by Craig Biddle at 8:23 PM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.

A recent post by Andy Clarkson, regarding reason as the proper means of human interaction, is a perfect illustration of how a sound principle can provide extremely persuasive, or at least thought provoking, dialogue.

In a recent lengthy discussion with a friend who is an Obama supporter, she wanted to focus upon economics. Her view was that top economists had endorsed Obama. Why was that not enough for me to support him?

One, I refused to discuss economics. I explained to her that there are different schools of economics and each is based upon different philosophical premises.

Two, I told her that no matter what issue or argument she would bring up, my answer would be exactly the same. I oppose the initiation of force against another human being.

And then I provided a list of examples: murder, rape, taxes, robbery, burglary, slavery and so on. I explained that the only proper way for human beings to interact is based upon reason, persuasion, logic, discussion, collaboration, and so on.

I didn’t budge from this stand because it provided the moral high ground. It also provided the platform for extending the conversation eventually into selfishness, rights, and capitalism.

The approach was successful in that she shifted focus from economics and began asking questions about rights. The conversation will continue. But I will be sure to use moral opposition to the initiation of force as “home base” — and more importantly the role of reason and persuasion as the proper means of interaction.

I think it is also the ideal response for shorter conversations or one- liners. [emphasis mine]

I really like this tactic. In similar conversations I typically promote rights as the determining factor. I usually contend that if an action violates ones right to life, liberty, or property than it is immoral, unjust and certainly not within the proper role of Government - the protector of rights. Of course Andy’s litmus test, being wider in abstraction, would include my condition because to violate a right is to encroach upon it by initiating force. The hazard of the “rights” angle is that many people don’t have a sound integration of the concept, which can lead to a more involved conversation of rights, privileges, and all the potential tangents - a conversation that would likely require a more lengthy discussion than appropriate. With the “initiation of force” angle, there are fewer underlying premises to manage and the point is still made.

His more abstract principle lends itself to more persuasive and less controversial dialogue. He sows the see without trying to rip the old plant by its roots - which I’ve learned the futility of doing so, the hard way.

I also appreciate how Andy integrated this tactic into his letter to our state officials:

I ask that you take into consideration one principle as you judge whether to support or oppose various issues in the coming year.

That principle is the immorality of the initiation of force against another human being. Initiation of force against another human being is immoral because it destroys human beings’ primary means of survival.

The primary means of survival for human beings is: reason. Reason, logic, persuasion, discussion, collaboration are the only moral means of human interaction.

Obvious examples of the initiation of force include murder, rape, robbery, and slavery.

To some, less obvious examples include taxes, fraud, required or compulsory community service, the military draft.

The common thread among all of these examples is the actual use of physical force or the threat of physical force if one does not comply with the demands of another. None of these examples involves reason, logic, or persuasion. Thus they are immoral.

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens — through proper police force, courts, and jails. When the government violates the rights of its citizens by initiating force, it destroys or violates the lives of those citizens.

I ask that you focus upon this principle as you make your decisions.

He’s presented here an excellent display of the power of principles.

This is the initial charter for my new advocacy group. With Sam now a year old, this cause is amongst my highest priorities. My wife and I are restructuring our lives to provide Sam with the highest quality education that we can afford - and which is rightfully ours to provide. At this point I anticipate his education will be a mixture of home-school and private instruction where it makes sense. He will not (so long as my wife and I are alive) spend one second of his precious life in a Public School.

Now we know first-hand what it feels like to realize that the clock is ticking… ticking towards the day where we must be in the financial and legal position to assume our right to control his development. My goal is to prevent other parents from the anxiety, dread and sense of helplessness associated with the current system.

Our Mission:
To perpetuate abolishment of socialized education through promotion of our core philosophy:

1. Primary stance - The moral argument of an individual’s sovereign right to guide the educational development of their own children.

2. Secondary stance - The practical argument regarding the utter intellectual and financial destruction that results from our current system.

Our Rationale:
The moral case for an individual’s right to guide the educational development of their offspring is basis alone for the end of “public” education, however, some may better relate to practical arguments, which will ultimately lead to acknowledgment of the moral argument. There is no sound moral, practical or constitutional argument that justifies socialized education. Like all instances of socialization, rights are violated, the results are abysmal, and the ends, however noble, do not in any way justify the means. One needn’t look very hard to see the degenerative impact our educational system is inflicting – arguably leading to the demise of our United States.

This is not a crusade against all members of Public Education. It is a movement against the system as a whole, and especially those who condone trumping a parent’s right to educate their children as they see fit in favor of social engineering, social justice, or any other irrational collectivist notion.

Consider the following:
Do children have a right to education?
No. There is no right to be educated, but children as individuals do have a right to their life which is held in trust by their parents until they become independent. Thus, parents are responsible for maintaining the child’s life; and encompassed in that responsibility is the parents’ moral obligation to prepare him for survival by leading a rational and productive life. In the same manner that they must teach their child to eat, walk and communicate, parents should also tech skills that enable him the means to become a productive and happy individual.

To the extent that they value the child’s existence, a parent will better prepare him for survival and happiness. Some parents structure their entire lives around providing for their children. Alternatively, some try to alter their lives as little as possible. In cases where the parents fail to objectively achieve this responsibility, the state should justly intervene – as in all cases where ones right to life is encroached upon. Where the line of negligence is properly drawn is subject to debate but irrelevant in the context to the question at hand, except to say that it should be well in advance of compulsory state indoctrination.

In this context, one could consider being educated in a *very* strict sense as a right courtesy of a parent’s moral obligation.

Conversely, there is most certainly not a right to a free education via Government sanction. Such a scenario requires money seized by gunpoint from one individual to fund the education of another person whom he may or may not be familiar with, regarding subject matter he may or may not approve of, and in a manner he may or may not agree with. Nor is it within the proper role of a free people’s Government to mandate such an arrangement as compulsory.

There can be no right properly held by an individual, or his Government, to initiate force against another individual.

Shouldn’t all citizens share the funding responsibility because Public Education benefits everyone?
No. To condone robbery on the premise that the victim may receive some potential future benefit is a perversion of justice. Even if through some clairvoyant cosmic wrangling the victim could be guaranteed a benefit, condoning theft upon him isn’t morally justified. Before I was a parent, I objected to being forced to fund the education of strangers, and as a parent I adamantly maintain that objection. Parents alone are solely responsible for their child’s education, including the costs.

I also object to the claim that Socialized education benefits everyone. On moral grounds, when one individual’s rights are violated, all should take offense. Whatever perceived benefits to “the public” are grossly offset by the mass encroachment of rights they derive from. On practical grounds, compulsory Socialized education is the primary agent facilitating the intellectual and moral decline of our country. The system sacrifices the brightest in favor of mediocrity as it goes through the motions of education along with whatever hodgepodge of social engineering goals it seeks to achieve. The system assumes the right to introduce children to subject matter regardless of a parents wish.

To put it another way:
At age 5, armed bureaucrats will demand your precious offspring - the one with your eyes, and your spouse’s smile, the one you dreamed of, hoped for, delivered, neglected your body for, rearranged your life for, struggled for, worked for, planned for, would give your life for – to arrive promptly at a specific indoctrination camp of their choosing, regardless of locale, convenience or any other metric of the your consent. They’ll then proceed to retain your child for 6-8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months a year, for a minimum of 13 years. Throughout this time, they reserve the right to introduce your child to topics of their discretion and regardless of yours. Your philosophy, values, morals or views are irrelevant. Virtually all protests to their manner will be either casually dismissed, tangled in bureaucratic stagnation, or if you have the time and money you can take legal action which will be resolved according to the views of one of their fellow employees. Alternatively, you can take on the financial and administrative burdens of removing your child from the system, before which you’ll be required to adequately prove to the state your intent to solicit an expensive private institution (without compensation for your compulsory contribution to the system you’ve refused) or to home-school your child, which will require an additional burden of administrative tedium.

How could anyone suggest that this system benefits everyone, or anyone for that matter?

If schools are privatized, my (husband, wife, mother, father, uncle, aunt, boyfriend, mistress) will lose their job!
Maybe, it depends on their competence, productivity and work ethic. A free-market in education will create an unprecedented demand for quality educators. That demand will stir competition amongst educators and learning institutions. Competition will raise wages and add value to the services offered. Those individuals who are good at what they do will be in demand and rewarded accordingly. Like all other professions, incompetent dead-weight will be discarded. The ultimate winner is the consumer, who’ll enjoy teachers and schools competing for their business.

So, hopefully your (husband, wife, mother, father, uncle, aunt, boyfriend, mistress) is good at what they do and won’t lose their job, but will instead enjoy the benefits of working within a system that objectively rewards ability and punishes incompetence. The current system neither rewards nor punishes objectively and the result is demotivated passivity in the best teachers, and downright mooching in the worst. I’ve seen first hand the draining effect this system has on an intelligent and extremely productive individual who maintains an impeccable work ethic - that’s what Socialized education does to its best. Instead of static pay scales, salaries will vary according to ability and achievement. Exceptional educators could expect to be compensated on par with most other commercial markets. Most public school employees would find the notion of salary negotiation a foreign mystery, but that’s the way it works in the private sector and education would be no different.

Many will point to salaries in private institutions, which are often times lower than those in public schools, as proof that educators would earn lower wages in a private market. This comparison is invalid as it attempts to draw economic metrics from two entities which abide by different revenue contexts. Public institutions don’t have to compete for customers, they are guaranteed. Private schools have to operate from a much smaller customer base since Government forces citizens to consume public educational services. The market is much smaller since only those who have the desire and the economical means to seek educational alternatives make up the customer base for private education. There is less demand for private education and those institutions actually have to be economically viable to exist. In order to pay higher salaries, they can’t just tap into Uncle Sam’s taxpayer piggy bank, they have to actually increase revenue. When the market size is virtually pegged the only other alternative is to raise prices, which also lowers demand. When the overwhelming majority of a market is held by force and with economic immunity, supply and demand for labor are distorted. The coercive monopoly of Public Education drives down wages in the private sector.

What about low-income children – will they be left out of a private system?
Some will. Most will not. There would be a small segment of the population where parents don’t value their child appropriately enough to make education a priority. In these cases, private charity would be on the hook to contribute both financially and intellectually. We should expect those so vehemently concerned with this segment to express their compassion tangibly by leading the cause of such charity in response.

The underlying fallacy in this line of thought is that education should be expensive. This is due to the fact that our current system is grossly negligent with spending, functions entirely beyond the proper scope of a strictly education enterprise, and is immune to virtually all economic reality. As the spouse of a former public school employee, and one who keeps up with even the most generous media coverage of the everyday follies of our schools, I can attest to the consistently blatant examples of each of these facts. I won’t go into details in the effort to stay on topic, but I can sum it up as such:

- The system aims to do way more than impart the fundamentals of learning.
- The system wastes lots of money.
- There is very little incentive to be fiscally responsible because they have guaranteed customers who have no choice with regards to what they are willing to pay.

Because of these facts, there is an extremely high demand for quality private education, and an extremely small supply of it – which economically mean high costs in the pseudo-private sector.

Billion dollar budgets and multi-thousand dollar private school tuitions create the pricey façade associated with education, but the reality is that education would be much cheaper in a private system. Competition works wonders in trimming the fat and demanding fiscal responsibility. If a schools’ syllabus is reduced to the bare minimum, but perfectly adequate, essentials of learning – reading, writing and arithmetic – the costs would be only a fraction of what most would guess based on our current education budgets - which include expenditures such as after-school care, Motorsports training, Anti-Bullying initiatives, Community services, Free-Lunch funding and numerous other social-engineering endeavors.*

Funding for Socialized Education is extremely high because the system is more concerned with attempting to offset parental negligence and conduct social engineering tasks than teach individuals how to think, understand and integrate concepts.

This relates to low-income families because education should, and would be cheaper in a private system focused solely on educating kids. Additionally, the same way that lower income individual acquire credit for items such as automobiles and home appliances, there would be a niche market for educational financing.

If there were indeed a segment that unfortunately ended up foregoing their education, this loss would pale in comparison to the monument sacrifice of the current system, which offers wholesale violation of every parent’s rights to educate, every citizen’s right to property (via taxation to fund the education of strangers) and every student’s potential by wrangling them with a 13-year sentence to entrenched mediocrity - all under the guise of education.

*Per 2008-2009 CMS Budget
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/boardeducation/OrdinancePackage.pdf

What role should the State assume in a system of private education?
None, other than the role it should assume in all private endeavors – as a protector of rights. The state should enforce objective laws regarding life, liberty and property. Contract enforcement through the court system and emergency response to criminal activity by the police are the only proper involvements by Government in education.

There certainly should be no State prescribed educational guidelines.

Individuals carry a wide variety of philosophical leanings that influence their educational goals. If I choose to educate my child under a particular philosophical filter, I have the right to do so. As a very controversial byproduct of socialized education, the debate regarding Evolution/Creationism being taught in school is a perfect example of why the state has no right to meddle with education. Children are not property of the State, which is what State guidelines imply.

Wouldn’t privatization require schools to be run like businesses?
Yes, and such is the answer to our secondary practical stance. Successful businesses are run by the motive for profit, which is a tremendously motivating factor. Profit is the rightful reward for one’s time, thought and energy. Individuals seeking the reward of profit will achieve monumental goals. A school competing for customers will continually seek for means to offer more value. The school who offers the most value at the lowest price will prosper resulting in happy customers. A school could offer value in a variety of forms including technology, alternate techniques, concentrated studies, acclaimed or renowned instructors, convenient location or logistics, superb athletic or artistic environments, or virtually any other component that would appeal to its customers.

Opponents to privatization make the vague claim that “commercializing” education is bad, but reason, economics and the power of the profit motive indicate otherwise. They claim that once a greedy corporation gets a strangle hold on education that their intent to profit will undermine educational effectiveness, but in a private system individuals aren’t forced to consume from a particular institution. If parents determine they are no longer happy with the services, they take their business elsewhere. Either a school exists to meet their needs, or entrepreneurial savvy will seize the demand and create one. Schools becoming “too commercial” (whatever that means) will suffer the consequences by losing customers. Do those opposed to privatization on such grounds continue to solicit companies that disappoint them? If not, on what basis would they contend that parents would respond to bad schools any differently?

A competitive free-market in education would, in time, redirect the intellectual path of our country to unprecedented growth and achievement. The nature of the profit motive is that of extraordinary motivation to seek reward for ones productivity. A system of education driven on this motive would achieve success on par with that of any other commercial market. Who knows when the educational equivalent of Steve Jobs, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison will make his mark?

I’m sure there are plenty on the other side that are just as impressive. These represent the culture that’s driving America down the shitter.

by Paul Hsieh

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans” embrace of the religious “social conservative” agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.

The Religious Right’s goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to “independent.”

The Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protected individual rights but otherwise left people alone to live their lives.

This includes affirming the principle of the separation of church and state. If they did so, I would happily support it.

Or the Republican Party could instead choose to become the party of the Religious Right and seek to forcibly impose the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else’s rights).

In that case, it will continue to alienate many voters and lose elections — and deservedly so.

Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American.

My parents immigrated legally from Taiwan to America over 40 years ago. They had very little money, but they worked hard, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement.

Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream. America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because our system of government allows honest, hard-working people to prosper and thrive.

Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to stand for.

Paul Hsieh is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He lives in Sedalia.

Add to the already impressive list of potential economic threats the total confiscation of retirement accounts.

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

……

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said. [emphasis added]

Income redistribution has so many faces.

A potential answer for all the screams for fuel efficiency will likely never meet Americas highways.

Ford’s 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here’s the catch: Despite the car’s potential to transform Ford’s image and help it compete with Toyota Motor ™ and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. “We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

………………..

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline.

Other sources cite the tremendous costs and technical changes Ford would face trying to meet EPA approval. To put it in other terms - Ford can’t build and sell a product according to their terms, because the US Government violates property rights.

Everyday I catch myself thinking “I have to remember this…” Sam is growing up so fast, it’s hard to retain it all. I’m starting a list of phrases, images and thoughts that I want to make sure I retain. I’ll update it whenever something new comes to mind.

• Breathing through his nose when focused on a task…
• grasping my fingers when bottling down…
• his smile when he learned to stand…
• commando crawling…
• nite-nite taps…
• pointing at his guitar…
• giving sloppy kisses…
• standing while he nursed…
• last peek-a-boo shhhhhhh…
• where’s the ******?
• baby-bread position…
• coffee run naps…
• turtle, crabby and octopus…
• the mess we leave at Cracker Barrel…
• first ouchee with teeth on the bus…

Well, the day has come when America has elected a president of a different race than all that preceded him. The usual suspects boast of America’s progress and lament how proud Martin Luther King would be - as if their collectivist triumph, which happens to be championed on this particular day by a man of mixed race, carry the same moral nobility as Dr. King’s genuine crusade for a colorblind world.

MLK correctly promoted that men abstain from taking the crude intellectual shortcut of assessing another man based on his genetic lineage, i.e, overlooking an individual in favor of a group. Yet, in this great day of change, a tremendous number of people did exactly that, and on a more fundamental level, they elected a man who’s an avowed collectivist, i.e, one who overlooks individuals in favor of a group as his exclusive method.

Draw your own conclusions about progress.

A man’s philosophy drives his every decision. When such decisions extend into the realm of wielding force against a nation of individuals, the importance of his philosophy is immeasurable. How he regards our rights to life, liberty, and property, how he reveres the proper scope of government, his sense of justice – these are the keys one should consider when evaluating a political candidate, especially one looking to rule a nation.

I didn’t vote. Given the choice of poison or venom - I’ll stay home. Yes, the current dimwit imbecile is on his way out - good for America. No, we won’t be harnessed by a theocratic regime - great for America. At least our march into collectivist stagnation will be orchestrated with the style and class of a charismatic and well-spoken dictator.

Race, like sex, doesn’t determine one’s philosophy, intelligence or ability. However, for a country plagued in its infancy by the irrational collectivist disease of slavery, and since longing to be colorblind - today is one of symbolic significance. For a culture rank with sloppy attire, unintelligible slang and nearly void of aspiration to achieve anything of rational value, a neatly dressed, extremely well-spoken man in a successful and honored position is a unprecedented role-model and cultural icon. This is good for America.

What the man will do is not. Obama is a collectivist by his every statement. He does not regard individuals with any degree of sanctity. People are merely spokes in the wheel of his vision. This is bad for America. Obama will treat men as property of the State, and as such, what should properly be considered as rights will be treated as privileges. When property is a privilege, wealth can be confiscated, guns can be collected, and business regulations can be enforced. When men are seen as means to a collective end, any portion of their life, liberty or property can be used as the ruler desires. As in every collectivized society in the history of man, individuals drained of their rightful motive and means to survive will stagnate in passivity. This is bad for America. Men wrangled with regulation, dictates and plunder, while also being denied the proper means to protect themselves from other men in desperation from the same oppression is a society doomed to resort to animalistic survival. This is bad for America.

If instead of an avowed collectivist, this candidate were a rational-minded individual who valued justice, freedom, and rights, this day could be one celebrated by all Americans. Instead, such a day of pride for many Americans coincidentally spearheads a likely fatal stab in the back of all Americans by way of undermining our essence. I’d like very much to share the celebratory sentiment, but in the context of freedom and individual rights, today is a very dark day.