Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category



by Michael Dennin

There are many lies and myths surrounding jihadism but the most dangerous one is the jihadist creation myth that the people who stand up and respond to jihadist aggression are responsible for causing it. This myth, which is commonly and uncritically accepted throughout the “anti-war” Left and “non-interventionist” Right, is dangerous for several reasons. First, it is dangerous because it is false and misleading and distracts us from the root causes of jihadism. Second, it is dangerous because it is endorsed and promoted by powerful and influential individuals and groups from President Obama to former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to the Libertarian Party. Finally, and most importantly, it is dangerous because it paralyzes our willingness and ability to effectively respond to jihadism and emerging jihadists threats before they pose a risk to American lives and interests. For all of these reasons, the jihadist creation myth that has been used as an excuse for ignoring the rise of organizations such as al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL* deserves to be analyzed and debunked once and for all.


Ironically, no one has done more to dispel the jihadist creation myth than the jihadists who have been shielded by that fabrication. ISIS/ISIL was once an organization consisting of approximately 1500 Sunni jihadists who were waging a sectarian war against the Assad regime in Syria. Today, it has grown into an army of 20-30,000 fanatics who have carved out a terrorist sanctuary in northeastern Syria and the predominantly Arab regions in northern Iraq from Fallujah to Mosul. In the process, ISIS/ISIL has overrun numerous military installations in both countries and has captured an enormous stockpile of light and heavy weaponry that includes T-55 and T-72 tanks, M198 and Type 59-1 field artillery, M79 and HJ-8 anti-tank missiles and FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. According to Helgurd Hikmet Mela Ali, a spokesman for the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, “when [ISIS/ISIL] entered Mosul, the Iraq army fled head over heels and left behind a modern weapons arsenal for 70,000 soldiers.” On top of that, ISIS/ISIL has looted banks and captured oil pipelines and refineries, enabling it to establish a lucrative black market revenue stream that will supplement the income it is already receiving from its wealthy Islamist donors in the Middle East. What makes all these developments relevant to the jihadist creation myth is that they have all occurred years after American and international military forces vacated Iraq and President Obama made it clear that the United States was withdrawing from the region. If the presence of American and international forces in the Middle East was driving jihadism, then the absence and withdrawal of those forces should have correspondingly reduced the level of jihadist activity in the region, but it has had the opposite effect.

Two other developments in recent weeks have further refuted the jihadist creation myth that the response to jihadism causes jihadism (i.e., cause and effect in reverse). The first is the disruption of an ISIS-related conspiracy to behead Australians on the streets of Sydney and Brisbane – a plot that was launched and discovered months before the Australian government even began talking about doing something about ISIS/ISIL. The second is the case of two teenaged Bosnian girls living in Austria who were radicalized by “Chechen youths” and then later left their homes to join ISIS/ISIL in Syria. What legitimate political grievances could these two children possibly have? Austria is a neutral country that willingly accepted their family into its home, and Bosnia-Herzegovina wouldn’t exist today if it wasn’t for the intervention of the United States and other Western nations who interceded on the behalf of Muslims in the Balkans.

Finally, one has to ask what did the ancient Christian and Yazidi communities in Iraq do to provoke ISIS/ISIL? What did these powerless religious minorities do to cause or “feed” ISIS/ISIL’s jihadist aggression? What else but their mere existence served as ISIS/ISIL’s genocidal agenda to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Egyptian-born scholar Gisèle Littman (a.k.a. Bat Ye’or) addressed that very same question following the September 11, 2001 attacks:

Untruths and taboos form a psychological net of lies and traps. For the past thirty years Europe has refused to see the global jihad in action at the four corners of the earth and to recognize the sources of Islamist terrorism. Bin Laden’s declarations emerge from an exclusively religious context and fit in with narratives of wars against the infidels to impose Islamic supremacy. It is not Israel and the West that is humiliating the Arab-Muslim world; what is humiliating is the very existence of these nations, their freedom and sovereignty that contradict the Islamist view of the natural order in which Islam must dominate and not be dominated. It is the frustration of this will to power that feeds the humiliation and violence, and not poverty or economic disparities which exist all over the world without provoking this type of hatred and terrorism.

Of course, ISIS/ISIL’s takfirist intolerance of the existence, freedom and sovereignty of others extends to the Muslims that they have declared “unbelievers” and butchered en masse for refusing to submit to their ideology and domination.


So who and/or what is producing the jihadists in groups like al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL? The same networks that have been producing them for decades – the jihadist pipeline that indoctrinates, radicalizes and funnels recruits to jihadist organizations and finances their operations.

The source of the jihadist pipeline begins with the centers of indoctrination that range from the school systems and media networks in the Middle East to the extremist madrassas in Asia and Africa to the radical mosques and Islamic centers all around the world. Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami and Hizb ut-Tahrir have also played a prominent role in indoctrinating and radicalizing Muslims, and some terrorist groups, such as Hamas, are direct off-shoots of these groups. Furthermore, individual Islamist ideologues such as Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abdul Ala Maududi, Ruhollah Khomeini, Abdullah Azzam and Yusuf al-Qaradawi have also inspired countless Muslims to wage jihad.

In addition to the traditional methods of indoctrinating and radicalizing Muslim recruits, jihadists have exploited the Internet and social media to contact more people than they have ever been able to reach in the past. One of the main reasons ISIS/ISIL has been able to expand its ranks so quickly is because of its ability to effectively market its jihadist cause and exploits to a global audience in real time. Today’s jihadists are operating in a communications environment that has never existed before, and they can be expected to continue expanding this segment of the jihadist pipeline in the future.

One of the most critical components of the jihadist pipeline is the financial support networks that fund the schools, mosques/Islamic centers and Islamist groups that are indoctrinating and radicalizing Muslims. This support network also directly finances the activities of jihadist groups around the world. The entities that have funded the creation and operation of the jihadist pipeline include the governments in Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan, the members of Islamist groups and political parties, and individual donors, many of whom are wealthy financiers.

There is also something to be said for how the successful military and terrorist exploits of jihadist groups serve as a powerful recruitment tool. Past experience has proven that when jihadist organizations including al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS/ISIL are dismissed and ignored during their developmental stages they will explode in size and strength after they have been permitted to grow and commit successful terrorist attacks and military campaigns.

Last but not least, one cannot overlook the central role that militant Islamist interpretations of Islam play in inspiring many Muslims to wage jihad. To these individuals the violent passages in Islam’s scriptural texts, such as Qur’an IX:5 (the Verse of the Sword) and IX:29, serve as timeless and universal commandments to kill and wage expansionist warfare until every human being is forced to submit to Islam and Islamic law (Shari’a). Furthermore, Muhammad’s status as the paragon of Islamic virtue and behavior serves as an inspiration to those who seek to emulate his career as a raider and warlord. Finally, there is the nostalgia for the high imperialist “Golden Age” of Islam that followed the Muslim military conquests that stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian subcontinent. It is this nostalgia for the past glories of the Islamic caliphates of old that inspires the Islamists in Hizb ut-Tahir and jihadists in ISIS/ISIL to re-establish the caliphate and resume its expansionist project. To these “revivalists”, anyone who resists them and their agenda is an enemy of Allah who must be killed. These beliefs form the ideological core of the jihadist mind-set that ultimately inspires Islamists to wage holy war against “unbelievers” throughout the world.


Next to the jihadists, the people who have done the most to dispel the jihadist creation myth are the useful idiots who subscribe to it. Foremost amongst them is Barack Obama. The president’s philosophy and policy of appeasement, withdrawal and indifference have not decreased jihadist activity – they have encouraged, emboldened and increased it. What Obama and others have failed to learn over the past three decades is that jihadists are opportunists who are quick to exploit the power vacuums that exist in lawless regions and failed states around the world. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Ansar Dine and Boko Haram, to name a few, have all operated in the anarchic environments in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali and Nigeria. Similarly, ISIS/ISIL has taken root in the chaos of the civil war in Syria and spread into the predominantly Sunni areas of northern Iraq that were alienated and abandoned by the al-Maliki government in Baghdad. None of these areas were occupied by foreign military forces.

Despite the fact that ISIS/ISIL has brutally murdered American citizens and continues to pose a threat to our security and interests, there are many good reasons why the United States should not send combat troops into Iraq to hunt down the jihadists and kill them. However, the jihadist creation myth peddled by President Obama, the “anti-war” Left and the “non-interventionist” Right is not one of them. The perpetuation of that self-defeating lie in not only distracting our focus and efforts away from the jihadist pipeline that continues to funnel recruits to ISIS/ISIL and other jihadist groups, it is paralyzing our willingness and ability to effectively respond to them with military force when that measure is necessary to defend our lives and interests. If we are ever going to get the upper hand on jihadist aggression, we have to stop letting people blame ourselves for the actions and beliefs of the Muslim governments, financiers and theocrats who are responsible for fomenting it.


*Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant


Posted October 12, 2014 by Candidus in National Security, Politics



by Michael Dennin

On February 17th, news broke that billionaire financier and Obama fundraiser Tom Steyer was planning to raise $100 million – half of which would come out of his own pocket – to run an ad campaign during the 2014 elections attacking any candidate who doesn’t support the Left’s “climate change” agenda. The news came on the heels of Steyer’s successful $8 million effort to buy the Virginia gubernatorial campaign for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in 2013.

Meanwhile, the New McCarthyites in the Democratic party have doubled-down on their scorched earth campaign to silence conservative and libertarian organizations in the run-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. While the Obama administration has refused to mount a credible and effective investigation into the IRS’ self-confessed misconduct and Senator Charles Schumer called on the agency to continue its political witch hunt, the administration proposed new rules (see Kimberley Strassel’s article at bottom) targeting Right-wing groups that even the ACLU condemned as an affront to free speech and the promotion of an informed citizenry. Others on the Right accurately described the rules changes as censorship masquerading as legal stewardship.

One might ask what do “progressives” spending tens of millions of dollars on political campaigns have in common with their effort to prevent conservative non-profits from spending any money on political campaigns? Obviously, the answers are power and money. What’s less obvious but just as important to “progressives” is the perpetuation of the myth that the New Left is the party of the common man and not the party of the political and economic elite. Fortunately, conservatives such as David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin are now destroying that myth. In their meticulously researched book The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future [1], Horowitz and Laskin expose what might be the biggest dirty secret in American politics – how “progressive” foundations have outspent conservative and libertarian foundations by hundreds of millions of dollars. Here is a summary of their findings:

Comparative Assets and Grant Expenditures of Conservative and Progressive Foundations

Appendix I (pp.185-187)

1. Total Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress – two progressive organizations – identified 96 conservative foundations, 82 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of the 82 conservative foundations was: $10,288,081,969 ($10.29 billion) has identified 122 major foundations as progressive, 115 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of these 115 foundations was: $104,555,636,781 ($104.56 billion)

This represents a total asset value for the Left that is over ten times (10.16X) larger than the total assets of the Right.

2. Average Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

For the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress identified, the average assets value is currently: $125,464,414 ($125.46 million)

For the 115 foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified, the average assets value is: $909,179,450 (909.18 million)

This represents an average asset value for the Left that is over seven times (7.25X) larger than the average asset value of the Right.

3. Total Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the total grants awarded was: $831,797,191 ($831.80 million)

Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the total grants awarded figure was: $8,807,988,218 ($8.81 billion)

This represents a total grants awarded figure by the Left that is over ten times (10.59X) larger than the total grants awarded by the Right.

4. Average Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the average grants awarded figure was: $10,143,868 ($10.14 million)

Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the average grants awarded figure was: $76,591,202 ($76.59 million)

This represents an average grants awarded by the Left that is over seven times (7.55X) larger than the average grants awarded by the Right.

The superiority of the Left-wing money machine is further confirmed in the Center of Responsive Politics “Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014” list [2], which reveals that 7 of the top 10 political donors in America are Leftist and none of them are conservative. Here are the top 10 Heavy Hitters (Democrat donors in blue):

1. ActBlue (“the online clearinghouse for Democratic action”)

2. American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees/AFSCME (public sector labor union)

3. AT&T (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

4. National Education Association/NEA (public sector labor union)

5. National Association of Realtors (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

6. Goldman Sachs (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (labor union)

8. United Auto Workers/UAW (labor union)

9. Carpenters and Joiners Union (labor union)

10. Service Employees International Union/SEIU (labor union)

Looking over the rankings, one can’t help but notice that the Left’s favorite boogeymen, the libertarian Koch brothers, finished 59th on the list, while the Democratic party’s big union benefactors – who have been exempted from the Obama administration’s rules changes aimed at conservative & libertarian non-profits – occupy 6 of the top 10 spots.

From “progressive” California billionaires buying gubernatorial elections in Virginia to the enormous advantage in spending that Leftist foundations, unions and PACs have over their Right-wing counterparts, the public is now beginning to become aware of the fact that it is Left-wing money that is dominating America’s political landscape. In light of this, we can see that the New McCarthyites’ efforts to silence and destroy their conservative opponents through bureaucratic fiat and harassment has absolutely nothing to do with leveling a playing field that is already heavily tilted in their own favor. Contrary to their self-serving propaganda, it is clear that “progressives” really aren’t interested in fairness at all. As was the case with their Jacobin and Bolshevik ancestors, the only things that the New Left are interested in is absolute power and control.




Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Elections, Government, Politics, The Left



By Robert Williams


Up until the close of World War Two, children began doing chores as soon as they were physically able,  because in those days society expected all children to be prepared to take adult responsibilities and start  earning a living sometime between the years of 18 and 21.  Except for young adults running a family farm or a family business,  most new adults were also expected to live in a separate residence from their parents.   Young people were enthusiastic about this arrangement  because all during childhood they looked up to their hard-working parents and wanted the pride of asserting their own independence as a way of proving themselves.


Fewer and fewer families in the modern Western world follow this tried and true formula.  There are more single-parent families than ever,  there are more divorced parents than ever,  there is less discipline than ever, and less emphasis on moral values and the work ethic than ever.   There are more and more 40-year-olds living in their parents’ homes without any real prospect of changing the situation.   The only thing left to them are video games and the Internet “social sites” such as Twitter and Facebook.  With less reliable structure and in too many cases a lack of traditional fatherhood,  the young are far more vulnerable to the hedonistic and  nihilistic temptations of “easy money” and “freedom from conscience” available in neighborhood criminal gangs or the vaporous promises of a “Woodstock” generation that has abandoned all purpose and virtue.


Simply put,  in the last 50 years the role of government and government institutions including public schools has increasingly contributed to the degradation pointed out above.   Essentially,  massive increases in welfare dependency,  increases in school drop-outs, and  the “Nanny state” take over of parenting,  has guaranteed a loss of incentive and loss of production.  So far,  the government’s answer has been only to hire more “study panels” and throw more and more borrowed money at the situation.   The result is always the same, — more and more dependency on government,  more and more debt, less and less self-respect,  and less and less production.   Pay off the debt and regain some world respect?  We can’t even keep up the interest payments at the rate we are now trending.


Kids love to pretend, so they start out living partly in a fantasy world.  This is harmless unless it is carried too far for too long.  The naive kids now in charge of the nation had no reason to grow up.  Therefore they lack the one ingredient of growing up that is the most important.  The ability to recognize reality.  If supposed adults don’t grow up then they can’t comprehend reality and they cannot be expected to apply common sense solutions.


First we damage our children,  then we elect these perpetual children to live in luxury while they apply unbelievably  childish incompetence to running our country.   Then to top it all off we hand our own children the multi-trillion dollar bill.  Can any sane person see an ounce of wisdom in this betrayal of our progeny and inevitable suicide of our society?

Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Culture, Government, Politics



by Michael Dennin

On November 5th, 2013 former Democrat Terry McAuliffe defeated Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the Virginia governor’s race by a mere 3 percentage points. Since Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis siphoned off enough Republican and Democratic voters to finish with 6% (a record high for a third-party gubernatorial candidate in Virginia), McAuliffe won with less than 50% of the vote.

There are a few lessons conservative activists and candidates can glean from the election. Some of them are positive and some of them are negative. Here is a list of several of the most prominent lessons they can take with them heading into the 2014 elections and beyond:

1) ObamaCare is hurting Democrats.

Going into the final weekend before the election, McAuliffe had a substantial lead over Cuccinelli that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 8%. However, when news of the mass cancelation of health insurance plans across the country broke out and President Obama’s lies about Americans being able to keep their doctors and health care plans were exposed, Cuccinelli finally started linking McAuliffe to ObamaCare. The reason Cuccinelli’s 11th hour attack was relevant and significant in Virginia is because the current Republican governor refused to impose additional burdens on Virginia taxpayers by expanding Medicaid and opening and financing a state ObamaCare exchange. Once Cuccinelli belatedly started linking McAuliffe to ObamaCare and what it could cost Virginians, the Democrat’s lead instantly began evaporating. Why Cuccinelli waited so long is a mystery, and this proved to be a critical mistake – had he attacked McAuliffe earlier there’s a good chance he would have overtaken him by election day.

Consistent with McAuliffe’s decline in the polls over ObamaCare, one need look no further than the president’s plummeting approval and likability ratings to see that his Unaffordable Care Act is hurting Democrats. Despite the herculean efforts of his Leftist co-travelers in the mainstream media, Obama’s approval rating dropped below 40% by November 5th. By December, a CNN poll revealed that in a generic congressional vote, 49% of Americans indicated that they would vote Republican while 47% indicated they would vote Democrat. This represented a 10 percentage point swing within one month. The remarkable free-fall of Obama and the Democrats is indisputable evidence that ObamaCare has become a major political liability for Democrats, which also explains why the president keeps delaying the most harmful parts of the law until after the 2014 elections.

2) Make ObamaCare the central issue of the campaign and make it the central issue from start to finish.

Another lesson from the election and how ObamaCare is hurting Democrats is that Republicans must make ObamaCare the central issue of the campaign and make it the central issue from the start. Heading into the final week of the governor’s race, Cuccinelli was getting pummeled for his highly unpopular positions on abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape and incest, but when he started attacking McAuliffe on ObamaCare he was suddenly able to neutralize his own greatest political vulnerability while exploiting that of his opponent. Had Cuccinelli dictated the battle to his opponent from the start and maintained the initiative till the end, he likely would have won. The failure to do so until it was too little too late proved to be a fatal mistake.

No doubt, Democrats and their allies in the media will do everything they can to shift attention away from ObamaCare in the upcoming year, and this strategy has already begun. The initial focus on the cancellation of millions of Americans’ health care plans – now standing at 5.9 million – has been shoved down the memory hole since the president unilaterally declared that he was postponing the requirements that caused people to lose the HC plans that they were promised they could keep until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Suddenly, there was no more mention of the president and Democrats’ lies and how they had no intention of making good on their promise to let Americans to keep their health care plans if they liked them, as if breaking their promise next year was somehow more acceptable to the public than breaking it this year. Despite all of Obama’s idle talk about his willingness to fix what’s wrong with ObamaCare, no one in the media has saw fit to ask the inconvenient question why the president has refused to fix his broken promise to the American people.

Republicans and conservatives need stay focused on this and all the other harmful aspects of ObamaCare in 2014 and stay on message while ignoring the Democrats’ attempts to change the subject. If they do so, there’s a good chance that Democrats will lose control of the Senate and set the stage for a full repeal of ObamaCare following the elections in 2016. Certainly, this will be later than many of us would wish, but better late than never.

3) Extremist positions against abortion are hurting Republicans in Virginia

This might not be a problem in some states, but opposition to abortion in all cases – rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger – is killing Republicans in statewide elections in Virginia. This opposition without exception paved the way for Democrats to win the presidential and senatorial elections in 2012 and the gubernatorial election in 2013. In all three races, Democrats incessantly pounded their Republican opponents over their “extremist” positions against abortion, and their fear-mongering was invariably successful in this purple battleground state where the Right and Left are evenly divided and the Center determines the outcome of elections for president, governor and the U.S. senate. Obviously, the GOP’s position is not playing well with the Center, which brings us to the question of how Republicans can solve this problem. There are two possible solutions – the first is to adopt the position of libertarian and pro-choice Republicans and completely abandon the party’s opposition to abortion. Since this is unlikely to sit well with social conservatives, the next alternative is a compromise that will maintain GOP opposition to abortion in principle and keep the government out of funding it with taxpayer dollars, while reasonably moderating their opposition to the procedure in extreme cases where the mother’s life is in danger or when she is the victim of rape and/or incest.

In addition to their opposition to abortion itself, Republicans are running into problems reconciling their conflicting ideological and policy positions vis a vis abortion with the public, and this strikes directly to the heart of the credibility of the Republican party. The first of the most notable examples involves the GOP’s position against abortion and its opposition to the provision of welfare payments to women who bring children into this world that they know they cannot support. The second involves the GOP’s pretense to being the party of limited government and individual freedom while advocating government interference in an individual’s control over their own reproductive decisions. Finally, Republicans have rightly and correctly opposed how ObamaCare strips Americans of individual control over their own bodies, but this opposition rings inconsistent and hypocritical in the face of the GOP’s willingness to strip Americans of individual control over their own bodies. While this is obvious to most people outside the GOP and many within it, this point doesn’t seem to be reaching a lot of Republicans, and this begs the question how many more elections does the GOP have to lose before the party gets the message?

4) Fielding compromised candidates and running weak campaigns are recipes for defeat

Looking back at the last gubernatorial, presidential and U.S. senate elections in Virginia, the Republican party fielded three weak and compromised candidates and all three of them lost what were very winnable elections. Beginning with the governor’s race, Ken Cuccinelli was damaged goods on account of a gift-giving scandal involving a wealthy Republican supporter’s donations that have drawn the attention of federal prosecutors. In the U.S. senate race, George Allen re-emerged from the political dead after losing his seat to Democrat Jim Webb following the infamous “macaca” incident where Allen hurled a racial epithet at a Democratic operative during a public event. To make matters worse, Allen was unpopular amongst fiscal conservatives on account of his association with the free-wheeling RINOs who spent taxpayer money like Democrats during George W. Bush’s administration. Finally, there was Mitt Romney, a liberal Republican who was fatally compromised by the enactment of his own version of ObamaCare in Massachusetts. Compounding his troubles, the mild-mannered Romney waged a weak campaign that fell far short of what was necessary to defeat a Chicago Alinskyite who ran one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory. Judging from these elections and the candidates who lost them, it is obvious that the Republican talent pool is terribly shallow in Virginia, and it appears that this problem is not confined to the Old Dominion. The GOP was poised to make substantial gains against Democrats in 2012, particularly in the Senate, but an array of weak, compromised candidates cost them this opportunity.

In addition to the personal and political problems associated with these failed Republican candidates, there is the equally critical problem of the weak campaigns that they waged against their Democratic opponents. Since 2008 it has become increasingly evident that Republicans don’t seem to understand who and what they are up against and what it takes to defeat the nihilistic neo-socialist “progressives” who are playing straight out of Saul Alinsky’s handbook Rules for Radicals. In war, the first rule is to understand your enemy, and the GOP establishment appears to be completely clueless in this respect. By now, they should have realized that they are up against a pack of radical zealots who are determined to fundamentally transform America and are willing to say and do anything to achieve that destructive end. Republicans have been masochistic fools to think they can play nice with “progressives”, so they are going to have to learn to play political hardball whether they like it or not. Consistent with this, they are going to have to start exposing the New Left’s “transformational” agenda, and most of all, they are going to have to stop being afraid to drop the S word (socialism) on their opponents. Republicans must speak openly and plainly, because “progressives” rarely speak openly and plainly about who they are and what their agenda is, and their comrades in the mainstream media will continue to do everything they can to conceal it from the American people. Neo-socialists know full well that their ideology will not stand up well to the harsh light of public scrutiny, which is why they have to present themselves as “progressives” and couch their extremist agenda in vague euphemisms such as “Change”.

5) Libertarians made historic gains in Virginia in 2013

Perhaps the biggest story of the 2013 gubernatorial race was the showing of Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis, who pulled in a record number of votes for a third party candidate without any media exposure and support. What was even more remarkable is that Sarvis attracted more Democratic voters than Republicans, and this result has been attributed largely to the rising number of young Americans who are abandoning the Left and embracing libertarianism. This is great news for the Right, and it may indicate that this is becoming a trend that is building on the momentum generated from the 2012 presidential campaigns of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. What may add more momentum to this trend is the negative impact of ObamaCare on young people who are becoming increasingly aware of just how bad a deal this neo-socialist redistribution scheme is for them. As they become more disenchanted with this program and Big Government in general, the appeal of libertarianism is bound to grow. Libertarians would be wise to exploit this opportunity and build on their success.

6) Democrats and their donors spent almost twice as much money as Republicans and Libertarians

Despite their phony cries of poverty and paranoid ranting about the Koch brothers, Democrats outspent Republicans by a whopping $17 million ($38 million to $21 million) overall and by $4.7 million on TV advertisements in the Virginia governor’s race. One Democratic donor, California billionaire Thomas Steyer, reportedly spent $8 million to help McAulifffe get elected. Another billionaire, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, reportedly spent another $1.1 million in support of McAuliffe. In addition to the millions spent by out-of-state billionaires, labor unions also contributed $2.7 million to the Democratic cause in Virginia.

The superiority of the Left-wing money machine in the Virginia governor’s race is likely to spread nationwide in 2014. Big labor unions are pledging to spend $300 million dollars to unseat a handful of Republican governors while Steyer announced his plan to raise $100 million – $50 million out of his own pocket – to attack candidates who oppose the Left’s “climate change” agenda. No doubt, the Democratic party’s rich benefactors will also spend enormous amounts of money to maintain control of the U.S. Senate. Unless conservatives start putting their money where their mouths are, Democratic donors will outspend their Republican counterparts by a substantial margin in 2014.

Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Elections, Politics



“We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

— Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

From The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical assault on America’s Future

by David Horowitz ©1998

pp. 29-30

“Critical theory” – the coy self-description of the ideological Left – self-consciously describes itself by the totality of its rejection of the existing social order, in identical fashion to old-style Marxists (Marx himself was a “critical theorist”). The explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation. The task of undermining communal assumptions and stabilizing faiths is not incidental to the radical critique, but is its corrosive essence. It is what the theory intends. Yet, like the Marxist-Leninists of the past, critical theorists never confront the moral issue posed by their destructive agendas: What can be the rationale for weakening and ultimately destroying a system as liberal as the existing one, if no better has been devised?

Without its adherents noticing, the theoretical argument of the Left has been emptied of content by the failures of socialism. For what is the practical meaning of a socialist critique in the absence of a workable socialist model? In fact, there is none. By adopting an impossible standard, it is easy to find fault with any institution or social system under scrutiny. The ideal of socialist equality, for example, may or may not be admirable. But if social equality cannot be realized in practice, or if the attempt to realize it necessarily creates a totalitarian state, then the idea of such equality can have no significance except as an incitement to destructive agendas.

To raise the socialist ideal to a critical standard imposes a burden of responsibility on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly “just”, but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism – a war of destruction with no objective other than war.

* * *

Additional Comments

by Michael Dennin

In the passage above, David Horowitz observes that the radical nihilism of the socialist Left is “a war of destruction with no objective other than war.” To this could be added that the objective of this war of destruction is destruction itself. Horowitz alludes to this in his observation that “the explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation.” This theme is also explored at length in Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, which was published in 1871-72. In this novel, Dostoevsky tells the story of a group of Russian Nihilists who actively attempt to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to destroy it. Like modern day socialists who have no working alternative to offer society, Dostoevsky’s Nihilists neglect to provide one themselves. They are only interested in destruction for destruction’s sake.

This brings us to Barack Obama’s shockingly candid admission that his agenda is to fundamentally transform the United States of America. This is not the pragmatic agenda of a moderate who wants to improve his country – it is the radical project of a nihilist who wants to destroy his country without providing a viable alternative to what has produced the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation on earth. Once again, it is an agenda of destruction for destruction’s sake. However, this does not mean that Obama and his neo-socialist co-travelers are not interested in waging war for war’s sake. They have made it clear that they are not interested in cooperation and compromise and are notorious for demonizing their “enemies” in the most slanderous terms (“terrorists”, “arsonists”,”anarchists”, etc.). The raw, naked hatred at the black heart of their nihilism has poisoned our body politic, debased our public discourse and created an unprecedented level of divisiveness in this country. Thus, their greatest legacy will not be the harm their destructive policies have inflicted on America. It will be the harm their nihilism has inflicted on America’s soul.

Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Politics, The Left


by Robert Williams

According to Fox News on August 4, 2013,  a group of libertarians gathered in Las Vegas recently for an event called “FreedomFest” at which they debated whether America will soon fall as Rome did.  Here is a synopsis I made of their conclusions.  The comparisons to Rome are quite interesting.

Rome had a constitution that was often ignored.  “Elected” Roman leaders often legislated by “executive order”.

Romans started out as a frugal and hardworking.  After they gained power and prosperity they suffered moral, economic, and national collapse because of overspending, overborrowing, overtaxing, and devaluing the currency.” (sound familiar?)

Late in Rome’s days Nero took trips with 1,000 carriages.  (which of our presidents does that remind you of?).

Roman Emperor Tiberius gathered “beautiful boys and girls”,  so as Tacitus wrote, the emperor “could defile them.”  Illicit sex in the Oval Office anyone?

Emperor Commodus held a show in the Colosseum at which he personally killed animals while well protected by his guards.  Which well protected American president strutted about his role in the killing of Osama Bin Laden?

To pay for their excesses and buying votes with “bread and circuses”,  Roman emperors devalued the currency. Our Fed does that by buying trillions of government debt.

Nero reduced the silver content of coins. Trajan reduced it even more.  According to history,  in the year 300, wheat that once cost eight Roman dollars  required 120,000 Roman dollars.  American inflation seems headed likewise.

The president of the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence Reed, is reported to have warned that Rome, like America, had a continuously expanding welfare state which started with “subsidized” grain at half price.  That was so wildly popular and resulted in so many votes that Roman leaders could not stop.  A man named Claudius ran for office on a platform of entirely free wheat for the masses.  He won hands down.  Greed for power made sure it was downhill from there. Free olive oil, free salt and pork, etc. etc. People lined up to get free stuff and the government paid little attention to making sure these generous subsidies went only to the truly disabled poor.  Everyone could get in the game, so incentive for producing things dropped to a state of bankruptcy.  Detroit anyone?

As inflation increased, Rome imposed wage and price controls.  Romans rioted and Emperor Diocletian denounced their “greed,” saying, “Shared humanity urges us to set a limit.”  Sounds a lot like today’s anti-capitalist politicians,  doesn’t it?

It got so bad that Rome even punished those who tried to reverse the corrupt and failed policies.  Remind you of IRS targeting?

Rome did finally utterly collapse and was sacked and raped by the Goths.  But there is today at least one difference. We have movements like the Tea Party and the Internet to alert people about the real danger of an increasingly imperial Washington.  Because of the addictive human greed for power,  the blessings of liberty are fragile and not guaranteed.  We barely still have the means to fight.  The only question is — with half the population on the government side,  will the other half fight?

Posted September 12, 2013 by Candidus in America, Culture, Politics


by Michael Dennin

Back in July when Americans prepared to celebrate the 237th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a revolution of another sort broke out in Egypt, where that nation’s military deposed the country’s Islamist president, Muhammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, after tens of millions of Egyptians took to their streets to demand his removal. Consumed with gaining power and fundamentally transforming Egypt into an Islamic state, practical matters such as improving the economy and delivering basic public services were ignored and even harmed to achieve the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological goals. Predictably, as conditions throughout the country deteriorated and Morsi became more autocratic, the public became increasingly dissatisfied with a president that they thought, with good reason, had exceeded his mandate and made life worse for ordinary citizens, and thus the “second revolution” in Egypt began.

Sound familiar?

In America, a majority of voters elected a president who is consumed with power and fundamentally transforming the United States of America into a collectivist state. Like Morsi, Barack Obama’s “transformational agenda” is his top priority, and practical matters such as jobs and the economy have been ignored and even harmed to achieve his socialist ideological goals. Since the Great Recession ended in 2009, the president’s policies have contributed directly to the worst economic “recovery” in American history, resulting in painfully low growth and high unemployment. Furthermore, Obama has pushed against popular opposition to military strikes against Syria (where America’s enemies are currently killing one another), increasingly resorted to executive fiat to unilaterally impose his agenda on the entire country, and been embroiled in scandals ranging from the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to the harassment of his political opponents by the IRS to the data mining operation conducted by the NSA that has invaded the privacy of virtually every household in the United States. Not surprisingly, as the president’s failures and autocracy have mounted, his approval rating has correspondingly nosedived as a growing majority of Americans have become increasingly disenchanted and dissatisfied with his administration and its policies.

The similarities between the failed presidencies in Egypt and America are both obvious and striking, but what, ultimately, is at the root of these similarities? In a word, ideologues, and the lesson we all can learn, from Cairo to Washington and beyond, is that bad things happen when ideologues obtain power and control over an entire people. Ideologues will always to put their ideology and transformational agendas before everything else, and in the most extreme cases, they will put them before the lives of other human beings. This is because at the heart of every ideologue who wants to fundamentally transform a people and/or a society is the nihilist who wants to destroy the world around him, and this explains why many of the most murderous and destructive monsters in human history were ideologues. This is why people should never, ever underestimate the capacity of ideologues to inflict harm on the individuals and societies around them, and more importantly, this is why people should never make the mistake of granting ideologues any measure of power over their lives in the first place.

Posted September 12, 2013 by Candidus in Culture, Politics