absurd offers of something for nothing; their sense of equality is motivated more by their goal of bringing those in power down than to raising everyone up. As for the elitist power structure itself, its real goal is to be more equal than others.” A good example of this is the Communist Party in the USSR to whose members special privileges, goods and services were accorded to the exclusion of other Soviet citizens.

8. Guilt v Compassion: expressions or demonstrations of liberal compassion are dictated by “a desire for self-righteousness, praise, power and excitement” and not by any genuine sense of guilt. Selfishly motivated, the typical liberal expects government—not themselves--to finance liberal expressions of compassion. Thus, their overarching goal is power and influence, not the betterment of mankind.

9. Religion: now more than ever, Mr. Ray clearly believes that Leftism has in many ways evolved into a secular religion. In universities, “Marxism is often treated as a theology” whose every wisdom is so carefully examined by professorial keepers of the faith. Through this brainwashing, the goal of liberals is to eclipse the power and influence of the church. Generally, liberals want churches to serve their agenda so that liberalism’s political domination can be more readily achieved. Like in spiritual based religions, Leftists too need to believe in things which sound good even if they cannot be proven.

10. Other Causes of Liberalism: especially to impressionable youth seeking peer acceptance, “heroic” advocacy of human rights and the needs of the downtrodden is “cool”; the fraudulent appeal of easy or simple solutions to complex problems and the need for instant self-gratification; the need for acceptance by non-conformists, misfits, pacifists, social pariahs, idealists, malcontents, fanatics, the ambitious, the bored and “the weird”. (Eric Hoffer figured this out long ago.)

11. Leftists in Academe: since the humanities and social science schools of US colleges and universities are “monopolized” by liberals, these schools “are intolerant of diversity, opposed to free speech, and discriminatory in their hiring practices.” (In others words, conservatives need not apply.) However, Mr. Ray reassuringly notes that given that most intelligent graduates go into the business world (real world) rather than the teaching field (theoretical world), and that there are now many alternative sources of information (broadcasting) currently dominating the American scene, liberalism’s impact on most graduates is, fortunately, fleeting. (But, keep your eye on the FCC which, in the hands of Progressives, will always attempt to curtail or altogether eliminate divergent viewpoints on the airwaves.)

12. Egotism: thinking well of oneself is, in general, healthy; however, excessive self-satisfaction or self-esteem is abnormal and can lead to criminal behavior, a misplaced entitlement mentality, an irrational sense of superiority, elitism, a cavalier attitude toward others, a simplistic and unrealistic understanding of the forces at play in our lives, a neurotic need for constant affirmation, maladaptive denial of inconvenient or dispiriting truths and realities, and other psychopathological problems. Egotism afflicts the liberal mind.

Mr. Ray soberly concludes one of his recent papers on liberalism by cautioning that though liberals deceive us by their noisy advocacy of democratic principles, “Leftism IS intrinsically authoritarian and power-loving and will always therefore tend in the direction of government domination” and will succeed only if not impeded by other forces and influences. And given the opportunity which comes from political power, Leftists, true to form, will quickly expand their power by fashioning oppressive bureaucracies to facilitate their socialist and collectivist goals. (And, yes, folks, that expansion is already taking place at breakneck speed. Do the Dept. of Education, EPA and other suffocating regulatory bodies come to mind?) He also imputes that to Leftists constitutional constraints are but inconvenient hurdles to be either circumvented or overwhelmed. (Strict Constitutional constructionists and originalists they surely aren't.)

“Giving any power to Leftists is a most dangerous thing to do,” Ray warns, “and working to prevent that happening is a matter of no small importance.”

Finally, when recently speaking with two professional acquaintances, one a Volunteer Coordinator and the other a military retiree, I was at once mystified and distressed by what clearly appeared to be their unwavering view that since most Americans had already irretrievably morphed into permissive and dependent automatons that there was really nothing more that could done, or, indeed, should be done to resist America’s socialist transformation. In fact, any commitment to action on their part to restore and defend American exceptionalism seemed to be altogether absent or, at best, tentative. I couldn’t help but think that these otherwise regular folks, had simply given up hope and resigned themselves to quietly and willingly succumb to the new Progressive order, much like the sleeping human victims of the alien pods in “Invaders from Space” were transformed.

Thus, while their words seemed to express their disappointment over the country’s direction, they seemed strangely resigned to a fate over which they felt they could not—or worse—did not want to exercise any meaningful level of control. I remained bewildered by their almost unyielding resistance to remedy the situation by their own political engagement and activism. Very disturbing, indeed. I can only hope and pray that these folks are not typical of most Americans, for if they are America is surely doomed. And I guess this is why I’m a stalwart Conservative, aka Classical Liberal: I want to protect my individual rights and liberties from an overreaching authority no matter what form that authority may take. And as a grassroots activist, I am completely unwilling to resign myself to a socialist or statist fate.

Finally, what this research has taught me is that yielding to, compromising with or in any way accommodating modern Liberalism merely to achieve some semblance of transitory peace is foolhardy, suicidal and simply not a rational option. Tough love, pushing back deliberately and firmly, refusing to back off, and not simply emotionally reacting to their adolescent and self-destructive behavior is the tried and true course to follow. Thus, it appears that patriots and parents really do have much in common.

So let’s roll, America! And don't for a moment allow them to get the best of us, or, more importantly, our Republic