Obama The Neighborhood Enforcer!

Quote from a speech by Maximum Leader:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

I know 12 years olds with a better grasp of American free enterprise.

Mr. Obama: And the point of what you're saying is?

Answer: Business profits are NOT private property. They belong to the rest of us who enabled your success as much as they belong to you.

Gimme!!!

What Maximum Leader said is reminiscent of organized crime. It's what the neighborhood enforcer would say to the corner bar owner he's shaking down and extorting for "protection" money.

The language is exactly the same!

Outsourcing vs Aliensourcing. Which is worse? (This Is A Pop Quiz!)

What's worse, folks?

A. Outsourcing, which is exporting American jobs to foreign countries; or...

B. Aliensourcing, which is importing illegal aliens to do American jobs?

Politicians are brain-dead!

SELECTED LEFTIST LIES FROM THE LAST 10 DAYS (and "WHY LEFTISTS LIE")

[Thanks to Weasel Zippers]

WaPo Fact Checker Gives “Three Pinocchios” To Obama’s Claim Romney A Possible Felon, Says They Are “Blowing Smoke Here”…

Pelosi Outdoes Herself: Heartless Republicans Voted To “Take Away Protections” From “The Little Baby Born With A Birth Defect”…

Carney: Stimulus “Widely Recognized To Have Broken The Back Of The Recession”…

Is Anarchism A Cult? Just Askin'

A week or so ago James A. Miller at his blog called "Miller's Genuine Draft" asked this question: Should the State Be Hated?" Miller is the Editor in Chief at the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. At the conclusion of his blog entry he answers his own question:

To answer the original inquiry, yes, the state should be hated.  It should be laughed at, ridiculed, questioned, protested against, and seen for the criminal syndicate it truly is.  But above all, it should inspire the detestation of anyone who tires of being oppressed.  American founding father Thomas Paine famously declared “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  I would hasten to correct him that government, in all shapes in forms, is indeed evil but not at all necessary for a lasting peace.

Notice in the last sentence Miller concludes that "government, in all shapes in [sic] forms, is indeed evil..."

Really? Any shape or form of government is evil? My town board is a "criminal syndicate?"

Far be it from me to defend statism. I agree with Miller when he describes the characteristics of statism:

It’s as if they hold no contempt for the tax collector who happily helps themselves [sic] to the hard-earned wealth of others.  It’s as if they don’t wince at the merciless beating of someone who finds themselves on the wrong side of a police officer drunk on his own power.  It’s as if don’t feel anguish for the innocent bystanders that happen to be in the path of the endless bombings for democracy.  It’s as if they could care less that some faceless bureaucrat monitors their private electronic correspondence without their permission. It’s is as if they don’t find it repulsive that their very freedom is being taken away by one decree after another.

The problem, as I see it, is that Miller is not criticizing statism per se, i.e., the abuse of power by those who hypostatize the concept of "state" and hold the interests of that supposed entity superior to the interests of individuals. Rather, Miller is asking me to believe that the state is "an inherently evil institution that oppresses the greater majority of mankind [emphasis mine]."

Moreover, Miller conflates the concepts of "state" and "government," concluding that both are "evil." Indeed, he criticizes "supporters of laissez faire" who "fail to show any radical aversion to the state itself" and, presumably, to any form of government itself.

On top of all this, Miller impugns the motives of the average voter who participates in the evil of state and government:

These aren’t intellectual mistakes.  They are daily occurrences sanctioned by a mass of voters still feverishly dedicated to the idea that government is theirs to control.  The average voter is often too preoccupied with his political buy-off to realize it is his neighbor’s money he is now in possession of.  Whenever their government is engaged in an imperialistic, corpse-ridden crusade of freedom, voters pay no mind to their dollars directly funding mass murder.  To them, the state is a religion and monarch rolled into one.  They pay tribute with their wealth, labor, and admiration only to be rewarded with their lives being more and more micromanaged.

This all sounds cultish to me. It certainly is not logical analysis. No longer is it enough to criticize statism or abuses of power by those in government. Critics must properly "hate" the very concepts of both "government" and "state" as inherent evils or they risk being labeled as "evil" themselves. If you vote, if you pay taxes, if you participate in politics, you are not making an intellectual mistake. You are proactively participating in evil. Thus, you are morally deficient. Or so Miller implies.

First off, how does Miller know whether an action is an intellectual mistake or a purposeful attempt to do harm?

Secondly, what possible good does it do anyone to hate a concept, especially a concept that few in our society understand the way Miller wants them to understand it?

I think it is ironic and instructive that a few days before Miller's article was published, an article by Wendy McElroy appeared on the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada website entitled: "What Is Society? What Is The State?" In her article McElroy distinguishes between the concept of "society" and that of "state." She also considers a third concept, "government:"

At this point in his argument, Nock introduced a third concept: government. To Nock, government, unlike the state, provided a valuable service. It protected the individual rights of society, presumably in exchange for a fee, such as that embodied in a reasonable tax rate.

Nock was not alone in distinguishing between government and the state, and in giving a nod to the former while frowning upon the latter. Ayn Rand also embraced a limited government that would function as a night watchman who unobtrusively protected the person and property of those within his territory.

We now live under a state, not a government. And true to the title of Nock’s book, the state is the enemy of our rights and property. Unlike the government envisioned by Rand, it is not a night watchman but a prison guard both day and night.

Not only does McElroy clearly distinguish between state and government, she clearly does not think government is inherently evil. In fact, neither does Nock, whom Miller also quoted in his article to buttress his argument that the state is evil.

Anarchists like Miller assume that once the structure of state and government crumbles individual freedom and liberty will enjoy an unfettered golden age. They believe this because they know that the science of economics demonstrates irrefutably that the system of capitalism and free markets provides for the largest quantity of goods and services to be distributed in the most satisfactory way at the lowest possible price to the widest range of demanding consumers. They assume that capitalism and free markets will provide individuals essential, societal services, like defense, property protection, conflict resolution and contract enforcement, more satisfactorily than either the state or government.

But is such an assumption valid?

I, like many "supporters of laissez faire," have grave doubts that it is. I will continue to have grave doubts until anarchists stop assuming and begin proving. In short, Miller should make his case. He should stop hating and persuade me that anarcho-capitalism is possible, practical and preferable to the classic nightwatchman form of limited government.

In "Theory and History" Ludwig von Mises writes:

The way toward a realistic distinction between freedom and bondage was opened, two hundred years ago, by David Hume's immortal essay, On the First Principles of Government. Government, taught Hume, is always government of the many by the few. Power is therefore always ultimately on the side of the governed, and the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. This cognition, logically followed to its conclusion, completely changed the discussion concerning liberty. The mechanical and arithmetical point of view was abandoned. If public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government, it is also the agency that determines whether there is freedom or bondage. There is virtually only one factor that has the power to make people unfree-tyrannical public opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not the struggle of the many against the few but of minorities-sometimes of a minority of but one man-against the majority. The worst and most dangerous form of absolutist rule is that of an intolerant majority. Such is the conclusion arrived at by Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill.

I think Miller and his anarchist friends understand implicitly that it is "tyrannical public opinion" that oppresses them and makes it possible for government to "steal" from them. Hence, Miller's virulent rants against the outrageous power wielded by officials of the state and the voters who sanction that power and "pay no mind to their dollars directly funding mass murder."

But what's an anarchist to do about it?

McElroy suggests two reasonable strategies:

“Gulching” and “Going Galt.” Gulching, named after Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged, means withdrawing from society into an isolated community. Going Galt, named after the early strategy of John Galt in the same novel, means removing your support from the state without leaving society.

So why doesn't Miller act on McElroy's suggestion? If his hatred of "tyrannical public opinion" is so unbearable, why stick around? Why embark on the thankless mission of convincing a bunch of mistaken intellectuals and immoral numbskulls to hate the concepts of state and government with a vitriol equal to his? Why not simply "Gulch" or "Go Galt?"

McElroy has the answer:

Society offers tremendous benefits, including friendship, expanded knowledge, culture, a division of labor, the free market of exchange, family and romantic love. Society can maximize your range of choice because many of your decisions require the presence of other people; for example, the decision to have a child. The maximization of choice is itself a form of freedom...

...It takes a great deal of theft and corruption by the state to outweigh the extraordinary benefits of society. Whether or not we are at that point is a judgment call. My judgment is that we are not there yet. The tipping point may be perilously close but the state has not yet succeeded in reversing the advantages of being in society.

No matter how you slice it, whether you want to entice individuals to join you in a new, anarcho-capitalist society or in a reformed America with limited government, you must persuade individuals to cooperate with you, or the benefits of cooperation you now enjoy will be squandered.

Well, guess what. The key to cooperative action is voluntary and mutual agreement. And the only means of attaining voluntary and mutual agreement is persuasion, not vitriol and flame-throwing.

Don't get me wrong. There are individuals in America who are just plain "evil," or who at least knowingly and purposely act in "evil" ways to rip-off and torment their neighbors. These individuals might deserve a huge helping of hate. However, these individuals aren't prospective cooperative partners anyway. There is little chance of persuading them to change their evil ways.

On the other hand, it is possible to persuade well-meaning Americans of goodwill to right their intellectual mistakes and cooperate in like-minded fashion for mutual benefit. All I'm sayin' to Miller is: cool it!

Stop cultishly demonizing individuals and their beliefs.

I, for one, will be more likely to cooperate with you if you stop demanding that I "hate" government as viscerally as you do.

Remembering George Gershwin, September 26, 1898 – July 11, 1937

"Genius dies young."

Never has this old saying been more true than in the case of George Gershwin, one of America's most famous and prolific musicians and composers. 75 years ago George died in the prime of his creative career at the age of 38. According to one biographical profile, at the time of his death George had planned "a string quartet, a ballet and another opera, but these pieces were never written." America and the world are poorer for it.

I am not going to attempt to describe Gershwin's contribution and importance to American music. Better writers than I have done so over the years. Good sources for this material can be found in Wikipedia and in the archives of the New York Times. Readers can find a comprehensive list of his musical compositions here, and a list of his contributions to the American song book here. The breadth and depth of his talent is absolutely awe inspiring.

Gershwin was born a year or two shy of the turn of the century. He grew up in an America far different from the country we know today. Freedom and liberty were not merely words then; Americans experienced them firsthand in their rawest and most exciting form. Yes, the seeds of the coming American welfare state had already been planted, but the age George grew up in inherited its vigor and vitality from an earlier era when ambition, talent, hard work and perseverance were honored and encouraged.

When George was at his prime, America was a country that put the individual on a pedestal. Men and women didn't look to government for their livelihood, safety and security. They lived life in the moment, took risks and some, like George, achieved greatness of a kind we will probably never again experience and enjoy.

Ken Bloom, in his book "The American Songbook," describes the times in which George and his lyricist brother, Ira, grew up:

Of course, George and Ira didn't arrive as full-blown expert songwriters. However, they were born in an era of opportunity, when live theater was the popular entertainment of choice. The brothers started out, in humble fashion, supplying a song here and there to be interpolated into a wide range of early musicals and operettas... ...George and Ira seemed destined to become merely adequate composers who created minor songs for minor musicals.

The operative word is "opportunity." George and Ira knew that success never comes easy. They knew that reward never comes without risk, hardship and pluck. According to an excellent movie biography made in 1945, "Rhapsody in Blue," Morris Gershwin, George's father, owned and operated a series of small businesses, everything from a grocery store to a steam parlor. Apparently, he earned enough to make a modest living. Morris, has been described as "a somewhat unsuccessful entrepreneur, and the family had moved twenty-eight times by the time George was eighteen." Unfortunately, "the family went bankrupt in 1914 and moved to Coney Island." 

Yet, his family prodded by his mother insisted that the family was able to afford a piano. She bought one when George was 12 and the rest is history.

Neither was George held back by the good intentions of truancy and child labor laws. He dropped out of school at age 15 and briefly played piano in a burlesque show. He then "went to work for Jerome H. Remick & Co., a music publishing firm on Tin Pan Alley, for a salary of $15.00 per week, while he continued living with his parents and his brother Ira." Until he was 18 George worked for Remick "as a song plugger: a salesman who promoted the firm's songs by playing and singing them for performers. As a result of many hours each day spent at the keyboard, his playing improved greatly, and he cut his first piano rolls in 1915" at the age of 16. 

Read all about Gershwin's fascinating young life here.

The result of Gershwin's rough and tumble, hardscrabble life growing up in the streets of New York's East Side is this:

I've spent a lifetime enjoying the fruits of Gershwin's genius and labor. I won't try to recount them all. Music -- all good music -- is emotional and personal. By God Gershwin's is that, and more. I love all he created, but here are a few of my absolute favorites. Thank God and America for George Gershwin. May he never be forgotten! May America return to the great nation that fostered his genius!

And, yes, even Bob Dylan is indebted to Mr. Gershwin!

If Republicans Had Guts, And Democrats Had Brains...

As I pointed out here, Mitt Romney's vaunted plan to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare is only half sensible. His plan to replace ObamaCare with a hodgepodge of mealymouthed "reforms" is nothing more than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act warmed over.

Romney's statist approach to solving the health care "problem" will NOT solve anything; it will merely make our dissatisfaction with the health care industry fester and grow.


Politically, Romney's approach to health care will be as damaging to the free market and the conservative cause as George Bush's absurd and unprincipled intervention into the financial markets. Bush's blundering is what made the ignorant electorate hunger for the "hope and change" of Barack Obama in 2008. Romney's interventionist policies in health care will likely destroy and discredit conservatism for evermore.


The "solution" to the health care "problem" is as obvious as it is simple: allow individuals the freedom to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests. If Romney (or even Gary Johnson for that matter) were really interested in "fixing" the health care industry in this country, he would not only advocate the repeal of ObamaCare and Bush's pathetic Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, he would endorse the following measures:

First and foremost, abolish the FDA. Not only is the Food and Drug Administration a bloated and expensive federal bureaucracy, it is also responsible for the restricted supply of drugs in this country. The result is high prices and chronic shortages. Abolishing the FDA would end the incestuous relationship between the federal regulators and the large drug companies. It would allow small, innovative manufacturers to enter the marketplace and freely compete. Moreover, the large drug companies would have to truly compete with each other. No more sweetheart deals and government protected territories. They would have to sink or swim in the market. The supply of demanded drugs would increase. Prices would fall. And, as difficult as it may be for statists to believe, the quality of medical drugs would improve, as the quality of all goods and services improves when markets are opened to real competition.

Second, eliminate state and federal licensing mandates for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all other health care providers. Licensing of health care practitioners is merely a backhanded way of protecting the interests and incomes of established and connected health care providers. Individuals and their chosen health care provider are capable of deciding what level of care and what brand of pharmaceuticals are in their best interests. They should be free to purchase their preferred drugs and care from whomever they deem appropriate. No more government regulated prescriptions. No more mandates specifying physician care. The resulting downward pressure on the price of health care and drugs would be immediate and lasting. And, again, the overall quality and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals would improve.

Third, eliminate federal and state tax credits and deductions for the purchase of health insurance, this includes the tax advantage employees realize when health insurance is purchased through their employer. The current system of employer provided insurance results in third party bill paying. Consequently, waste, fraud and carelessness abound, as the direct relationship between individual buyer and individual vendor is interrupted. Individuals purchase life insurance, auto insurance, fire insurance, wind insurance and all variety of other insurances directly from insurance vendors in the free marketplace. They buy this insurance from huge insurance companies that operate all across America. Why should the purchase of health insurance at a tax advantage be limited to employers? Moreover, why should the purchase of health insurance -- or of any insurance for that matter -- be restricted to vendors operating within the purchaser's state boundaries? Putting the decision-making authority back into the hands of individual buyers and sellers will result in lower prices and increased quality and satisfaction.

Fourth, eliminate state and federal health insurance mandates. The idea that politicians know better than their constituents what is in their own best interest with regard to the terms of their health insurance contract is absurd. Mandates and restrictions imposed by government (e.g., pregnancy, abortion and psychiatric care) destroy practical and needed health insurance options for largely political reasons. Young people ought to be able to purchase a no frills, high deductible, catastrophic health insurance policy on the open market. All individuals ought to be able to purchase a health insurance policy tailored to their specific needs rather than to the politically correct needs of a state or federal politician. When state and federal mandates are eliminated, the supply of health insurance options will increase, prices will fall and consumer satisfaction will increase immeasurably across the board.

Fifth, abolish Medicaid and Medicare completely. In other words, take state and federal governments and bureaucrats out of the health care and health insurance equation. If the American voter deems it necessary and proper to subsidize the cost of health care and health insurance for indigents, government should simply write a check to the indigents in some politically-decided amount. The indigents could then purchase health care and health insurance on the free market with the rest of us. The instant a government bureaucrat steps between an individual and a health care or health insurance provider, the seeds are sown for corruption, waste and cronyism. The system which best serves the many is destroyed in favor of a convoluted and bureaucratic system designed to serve the needs of the favored few.


Of course, the real reforms I've outlined above will be vehemently opposed by those with an ideological axe to grind or by those who are ignorant of economics. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now from both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Such reform measures, they will say, are unrealistic, cruel and heartless. Critics will recite a thousand and one reasons why these free market solutions will not work. They will back up their arguments not with economic logic but with a thousand and one anecdotes describing the most helpless and pitiful health care nightmares imaginable.


This is exactly the reason our country is now between a rock and a hard place. The progressive philosophy has so infected the minds of Democrats and Republicans alike that rationality is shut out in favor of emotionalism. Instead of designing a solution for these exceptional and pathetic examples of healthcare hardship, the progressive mind begins to design a solution around them. As a result, a system that efficiently and satisfactorily serves the vast majority of individuals is scrapped in favor of a bureaucratic monstrosity designed to cater to the needs of the exceptional few.

Imagine for a moment that our topic of discussion wasn't the nation's health care system, but its system of food production and distribution. Imagine for a moment that our food industry is in a shambles because almost a century ago, in the interest of fairness and feeding the poor and indigent, the government decided that food was a "human right."


To fulfill this human right, imagine the government decided that citizens must purchase food by means of employer-provided food insurance, which the government also decided was a "human right."

Imagine the government many years ago established a new bureaucracy which regulated food production and food insurance, and mandated that certain foods must be provided and equally available to all.


Imagine this bureaucracy today decides which foods are nutritional and which are unhealthy, which foods are reimbursable through food insurance and which are not, which farmers are preferred food manufacturers, which grocers are in-network food providers.


Imagine that, when hungry employees pick up their food from an in-network grocer, they are charged only a small co-pay for the food they bring home. Then, the grocer submits the balance of the food bill to the food insurance company which approves the bill and pays only the allowable balance. And every month the food insurance company charges the employer a food insurance premium which may or may not be partially paid by the employee and which, supposedly, finances the entire system.

As you can well imagine, no one would be satisfied with this food insurance system. Employees cannot buy the food they really want. Employers are constantly shopping for inferior food insurance companies that charge cheaper monthly premiums because monthly premiums are constantly skyrocketing. Grocers are squeezed by ever-tightening bureaucratic rules and regulations imposed by both the food insurance companies and the government. Farmers and grocers alike are threatening to go out of business.


Imagine, moreover, that the government seeks to "reform" this system because it has discovered that a good many individuals in America are malnourished. Why? Because they are either not employed or because their employer does not offer food insurance. The only means by which these indigent and hungry individuals can nourish themselves is to eat at emergency soup kitchens which the government mandates the food producers and distributors provide.

Now imagine the solution the government proposes to this mess is to regulate the entire food production and food insurance industry by a huge new bureaucracy headed up by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.


Who in their right mind would recommend such a solution?


Isn't it obvious that the solution to our imagined food nightmare is the highly efficient, free market, capitalistic system of producing and distributing food which we enjoy today? A system wherein farmers produce food demanded by grocers? A system wherein the grocer distributes food most demanded by the food consumers?


 But what about the indigent and hungry? Today the federal government deals with these individuals by issuing them food stamps. The indigent, in turn, use these stamps to buy food on the same free and capitalistic market that serves the rest of us so efficiently.

In the case of the food industry today, the federal government has decreed that food is best produced and most efficiently distributed according to the dictates of economics instead of politics.


Why shouldn't the government issue today the same decree with regard to health care production and distribution? Our political system will decide whether or not it is the responsibility of some individuals to be taxed in order to provide for the health care and health insurance needs of a few, favored individuals, such as the indigent.


However, once our political system makes this decision, shouldn't we allow sound economics to dictate the most appropriate means of distributing health care and health insurance to these favored few?

Economics demonstrates irrefutably that the system of capitalism and free markets provides for the largest quantity of goods and services to be distributed in the most satisfactory way at the lowest possible price to the widest range of demanding consumers. It makes no economic sense at all to scrap such a system based on the needs of a favored few.

On the contrary, it makes perfect economic sense to allow these favored few to satisfy their needs by utilizing the same capitalistic, free market system the satisfies the rest of us.

Don't Believe The 4th Of July Bullshit!

Don't buy into today's patriotic crap. The 4th of July patriotic nonsense is designed to make you an unthinking tool of the right. The American Revolution is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public since the Holocaust. In point of fact: it didn't happen!

Think about it. The myth-makers want you to believe that a nation of British colonists, who happened to be more prosperous than their British overseers, rose up against the British King in open rebellion! Yeah, right.

Successful farmers, businessmen, laborers and lawyers threw away all they had worked for and joined together in this rebellion. This alone is reason enough to disprove the myth. The myth makers want us to believe that wealthy and content colonists shed their blood and livelihoods contesting the most powerful military force in the world for the single reason that a stupid and insignificant tax on stamps interfered with their effete concept of individual liberty!

I just watched a patriotic movie on TV called "The Howards of Virginia." The producers (and the pandering network that aired this saccharine, nationalistic film) want us to believe that 18th century farmers and plantation owners left their comfortable estates unattended to join Washington's pitiful band of ragtag miscreants.

According to the movie, these farmers were away from home shooting redcoats for several years, allowing their fields to go fallow and their slaves unattended. Supposedly, after the war, these gallant, rich farmers returned home and picked up the pieces where they left off, as if time had stood still.

Pure bullshit!

Any reasonable man knows that untended slaves would runaway, and unpaid property taxes would result in seizure of their farms by the local authorities for delinquent property taxes. Use your head! Such patriotic trash can make sense only if we abandon our reason and common sense!

Are we to believe these patriotic farmer/soldiers -- with barely a frozen potato to share among them and only rags to bind their feet -- marched hundreds of miles to trap and defeat Cornwallis -- the most brilliant General in the world at the time?

Never happened! Couldn't happen! Never mind that most of the colonists were Tories loyal and sympathetic to the King. Most early Americans loved their King! The revolutionaries were merely a handful of misguided terrorists.

The tall tales of Washington at Valley Forge purport to be true American history. Read the myth and laugh folks. The conditions described would stop a modern army of professional soldiers in their tracks, much less a band of gentlemen farmers:

Many wounded soldiers from previous battles died from exposure. Long marches had destroyed shoes. Blankets were scarce. Tattered garments were seldom replaced. At one point these shortages caused nearly 4,000 men to be listed as unfit for duty. Undernourished and poorly clothed, living in crowded, damp quarters, the army was ravaged by sickness and disease. Typhoid, jaundice, dysentery, and pneumonia were among the many diseases that killed 2,500 men that winter.

Even the myth of Valley Forge belies itself, for it says that these pathetic warrior citizens tried to desert and Washington had them shot for it!

But the most ridiculous aspect of the myth is that these pathetic souls endured it all for a fucking abstract idea.

Liberty? Freedom?

Please!

Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO union has exposed this absurdity for what it is, pure extremist right wing propaganda:

Let's call this right-wing "freedom" catch phrase what it really is: a grossly political strategy to dupe the public, which holds the word "freedom" as something sacred.

Our Department of Homeland Security is spreading the real truth as well:

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Two hundred years ago people may not have had computers, but they weren't stupid. Take a look at this picture and tell me you would suffer the indignities shown in defense of a single, nebulous "sacred" idea. The absurdity of it all sickens me!