Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.

It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.



It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

Civil War Days in Hurricane, West Virginia

It's that time of year again, to remember the so-called Civil War, actually the War of Northern Aggression, which expanded and centralized Federal power over the states, overthrowing the Constitution by a northern majority in Congress for a Democratic Despotism where "majority rules".

The event itself is great, tracing the historic battle of Scary Creek (where Confederates taught the Yankees a hard lesson), but the politically-correct spin (for victor's always write the history) always tries to glorify Abraham Lincoln (who was a tyrant and Great Consolidator--Walter Williams), as if this were a just war, instead of the beginning of imperialist Wars for Democracy on American soil, costing over 600,000 lives (greater than all other U.S. wars combined!), that preceded the latter world wars under the same pretense (see Pat Buchanan's book: "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" at the bookstore at bottom).

This year's event will have a replica of the first American submarine to sink an enemy ship, which was the Confederate States C.S.S. Hunley.

Raising of the C.S.A. Hunley, Charleston, SC 2000

This video is from the 2008 event, very amateur, but in one take with some authentic historical music (by Bobby Horton) set to it.

West Virginia, Rogue State Formed Unlawfully

"It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. "

-- Pres. Abraham Lincoln

I hold that there is, legally and constitutionally no such state in existence as the state of West Virginia and consequently no senators from such a state. My object is simply to raise a question to be put upon the record, and to have my name as a Senator recorded against the recognition of West Virginia as a state of the United States. I do not believe that the Old Dominion, like a polypus, can be separated into different segments, and each segment become a living constitutional organism in this node. The present state of West Virginia as it has been organized, and as it is seeking representation on the floor of the Senate, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

-- Senator Davis, Kentucky

It was West Virginia Day June 20th. The state was formed illegally by a minority insurrection 145 years ago. Beautiful state, but with an unlawfully formed government. This is lifted from West Virginia's own archives. History records the controversy.

"there is no evidence that the majority of people within the counties which were to compose the new state had ever given its assent to its formation."

Fruits of the Civil War, Old Dominion Virginia was ripped in half. Virginia has never officially recognized the rogue state of West Virginia in law. Lincoln himself called it merely expeditious , not legal.

Lincoln and Congress had no more authority to permit the state anymore than Bush could authorize West Pennsylvania or Northern California.

During the Civil War those who supported the Yankee Union position were called "anti-Virginians". State's rights was greatly trampled which the Constitution itself in the 10th amendment makes plain in order to restrain federal power--a power of an absolute and irresponsible majority (i.e. democracy). It's been rougher ever since in restraining the federal usurpation!

clipped from www.wvculture.org Statehood for West Virginia: An Illegal Act? The admission of West Virginia in the midst of a war was an unusual event in the history of our nation. The circumstances of its admission leaves doubt as to whether the granting of statehood to West Virginia had a basis in law. Shortly thereafter, on May 23, 1861, the Secession Ordinance was ratified overwhelmingly by the people of Virginia. Only 20,373 Virginians voted to stay with the Union, while 125,950 cast votes to join the Confederacy.7 The question arises. Was this new government a sincere effort on the part of loyal Virginians, or was it a subterfuge to enable separatists to set up an entirely new state separate from the parent state? Even after West Virginia was admitted to the Union, Senator Davis of Kentucky objected to seating its Senators in the upper house. President Lincoln had doubts about the legality of admitting West Virginia to the Union. admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession

Iraq Might Force US to Leave; US Imperial Plans Revealed

It is about sovereignty vs. imperialism. And this article reveals the neoconservative administration's real designs for Iraq--a forward base in the Middle East for regime change according to their blueprint for "global hegemony" :

American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.

In other words, a free military hand, both inside and outside Iraq, and making use of their bases. So Reconstruction is really about making Iraq like the Philippines with a permanent military presence for global strategic interests for spreading democracy through military coercion against "rogue states" (i.e. states that defend their sovereignty against US and UN interventionism) toward a global PAX AMERICANA.

One more observation is worth noting in the article (linked), namely that the US is willing to make concessions and permit the prosecuting of "private contractors" (note this Blackwater and Halliburton) for any crimes in Iraq tells how much the use of the 58 bases and control of Iraq air space is desired above all other considerations:

U.S. diplomats have submitted a second draft, which Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told McClatchy included several major concessions. Among those would be allowing Iraq to prosecute private contractors for violations of Iraqi law and requiring U.S. forces to turn over to Iraqi authorities Iraqis that the Americans detain.

clipped from www.mcclatchydc.com Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year. Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil." Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement "reached an impasse" after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors. The Iraqis rejected those demands

Pat Buchanan: Bush is "Woodrow Wilson on Steroids", Unnecessary Wars for Democracy

About McClellan's book that blows the whistle on the Bush administration's propaganda to start war, conservative republican, and former Nixon press secretary, Pat Buchanan says "everything we (who were in opposition) thought about the war was true". He contends that McClellan's testimony in book form proves that the Iraq war was a "war for democracy" in the middle east and that Bush was like "Woodrow Wilson on steroids" (the democrat who threw the U.S. into the European theater of World War I claiming to "make the world safe for democracy). This is of course is the neoconservative agenda that we blog about so much here to call to the public attention and is an indictment of their dangerous war-mongering ideology.

This is powerful analysis, and rebuttal to Bush loyalists and sycophants, largely defending McClellan (and his motivation to clear himself, who had been used as a pawn) from a conservative republican viewpoint. Buchanan also alludes to all this in introducing his new book about World War II, The Unnecessary War, which is sure to stir up some much needed controversy and public re-evaluation.

(This interview from MSNBC below takes awhile to get into the meat, but well worth hearing).

Recollecting the Civil War; The Beginning of Wars for Democracy

clipped from www.civilwarhome.com Monday afternoon, about 2 or 3 o'clock, when we were sitting about in disconsolate fashion, distracted by the contradictory rumors, our negro cook rushed into the room with eyes shining and face working with excitement. She had been down in " de ten-acre lot to pick a few years of cawn," and she had seen a long train of wagons coming up from the ford, and " dey is full of wounded men, and de blood running outen dem dat deep," measuring on her outstretched arm to the shoulder. This horrible picture sent us flying to town, where we found the streets already crowded, the people all astir, and the foremont wagons, of what seemed an endless line, dis- charging their piteous burdens. The scene speedily became ghastly, but fortunately we could not stay tere were no preparations, no accommodations---the men could not be left in the street---what was to be done? Our women set bravely to work...they bandaged and bathed, with a devotion that went far to make up for their inexperience.

REALITIES OF WAR--THE CIVIL WAR CONFLICT LARGELY OVERLOOKED

A very moving account in this historical record (linked) above. This southern woman gives an account of caring for the thousands of wounded that day, describing in detail what modern authors cannot even imagine. Historical reality is very awakening and sobering to consider. People wrote with pen then more vividly than modern screen writers. These words of hers bring images from print to mind, the reality of a war unseen and erased from modern consciousness.

People today think little of the reality of war, beyond news and political debates. This moving and touching scene in this woman s account shows it up close and personal.

People should consider more what this war was really about if they consider the numbers involved, and that combat was often hand to hand, not bombing from a safe distance or high in the sky.

Historical Ammo comparison:
(left) modern 30-30 ammo used for deer hunting vs. Civil War rifle ball (right).
Provided courtesy of Civil War reenactor in Hurricane, WV. Which looks more deadly and powerful?

WARS FOR DEMOCRACY

The Civil War claimed over 620,000, more than all other U.S. wars combined to present, fighting not merely the Northern States but the Federal government in Washington! The fruits of Yankee-controlled government are now plain to see.

Since 1861 the Yankee Federal government has begun a policy of "regime change" toward global Democracy, i.e. "to rid the world of tyranny". (See Bush's State of the Union 2006 here). Operation Iraqi Freedom used the same excuse of "emancipation" of Iraqi's (without their call or consent) for Invasion, just like the Lincoln (first republican president) invasion of the South, burning their cities, just like Fallujah.

Wars for Democracy have clearly been the policy of Wilson (WWI), Roosevelt (WWII--"We must be the great arsenal of Democracy"), and all subsequent wars. This is why not only Bush, but republicans like McCain or democrats like Clinton or Obama offer no real "change" to this global policy. (Obama claims to "change the world", in his own words). Wars have all been fought for Democracy in the last 150 years, not "due to religion" as is often claimed. (Violent democratic agenda began at the French and Russian revolutions).

A recent Cato Institute podcast on the Civil War with a history professor in Pennsylvania bears this out, and is well worth brief reading and 5 minute listen.

THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT

James Henley Thornwell, D.D., a Presbyterian minister and President of South Carolina college (now USC) in 1861 put the South's position on the so-called Civil War in these terms in his treatise "Our Danger & Our Duty":

we are struggling for constitutional freedom. We are upholding the great principles which our fathers bequeathed us, and if we should succeed, and become, as we shall, the dominant nation of this continent, we shall perpetuate and diffuse the very liberty for which Washington bled, and which the heroes of the Revolution achieved. We are not revolutionists-- we are resisting revolution. We are upholding the true doctrines of the Federal Constitution. We are conservative. Our success is the triumph of all that has been considered established in the past. We can never become aggressive; we may absorb, but we can never invade for conquest, any neighboring State. The peace of the world is secured if our arms prevail.

A Spontaneous Skirmish, Civil War Days -- Hurricane, WV

Obama, The Secret Six, and Black Liberation Theology--Civil War Continues

Obama has come under closer scrutiny due to his close association with, and membership in the church of, his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright who teaches what is being exposed as radical Black Liberation Theology.

A greater in depth look at the history of what is now called Black Liberation Theology has its roots and foundation in the original promoters of radical Abolitionism to end slave-holding, led by the Secret Six (see the book in Bookstore at bottom of blog) and the insane terrorist madman named John Brown, who advocated and did murder innocent whites families (including women and children) and raided the Federal Armory in Harpers Ferry (now West Virginia) in attempt to lead an Insurrection. (John Browns execution for treason was attended by both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, a kind of foreshadowing of the bloody conflict to come). This nakedly is what "liberation" in these radical minds is all about, i.e. social upheaval and revolution. It was this radical minority of Marxist terrorists that fueled a needless "Civil War", which cost over 600,000 lives (more than all US wars combined). Dishonest "Abraham" Lincoln (joining the radical "Red Republicans") promoted such Insurrection (as historians interpret it) in his Emancipation Proclamation which encouraged slaves to rise up and murder in the South with impunity, (while he admitted he had "no authority" to set free any slaves). Then "Martin Luther King", who painted himself as "Moses", leading the "children into the promised land" (of communist Utopianism, through trespassing, insurrection and revolution) continued what the radical Abolitionist terrorists left unfinished. (May we not exercise our right to "free inquiry" and "liberty of conscience" about these so-called "great men" today without being branded as "racists" by the politically-correct Inquisition?)

The Abolition movement of the communists and Red Republicans led to the Feminism and further insurrection in the so-called "Civil Rights" movement (that was neither Civil nor Right), and continues to promote a radical socialist and communist agenda that pushes government toward Collectivist policies, including taxation and welfare. Its radical roots reveals its true character.

When will Americans, resisting the power of coercive political-correctness, be willing to study and discuss this and be willing to trace it all to its core in Abolitionism, and its natural successor Feminism? Marxist revolutionary communism entered America in 1861 and seeks further revolution today under Black Liberation theology and the socialist agenda within the government since Reconstruction.

See also the article, The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology, whose author (a black theologian from Covenant Theological Seminary) was interviewed today on 58Live by Michael Agnello on WCHS talk radio. Also we highly recommend the book The Real Lincoln, also in the bookstore at the bottom of the blog.

clipped from www.law.umkc.edu The Trial of John Brown: The Secret Six Theodore Parker Liberal Transcendentalist Boston minister Theodore Parker was a strong supporter of Slave revolts, women's rights, temperance, and prison reform. His radicalism fueled by enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act, Parker participated in attempted rescues of fugitive slaves and formed a vigilance committee in Boston to fight those seeking to capture fugitive slaves. Parker wrote at the time of the Harper's Ferry attack, "One held against his will as a slave has a natural right to kill everyone who seeks to prevent his enjoyment of liberty." Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe Thomas Wentworth Higginson Franklin Sanborn Sanborn first provided money, arms, and books for Brown's activities in Kansas, then later at Harper's Ferry. Gerrit Smith He became so fearful that his connections to Brown would be exposed that he spent time in a lunatic asylum. George Luther Stearns Stearns hosted "the John Brown party" to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation

Are Americans Really Free? Do They Really Want to Be?

The following address by Ron Paul ought to be read by every American. I challenge especially flag-waving republicans to examine it and answer the question just how free Americans really are, especially since Sept. 11th. We hear much propaganda on talk radio about "Islamo Fascism", as if we are threatened by a centralized (as the term fascism implies) Islamic government that wants to rule us all. This is a distraction and far from the truth. The only Fascism being established over the American people has been, and is being erected from Washington under the pretense of "the common good" or "security", whether from the left or the right.

When Americans cannot eat, drink, employ themselves in work, and travel, make purchases, yea even be born, get married, pursue education, and die, without the government's permission and taxation in each, in the forms of licenses, certificates, or "security" numbers, in a matrix of data-mining and almost total surveillance, and much more than we could physically catalogue here, it cannot be called 'freedom' and the founders of this country would be shocked at the sight of it. The idea of a Homeland Security agency, Social Security system, Income Tax (a plank of communism), or property tax, (or food tax in West Virginia), or total government surveillance and monitoring, would have made the early Colonists set sail for another country. These innovations were not set up until well over 125 years after 1776, yet today are treated as normal. Much of the change is directly attributed to the overthrow of the Constitution in the so-called Civil War, when the Southern States sought freedom to dissent, until Washington's "majority rule" (i.e. Democracy) centralized power by force of arms. Union without consent cannot possibly be freedom, only bondage, and the loss of States Rights was the starting point. Reconstruction changed everything, and Washington then rapidly expanded its power in the 1900s, and further expanded in military adventurism for the cause of "democracy" and a Utopian world, establishing the League of and then United Nations, which directly led to world wars. During all these wars civil rights have always come under attack, and dissent treated like treason, while the government tramples the Constitution.

But since 9/11 government power has been grossly expanded by a rogue White House and complicit Congress, seemingly eager to trample the tattered remains of the Constitution which was designed to prevent this very thing. Now the government claims authority over civil or personal rights, and is treating "free Americans" like criminal or terrorist suspects, without probable cause. It can no longer be called a government of "the free", but only be called what it really is, a tyranny by an over-intrusive, constant surveillance and revenue-covetous government, designed to oppress and feed off the people while claiming to serve for their common good. This type of extra- and anti-constitutional government must come to an end if freedom is to be more than just a word devoid of any real meaning in America. It is the illusion of "freedom" in word and symbol that must be exposed for the people to realize the reality that they have become too accustomed to. It is impossible that government can be so expansive and the people truly be free.

Ronald Reagan knew this. But the new republican party no longer cares, and the proof is that they propose no radical change to the present course. Ron Paul, however, does and people are embracing his message because they are awakening to the true nature of America's post-9/11 government and find it to be what Americans have historically opposed.
-----------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2005

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
-- Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language, 1946.