The right to protest is one of our most important God-given natural rights.   It is enshrined in the right to assemble and the right to petition clauses of the First Amendment.  We have the right to protest for whatever reasons or causes we wish to.  There is only limitation placed on anyone who wishes to protest.  Just as it is stated in the First Amendment, all protesting must be peaceable.   Violence, destruction of property, shutting down roads, mobs using their voices to silence others, and harassing individuals are not peaceable, therefore, they are not valid forms of protest.

So many on the political left have become unhinged, they have abandoned civil discourse and peaceful protesting and replaced it with mob violence and harassment of anyone that either works for or supports President Trump.  This is not just my opinion.  I see articles chronicling this despicable behavior on a daily basis.  Here is how Breitbart News described the current state of progressive political behavior in the article: Left-Wing Hate ‘Rap Sheet’ Reaches 300 Incidents of Violence, Harassment.

Ever since Donald Trump announced his intention to run for president, the American left has responded with unhinged vitriol, violent fantasies, and mob attacks — targeting Trump and anyone associated with him. The worst part of this climate of hate is that establishment media — the professionals, the respectable guardians of truth — are purposely fanning the flames.

Like all of our rights, we are free to exercise our right to protest, as we wish, as long as we do not hurt others, or interfere with the rights of others.  Violence against people or their property most definitely is not a valid form of protest, for very obvious reasons.  I know all of us clearly remember the riots that occurred the day of President Trump’s inauguration and the riots that occurred at Berkley in response to Milo speaking there.  Did the mainstream media ever condemn their actions or did they celebrate them as noble protesters?

Everyone has a right to be out in public and enjoy eating at restaurants, free of people getting in their faces and harassing them, no matter who they are, or who they work for.  Individuals harassing others are not protesters, they are thugs.

It was all the rage to shut down roads and block interstates as a form of “protest.”  Blocking roads interferes with the right of everyone to come and go as they please.  It also created very unsafe conditions, especially when highways were blocked.  At least one death was reported when an ambulance was prevented from reaching a hospital in a timely fashion.  The media still insists on labeling these occurrences as protests.  What do they accomplish other than pissing off a lot of people?

A large group of people surrounding an event where individuals are speaking, for the purpose of shutting down the event, and prevent those individuals from speaking, is in no way a protest.  That form of behavior violates the free speech of the speakers and it violates the right of the audience to listen to who, or what, they want to listen to.

There was not one single instance of a tea party rally turning into a riot, tea partiers committing violence, members of the tea party harassing others, or tea partiers silencing others; yet the media absolutely vilified the entire tea party movement.  The media labeled the entire tea party movement racist even though there was no valid evidence supporting those baseless accusations. The media now looks the other way when it comes to left wing violence committed by so called protesters, and praises their bad behavior.

The phrase I borrowed for the title of this article is featured in the libertarian science fiction masterpiece, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert Heinlein.  It represents one of the fundamental truths of the universe, one that socialists and big government types routinely ignore, often with disastrous results.  We the people have been conditioned to ignore this fundamental truth by the news media, our educational institutions, and our elected officials for the past many decades.

“Nothing is free” is a less colorful way of stating this fundamental truth.  Someone somewhere has to pay for everything.  Our politicians have become so very adept at hiding how we are paying for everything that they promise us is free.  So many people blindly accept these phony assurances that what they are getting from the government is free.  For far too many, this is their primary reason for voting for Democrats.

Would candidates for office be anywhere as successful if they told the truth?  “Go to college and force your neighbors to pay for it through higher taxes” just doesn’t have the same mass appeal but it is far more truthful.  Unfortunately few Republicans have the ability to counter false Democrat claims in such a clever manner.  That’s something they need to work on.  Too many in the Republican establishment think the only way to beat their opponents is to join them in this political bribery.

Far too many operate under the delusion that forcing those “evil rich” people to pay for everything has no overall costs to society.  If most of the profits of a corporation are confiscated, what is left to hire more workers, or build new factories, or even keep existing factories running?   How many would want to go through all of the pain suffering and misery it takes to start a business if they knew most of the profits they would earn are going to be confiscated and given to others?  Soaking the rich will only result in far fewer rich people, and far more people dependent on the government handouts, that the rich are supposed to pay for.  Republicans need to do a better job communicating how a free market benefits everyone, resulting in a greatly reduced need for government handouts, if not eliminating them entirely.

Printing money to pay for everything the federal government wants to do and all of the entitlements seems like it generates no costs to the citizens of this country.  That is far from the case.  Printing more money only decreases the purchasing power of the existing money.  More money is needed to buy everything.  The money people earn is worth less.  Printing money only causes inflation.  Do you think this practice would cause outrage if everyone knew that the dollar of today is worth only three percent of what the dollar was worth in 1913, when the Federal Reserve came into existence and began printing money?

Voters need to be informed that out of control debt have enormous costs associated with it.  Most are unaware that our 21 trillion dollar debt has a staggering cost just to finance it.  All of that borrowing result in higher interests rates for individuals and inflation.  We are approaching a debt to GDP ratio that always results in disaster, yet few in the Republican party are sounding the alarm, and too many in the party have joined forces with the Democrats to keep up the out of control spending..

The Republican Party needs to once again become the party of the free market, a constitutionally limited government, and fiscal responsibility.  They desperately need to learn how to effectively communicate the benefits of those ideals to everyone in a creative manner.

Every Fourth of July I read and reflect on the Declaration of Independence.  It is something I believe every one of us should do before heading out to our barbecues, fireworks, and beaches.  Unfortunately this most remarkable and influential document has fallen into such disfavor by modern academia and a certain segment of our political spectrum.  I’m not sure what percentage of high schools and colleges teach about this document in a positive and true light.  I think I would be saddened and angered if I found out the truth.

The Declaration of Independence called the United States into being and established the principal philosophies that were meant to serve as the bedrock that this country was built on.   The Constitution was written to ensure that those principal philosophies would remain the bedrock of this nation.

By invoking “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” in the opening sentence, Thomas Jefferson is stating quite emphatically that Natural Law was meant to be the cornerstone the United States will be built on.  The concept of Natural Law did not originate with Thomas Jefferson.  It can be traced back to Marcus Cicero around 100 BC and even to Ancient Israel.  John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, which was entirely about Natural Law, most heavily influenced Jefferson’s writing of the Declaration of Independence.  After reading the Two Treatises and the Declaration it will be clear that all the themes of the Declaration were derived from Natural Law.

Individual God-given Natural Rights are one of the most important components of Natural Law.  The denial and abuse of these rights by England was the justification for our declaring independence.  The fact that each and every individual is “endowed by their Creator” with rights and that these rights are “unalienable” is the single most important concept contained in the Declaration.  This is far superior to all of the collectivist philosophies that most of the world’s population has lived under.  Every single individual is the most important person in the United States and the government cannot violate the rights of any individual without breaking God’s law.

Every individual has the same worth in the eyes of God.  That is the meaning of the statement “all men are created equal.”   All laws must apply equally to everyone, no matter who they are.  In direct contrast to socialism, all individuals under Natural Law are not entitled to equal things.  To ensure all have equal things governments must forcibly confiscate the property of some individuals and give it to others.  No one has a right to take the property of another without consent, especially the government.  Every individual has the right to pursue whatever makes them happy, but they must grab hold of it themselves.

Liberty is another crucial concept from Natural Law that is featured in the Declaration of Independence.  It is a concept that so few understand today, thanks to our abysmal educational system.  Most confuse the definition of liberty with the definition of freedom, which I encountered in this online definition.  They are related but not identical.  Liberty is the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with responsibility.    What happens if you hurt others or interfere with the rights of others under our constitutional system of government?  Then the government at the appropriate level must restrain you to prevent you from continuing this behavior and the government must punish you to make sure you do not do it again.  What happens if you do not hurt others or interfere with others?  Under the constitutional system of this country, as it was originally intended, the government, at all levels, must leave you alone to live your life as you choose.  That is true for every individual.  Are we still free to live our lives as we choose in this country?  Sadly government at all levels is determined to micromanage our lives, leaving us all far from free to live our lives as we choose.

The Supreme Court’s tortured justification for their ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is further proof that the Supreme Court completely abandoned the Constitution a great many decades ago.  In this earlier article I explained in detail how the Supreme Court should have ruled and why.  With this current article I was going to critique the ruling but Tech Knight beat me to the punch with his excellent article.  Instead I decided to do this particular article about the systematic failures of the Supreme Court, and propose solutions.  Actually they are not original solutions that I will propose.  The solutions originated with Thomas Jefferson and the anti=federalists.

From the very beginning, the justices of the Supreme substituted their own political opinions for the actual text and meaning of the Constitution. Over the past few decades this has gotten fare worse.  What very few know is that Supreme Court Justices substituting their own political beliefs for the meaning of the Constitution is one of the crimes covered by High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is the grounds for impeaching a justice under the Constitution.  That was the case under English Common Law, which was the blueprint for our legal system.   Impeaching a Justice for this crime was only attempted once.  It happened very shortly after the Constitution was ratified, and it failed.  We should make it clear to our elected officials that this needs to be attempted again, and often.

In Marbury vs. Madison, way back in 1803, the Supreme Court granted itself sole jurisdiction in ruling on the constitutionality of federal laws.  The power to determine the constitutionally of federal laws is inferred in Article 3 of the Constitution, but it is never granted exclusively to Supreme Court.  In the Kentucky Resolutions Thomas Jefferson declares quite emphatically that the States have not only the power, but the duty, to declare federal laws and Supreme Court rulings null and void if the violate the Constitution.  James Madison echoed Jefferson on this point when he wrote the Virginia Resolutions.  The States need to step in immediately and restrain the out of control Supreme Court by nullifying all decisions that violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.

About a hundred years ago the Supreme Court began overturning States laws.  Their justification was the 14th Amendment.  That amendment was written only to end the harmful practices of Southern States during reconstruction.  The 14th Amendment actually forbids the Supreme Court from enforcing the provisions of that amendment.  This was because of the Dred Scott case.  The power to enforce the 14th Amendment was granted to the federal government through the formal legislative process.  The States need to tell the Supreme Court to stuff it when it tries to overturn State Laws.

Starting in the 1920s the Supreme Court began to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level.  They accomplished this by distorting the 14th Amendment.  In this article I discussed the erroneous nature of the doctrine of incorporation.  Nullification of Supreme Court decisions that employ this phony doctrine is the best solution.

Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalist pointed out that the Supreme Court was never properly restrained by the Constitution, and they proposed amendments to rectify this.  Term limits and a streamlined impeachment process that clearly states that substituting your own political beliefs is grounds for impeachment would be effective remedies.

The Supreme Court continues to run amok because so few of us truly understand the original meaning of the Constitution.  Our entire educational system propagates this dangerous notion of a living constitution, and completely distorts the original meaning, instead spreading modern progressive myths.  This needs to be corrected and the original meaning must be restored if we want to return this country to a free country, where individual rights and freedoms exist for everyone.

When Milton Friedman famously wrote “I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse” in his work An Economist’s Protest, back in 1975, that statement was a fundamental truth.  Today there is no doubt that the government solution to any problem is always far worse than the original problem.  Fake news and censorship of conservatives on social media platforms are both very serious problems.  Different federal government branches are investigating ways of solving these two problems.  You may me wondering, what could possibly go wrong.  Based on the track record of the federal government, the possibilities are too horrific to speculate on, but speculate I will.

Thanks to an overwhelmingly liberal media, fake news has turned into a major problem.  The liberal bias of their reporting is meant to sway elections.  Ever since President Trump announced he was running, he railed against fake news, and has continued railing after winning the presidency.  The liberal media labeled these verbal jibes as a direct violation of the Freedom of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment and labeled President as one of the worst practitioners of press suppression.  Neither of these characterizations of his fake news statements claims is true.  He is merely exercising his freedom speech.  Even if President Trump’s accusations were incorrect, his verbal attacks are perfectly fine.

An article with the title “Homeland Security to compile database of journalists and ‘media influencers’” appeared in the Chicago Sun Times.  According to this article:

The Department of Homeland Security wants to track the comings and going of journalists, bloggers and other “media influencers” through a database.

The DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan, which was first reported by FedBizOpps.gov, would give the contracting company “24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in order to “identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event.”

The database would be designed to monitor the public activities of media members and influencers by “location, beat and influencers,” the document says.

This monitoring plan would be a direct attack on the Freedom of the Press clause because it would be an attempt to intimidate the media into reporting only what the Trump administration approves of.  It would also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections.  Is this article accurate or is it fake news?  If is up to every one of us to decide for ourselves and ignore it if we believe it is fake.  That is the only solution to the fake news plague.  Any government solution would lead to the type of tyranny exhibited by this proposal, or even worse tyranny.

Censorship of conservatives and other individuals on the political right by Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube is an issue I constantly rage against on Facebook and Twitter.  Censorship of any individual or group is the issue I most passionately fight against.  I appose censorship of anyone even if I vehemently oppose what they have to say.  Even the most vile and disgusting individuals and groups have a right to say whatever they want to say.

Different congressional committees called the head of Facebook into hearings in order to answer questions about Facebook’s censorship and data mishandling issues.  Facebook is a private company.  The federal government has no business questioning anyone at the company about how they do anything.  The same holds true for any company.  The Constitution never granted the federal government the power to regulate any private company.  It wasn’t until 1943 and the FDR Supreme Court stacking crisis that the federal government granted itself this extra constitutional power.  Regulations placed on business only waste billions of dollars every year, stifle competition, and generate far worse problems then they were meant to solve. Would regulating Facebook to stop the censorship be any different?  According to this article, the elected officials doing the questioning proved they know nothing about how internet businesses, or any businesses, work. Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube would be destroyed the regulations placed on them to solve this problem and no one would try and rebuild them.

There are two solutions to this problem.  The first is for individuals to stop using these platforms and tell them why.  The second is for individuals to create alternatives.  Freedom and competition are the only solutions to problems caused by private companies.

I lost count of how many times I’ve heard that the cause of all or our country’s problems is the fact that we have two parties that are at political extremes, leaving most of us, who are moderates that inhabit political middle, unrepresented.  The proposed solution to this is the formation of a political party that occupies the middle ground between both extremist parties.

It would seem, based on the heated arguments, the endless bickering, and the fact that nothing gets accomplished, that the two parties do operate at the extreme polar opposites of the political spectrum.  That is not true at all.  Only one party, the Democrat Party, has veered off into one of the political extremes.  The Democrats now inhabit the extreme left.  Don’t take my word for it.  Here is what Senator Bernie Sanders had to say about his political party in this video.  Rather than inhabit the extreme political right, the Republican Party now operates slightly less far to the left when compared to the Democrats.  If you don’t agree please explain to me the latest Omnibus spending bill, their push for amnesty, their failure to repeal ObamaCare, their watered down tax cuts, and their efforts to eradicate true conservatives from leadership roles.

Why are so many convinced that each party operates on an opposite end of the political spectrum?  Why are so many convinced that the policies of the political right are harmful and against everything this country was built on or stands for?  It is because of a phenomenon known as the Overton Window.  Here is how Wikipedia describes this phenomenon:

The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy’s possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public in order to move and/or expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.

The media, which is very left leaning, controls the narrative that forms the boundaries on either side of the window.  They focus on the political spectrum in reference to how the two political parties exist today leaving out how both parties have slowly moved toward the left.  What is left out by this narrowed window is how the two parties are now so far from the original position that was supposed to have been set in stone by the Constitution.  The media, academia, and the Democrats paint the ideals of the Founding Fathers along with those individuals as being outdated, deeply flawed, and racist.  They describe the Constitution and its principles using similar language.  The media also uses the deeply inaccurate political spectrum that equates Fascists, Nazis, and conservatives,

Unfortunately the Republican Party abandoned the Constitution and the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government a long time ago.  Those in the party that still adhered to these principles are marginalized, ridiculed, and stripped of committee chairmanships.  The media paints these individuals as dangerous extremists while championing those with extreme liberal beliefs.

The Constitution, which was supposed to limit the size and scope of the federal government, was abandoned many decades ago by both parties.  The principles of federalism and limited government, which are enshrined in the Constitution, built this nation into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.   Rather than a party that occupies a narrow niche between two parties on the political left, we need one that reclaims a constitutionally limited federal government and free market economics.  Can the Republican Party be reformed so it once again follows our founding principles, which are hallmarks of the true political right?  I now believe the Republican Party is irredeemable.

Instead of shifting the media defined Overton Window back to the right; we need to smash it entirely so everyone can view the political spectrum in its entirety.  This will be extremely difficult since the media is mostly controlled by liberals, along with social media.  Next we need set the record straight about our Constitution and founding principles.   Finally we need to start a new party that embraces these principles.  Once we do this we can solve all of our problems.

All across this country college students are being indoctrinated into believing a philosophy called “white privilege.”  The term seems rather innocuous but the philosophy is not.  This indoctrination has begun to spread down to the high school and grade schoo levell.  Like all race based philosophies, white privilege is a creation of the political left.  Like most creations of the political left, white privilege is based on fundamental mistruths.

Here is how white privilege is defined from this Wikipedia article.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of “white privilege” to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

The Wikipedia articles offers many other definitions, here is one, which was quoted from this source:  Pulido, L. (2000). “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers

White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism. It underlies them in that both are predicated on preserving the privileges of white people (regardless of whether agents recognize this or not). But it is also distinct in terms of intentionality. It refers to the hegemonic structures, practices, and ideologies that reproduce whites’ privileged status. In this scenario, whites do not necessarily intend to hurt people of color, but because they are unaware of their white-skin privilege, and because they accrue social and economic benefits by maintaining the status quo, they inevitably do.

Here is one example of what constitutes white privilege from the same Wikipedia article:

Williams and Rivers (1972b) showed that test instructions in Standard English disadvantaged the black child and that if the language of the test is put in familiar labels without training or coaching, the child’s performances on the tests increase significantly. According to Cadzen a child’s language development should be evaluated in terms of his progress toward the norms for his particular speech community. Cadzen, C.B. (1966)

To me, this example is racist because it is implying that nonwhites are less capable of learning Standard English than whites.  Other subjects such as math have been declared examples of white privilege yet the irony escapes those making the declarations.

Here is another definition of white privilege from the article called “On Racism and White Privilege” located on the website Teaching Tolerance.  This was the most popular Google search result.  I encountered many different articles with similar definitions.

White skin privilege is not something that white people necessarily do, create or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt individual and institutional manifestations of racism described above, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world.

Theses definition illustrate one of the fundamental lies of the philosophy of white privilege, that white people are inherently racist.  According to this philosophy, we have built this all encompassing structure that keeps everyone with nonwhite skin down because we dislike people with skin that is darker than our skin.  Underlying this philosophy are the mistaken beliefs that the United States is still a deeply racist nation and that racism is at the root cause of all of the problems nonwhites face.

Crime statistics are one popular proof of white privilege.  Here is an example I found in this  article

While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men…we are left with only one conclusion: White, European Americans enjoy a wide range of privileges that are denied to persons of color in our society.

Are higher incarceration rates the product of systematic racism or something else?  The answer is found in this Daily Signal article.

More black babies are born out of wedlock today (72 percent) than into married homes. That’s dramatically worse than when Moynihan initially raised the issue (when it was 23 percent)—thanks to fifty years of encouragement by the Democrat Party.

The Moynihan Report mentioned in that article was the justification for President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.  This Front Page Magazine article documents the carnage caused by those deeply flawed programs.  Here is one quote:

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had on American family life, particularly in the black community. As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

Thomas Sowell, an African American economist and philosophical rock star among conservatives, echoes these conclusions in this article called The Legacy of Liberalism.

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans…The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder.

Thomas Sowell also documents the carnage in this article A Painful Anniversary.  Here is a quote:

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

White Privilege has a close cousin called White Guilt which is also being crammed down the throats of impressionable college and high school students; here is how Wikipedia defines the topic.

White guilt is the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States

It is fine if individuals want to feel guilty based on their own conduct; however we are only responsible for our own actions.  Collective guilt is an alien concept in the United States where our entire constitutional and legal system is based on individual rights and guilt.

The subtitle of this book, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American left, is the only thing I dislike about this book.  The statement is accurate but incomplete because it is missing the word modern when referring to the American left.  Progressivism in America predated the Nazi party and was more closely influenced by Italian Fascism.  Actually, the fascism of Italy and the progressivism of America closely influenced each other and are very much related.  That is well documented in this book.  A much more accurate subtitle would be: The incestuous relationship between American Progressivism, Fascism, Socialism, and Nazism.

This book begins with a discussion on transference which is accurate but dull.  It gets much better after that.  The opening chapter  documents the explosion of calls that President Trump and conservatives are Fascist and Nazis, and how these accusations have been used as justification for acts of violence against Trump supporters at rallies and against speakers on the political right.

The Big Lie most correctly points out that fascism, Nazism, progressivism, socialism, and communism are all related and on the political left.  D’Souza uses two authors that I have read extensively to back up this claim – FA Hayek and Jonah Golberg.  Here are three quotes, the first is from page 23 and the other two are from page 24:

Hayek identified Fascism as a phenomenon of the Left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism

Golberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern progressivism.

Hayek and Goldberg are the starting point for my book. But I go much further and delve into areas of inquiry untouched by them.

D’Souza documents how the Nazis actually learned very negative lessons from the American left.  Here is one from page 27

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial “defectives” and producing a “superior” Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the distortion of the political spectrum.  D’Souza documents how the political spectrum used by most journalists and the general public is meaningless because it was based on seating arrangements during the French revolution, where those who supported the ideals monarchy sat on the right and those who opposed it sat on the left.  He discusses a more accurate political spectrum which is based on the components of the political philosophies and the effects they have on the size and scope of the government that implements them.  Here are quotes from pages 31 thru 34 page which illustrate the differences between conservatives, which are on the actual political right, and progressives, which are on the political left.

The American Revolution was characterized by three basic freedoms: economic freedom or capitalism, political freedom or constitutional democracy, and freedom of speech and religion.

By limiting state power conservatives seek among other things to protect the right of the people to keep the fruits of their own labor

The left in America is defined by its hostility to the restrictions placed  by the founders on the federal government.  That’s why leftists regularly deplore constitutional restraints on government power, proclaiming the constitution woefully out of date and calling to adopt instead a living Constitution…

.,,progressives distrust the free market system and want the government to control and direct the economy, not necessarily nationalizing or taking over private companies, but at least regulating their operations  and on occasion mandating their courses of action.

Also in this chapter D’Souza introduces readers to Giovanni Gentile of Italy, who was the father of fascism.  His principles of fascism included: opposition to individual rights, the belief that he State is far more important than the individual, there is no distinction between private and public interests, and control of businesses through regulation.   Discussed in great detail is how Mussolini implemented fascism.

Chapter 2 finishes up with a discussion how the original platform of the Nazi party resembled the platform championed by progressives.  Here is a quote from page 60.

The Nazi party at the outset offered a twenty-five point program that included the nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit…universal health care and education.

Chapter 3 discusses how Mussolini transitioned from socialist to fascist, which is common because of the failures of socialism, including the fact that it did not happen in wealthy nations

Chapter 4 documents American progressive ideas that inspirited Nazis.  Discussed and documented is the fact that the Indian removal under Democrat Andrew Jackson served as a model for the Nazi Lebensraum.  It was noted that slave plantations in the Democrat controlled  US South were similar to Nazi work camps, but there was no documented link.

Chapter 5 is titled  The Original Racists.  This chapter opens with the following quote. which is from Racism a Short History by George Fredrickson.

it was with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 that Germany became a full fledged racist regime.  American Laws were the foreign precedents for such legislation.

Here are two quotes from this chapter which are found on page 132 and 133:

Racism, of course, preceded the Democrat Party but the Democrats, in a sense, invented political racism in the early 19th century to defend slavery.

Even after slavery ended , Democrats found racism to be very useful…They constructed a whole ideology, and structure of white supremacy in order to establish their political domination of the south.

This chapter also documents the similarities between the KKK and brown shirts including the fact that the Brown Shirts and Klan considered themselves to be champions of social justice

Chapter 8, Politics of Intimidation, illustrates the Nazi roots of modern American progressivism.  D’Souza documents on page 202, that political correctness is the progressive equivalent of Nazi Gleichschaltung, which was the “doctrine of political uniformity and social control.“   The most damming evidence that modern progressivism has its roots in Nazism is centered around this quote on page 204

Ever since the publication of his opus, Being and time, Martin Heidegger’s philosophy has been widely influential.  Specifically, it provides intellectual grounding for a whole series of progressive causes.

D’Souza discusses how this work inspired the leftist academic movement called deconstructionism.  Heidegger was an environmentalist, anti- capitalist, and founder of identity politics.  This work also inspired the belief that freedom of speech is a myth and offensive speech should be met by violence.  As you can see, Heidegger, who was a Nazi, provided the intellectual basis for political correctness and Antifa.

In the chapter Denazification, D’Souza discusses how the big lie, blaming conservatives for the sins of leftists, was created and spread by academia, the news media, and Hollywood.

This book is extremely well documented and well written.  I have encountered all of the subject matter many times before.  I only take issue with several solutions to the Big Lie that D’Souza  shares in the final chapter.   His solutions are based a bit too much on anger rather logic and principle.  It is a book most definitely worth buying and reading more than once.

The internet exploded into a veritable excrement storm when Senator Dick Durbin accused President Trump of referring to some countries as shitholes.  It is still not clear if President Trump actually uttered that phrase, but the storm that ensued was rather intense, with members of the liberal media and liberals on social media immediately decrying those remarks as racist.  That phrase is not racist, however it is politically incorrect.  A great many confuse the two, which is actually harmful, because overuse and distortion of the meaning of the term has greatly lessened the impact of justified accusations of true racism.

It is a well established fact that some nations are extremely poor and the people living in those countries suffer greatly.  Referring to them as shitholes may not be the most elegant or polite phrase, but it is accurate.  Poor nations are spread across the globe and are not limited to nations of just one race.  In fact nations of all races are included in the list of the poorest nations in the world.

The one unifying factor the links just about all of the poorest nations is that they now suffer from, or have suffered from, bad governments.  These bad governments can take on many forms but they all steal the wealth from the individuals living in those countries and mismanage the resources.

Countries with communist and socialist governments almost universally produce dreadful living conditions and very poor people.  Here is what one of my favorite authors, Thomas Sowell, has to say on the subject “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”  Venezuela is perfect example of what happens to a country when it transforms into a socialist nation, and so is Somalia.

If a country experiences frequent political upheaval it will become poor.  That is what happened in Haiti, and so many other countries.  Most often this upheaval will result in autocratic dictatorships, which micromanage the economies, and also leads to rampant corruption.  Concentrating political power always results in countries with poverty and corruption.  Governments always try to concentrate power in the hands of the few.  Distributing power throughout the people of a nation is the only cure for this.

Economies of nations are far too complex for one individual or a group of individuals to manage properly.  Any attempt to manage an economy will begin a downward spiral into poverty.  Letting a perfectly free market economy manage itself is the only way to guarantee long term prosperity for a nation.  Even nations with very limited natural resources will prosper with a free market economy.  Hong Kong is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Introducing any type of socialism into a free market economy will result in a downward spiral toward poverty.  Building a welfare state forces the increase of taxes, which will curtail business activity, which will then increase the need for more welfare, which will then result in the need for higher taxes.  That is the route Scandinavian countries are on now and the route Greece has traveled for a longer period. The Scandinavian nations have not traveled this route long enough to produce disastrous results, but it will. The United States has been traveling this route since the New Deal, and accelerated on this path with President Johnson’s Great Society.  The negative impacts of the United States transiting into a welfare state have been well documented but ignored by so many.  Free market economies produce the most universal prosperity.  Some are always left behind by any economic system, while the numbers are much lower for a free market economy.  Private charity has proved to be successful in taking care of those left behind and the widespread adoption by the people of a religion such as Christianity, of which charity is a major component of, is also most beneficial.

Governments interfering with the free market through regulations will always create a downward spiral into poverty for a nation.  Once regulations are introduced, the free market will begin to falter.  The almost universal response to this phenomenon is to introduce more regulations, which will result in more negative consequences.

The authors of the US Constitution produced the perfect recipe for a successful nation.  Unfortunately we have abandoned this recipe and have suffered increasingly negative consequences ever since.  Their recipe had four key ingredients.

The first ingredient was to distribute all political power throughout the entire population.  They created a government of the people who elected political servants. The political power was distributed through five distinct levels with each level up having less power and authority.  The first was the individual, who had ultimate control over all levels of the government.  The next level up, local governments, had the most political power and authority.  This level was granted the most power because the people could exercise the most control over it.  County governments coordinated local governments while State governments coordinated county governments.  The federal government was granted a very limited number of clearly defined, or enumerated, powers.  The federal government was only granted the power to keep the States from squabbling with each other and to negotiate with other countries as one nation.

A firm belief in individual rights, the second ingredient, is an essential component to the peace and security of the people in any nation.  Protections of individual rights and private property are the most important building blocks of the US Constitution.  The Bill Of Rights was added because it was believed that the Constitution did not go far enough.

Thirdly, the US Constitution prevented the federal government from interfering with the free market economy, which resulted in a prosperous nation, The Commerce Clause only granted the federal government the power to regulate the large scale movement of goods between the States, not the economic activity inside of the States.

Lastly, tt was believed by the authors of the Constitution, and those that ratified it, that a widespread adoption of various Christian sects by the people was essential to maintaining a free and stable nation.  They created a government that left the people free to regulate their own affairs.  They believed Christianity was a perfect method for the people to regulate their own behavior.  They also believed Christian charity was the perfect way to help those in need.  Any belief system will work as long as it has an emphasis on individual rights and self control of one’s behavior.

Alexis de Tocqueville documented the prosperity and tranquility of the United States, and examined in great detail the root cause, which was the system of government created by the Constitution, when he wrote Democracy in America.

As far as pilgrimages go, my annual trip to the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Attleboro Massachusetts was not an epic journey.  It involved a five minute walk then an hour long bus ride on a luxury motor coach.  On the way we stopped at Wright’s Chicken Farm, which I most highly recommend.  They serve all you can eat chicken and french fries.  Both are outrageously good.

If you’re planning on visiting, I would recommend taking a bus trip.  The shrine is hard to find and the traffic is very bad this time of year.   For those who want to drive there, arrive early and use a good GPS device.  The traffic into the parking lot usually starts to build around 3 pm so I would try to arrive before then.  By 5 pm the traffic is bumper to bumper for miles each time I visited, which was always the Saturday two weeks before Christmas.

There is plenty to do if you arrive early.  They have a nativity museum with over 2000 nativity sets from around the world. The grounds are very peaceful with Christmas music playing over church bells.  At 3 pm they usually have an Christmas concert in the church followed by a mass at 4 pm.

At about 10 minutes to 5 there is a candlelight procession to the large outside manger where a brief prayer service is held.   At exactly 5 pm the lights are turned on.  That is an amazing sight.  This year they have over a half million lights spread over a large area.  The pictures I’m posting only show a very small fraction of the entire display.  It is well worth the trip.

Merry Christmas everyone !!!