The Leviathan Express

We are hurtling headlong into the statist abyss forewarned by our founding fathers. As Thomas Jefferson recognized that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

In this regard, the government can be likened to a speeding train possessing a kind of inertia. Its tendency is not to rest on a foundation of perpetual liberty, but to accelerate with increasing hubris into every aspect of human life.

It takes a great deal of effort for the train of government to be set into motion. Its engine of coercion animates the machinery of state: it drives the escalating taxation, the dependency of welfare state programs, the propaganda organs of public schools and colleges, the adventurism of endless wars.

As such, Barack Obama is not the engineer of our impending national demise, but the latest conductor on a long train of abuses. You see, if Obama left office tomorrow, not much would change in a government that has been systematically lying to us in earnest since the Wilson administration.

The lubrication of the state is the big lie. Debt itself is a kind of lie that people tell themselves that their way of life is somehow sustainable. The welfare state is the lie that nearly half the American public are incapable of providing for themselves. (This in an economy that see five percent unemployment in "normal" periods of free market capitalism. Try to design a system of human affairs that runs at ninety-five percent efficiency, better than the ordered liberty of true capitalism.) Public education is built on lies that exalt the state, and diminish liberty. Wars justified by self-defense become wars of expediency, and ends in themselves.

America has been on a crash course with reality ever since the Fed engineers started shoveling dollars into the Leviathan Express. That was long before we puffed pass the Potemkin villages of the progressive imagination. Behind the shoddy facades of the New Deal and the Great Society, we saw the human wreckage of welfare dependents with nowhere to go but sideways. Yet the smiling visage of the heroic FDR with throngs of supplicating citizens at his feet made such a pleasant backdrop in our periphery as we thumbed over our pages of Look magazine. The ups and downs, the starts and stops, no one dared question that we were all being taken for a ride.

The train accelerated and national exhilaration pumped our hearts with fresh blood. We felt alive again. We had a sense of mission as a people and all was full steam ahead. But as winter set in, an unfamiliar chill froze our breath in mid-air. The attendant stopped in from time to time to make sure that we were comfortable, to offer us some chamomile, and to engage in some idle conversation.

Then came the entertainers. A television was installed in every car to occupy our minds. The car attendants served fresh bread and jam. America was getting fat and happy.

Then the train psychologists and social workers stopped by to make sure all was well. In between the awkward laughs and specious socializing, inquisitive passengers faintly noticed through the window that the picturesque vistas of our nation's youth were fading. Some detected in the scenery haphazard signs that something was awry. Not enough to mention in polite conversation, but there it was.

It wasn't until the train approached the ghost town of Carterville when people sat up and began to pay attention. Keynesian bandits conducted a daring raid on the train, hitting up the passengers and carrying off heaping bags of gold. Beneath the clumsy disguises, one could see the impudent mustaches so characteristic of Europeans. As they rode off into the sunset, the Feds shot and shot until they ran out of bullets. In the luxury car where the whiskey-breathed elites consorted, a butler later discovered a pistol laying on a poker table. It was filled with blanks.

In the aftermath of the robbery, there was a time when all appeared right with the world. We had a president who spoke platitudes so familiar to the American people, and who even reflected some of their values, for the first time in a long time. It was a fleeting period that soon passed.

We are now on a speeding train and the increasingly disturbing scenery is flying by our windows so fast that we don't even have time to take it all in. The attendant now comes with a gun instead of chocolates, and empties our wallets and purses. The toothy grin once so charming has now worn thin.

We are also alarmed to find the train is not going in a direction of our choosing. Perhaps it was an illusion that we were in control all along. The Liberty line was switched some time ago, and we now see the signs of Tyranny and Terror adorning a wasteland of broken promises and shattered lives. Up ahead, we see a tunnel, a black void threatening to swallow us whole. If there is any way off of this train, we better jump now. There are no promises that it's not going to hurt.

Ron Paul Gives Statists An Earful

Ron Paul on Individual Rights and the TSA

John Taylor Gatto - On State-Run Education

John Taylor Gatto - State Controlled Consciousness


John Taylor Gatto - On Education


Classrooms of the Heart - John Gatto (1991)

Non-Profits and Communist Front Groups

The Forgotten Enemies

There is perhaps no greater evidence of the anti-American nature of the purported "mainstream media" than its deafening silence regarding the true nature of our enemies abroad. This Veterans' Day saw our brave men and women in uniform fighting overseas to vanquish some of the most atrocious and despicable foes imaginable, and yet our news channels neglect to inform Americans of just how evil our enemies are.

Our wars are invisible wars, waged against faceless enemies, overseas in distant lands. The daily body counts force-fed to the American public to undercut morale for "Bush's war," all but disappeared under the leftist media's appointed leader Barack Hussein Obama. These "body counts" did not do justice to the heroism of our military, but merely served a sick purpose in the left's worldview. But their spin cannot take away that these are men and women fighting in inhuman conditions against subhuman foes.

Prior to the wars, we heard the cries of injustice from the left and its tacit support for the status quo nightmare regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we hear it about Iran. The left does not want us to know what horrific atrocities are committed overseas because evil abroad is not the focus of the left's interests. The left is so sick, as a matter of fact, that many deny that evil even exists. Except in America's case, that is.

To the left, the United States is thought to be the perpetrator of all the world's problems, and as such the face of true evil abroad cannot be revealed. While such groups as the UN and Amnesty International may decry genocide and human rights violations in lands where "brown people" live, the second the United States or Israel move to act or to defend themselves against them, they are the ones who are condemned, even lambasted. That America builds up every nation it defeats in war, and that Israel bends over backwards to supplicate its enemies, only to be proven fools time and time again, provides no merits to these "capitalist" nations from the left's point of view.

The genius of the left's warped Marxist worldview holds that if America is rich, then it is at the expense of the world's poor. Since people are poor, they commit evil. If we give them all our wealth until we are equally poor, then all would be healed and right with the world.

The left's insipid and simplistic narrative glosses over that these are ancient civilizations we are at war with who are struggling mightily not to give way to modernity, which we might summarize succinctly as "freedom." These nations' existence preceded the founding of the United States and they had been notoriously barbaric for centuries prior. The romanticism of the "noble savages" of exotic far-off lands does not hold up to the historical record, despite the left's disingenuous and destructive insistence on cultural relativism.

America, the engine of the world's wealth, home for refugees who fled tyranny, liberator of nations, defender of the hopeless and oppressed, has been vilified by the leftists to the point that millions believe them. Our military is helping people abroad and it is time the left acknowledges it. The wars overseas are providing more good and hope to the world than any government-welfare program the left can dream up, which is paid for in other people's sweat and blood, of course.

The United States military is defending us from a barbaric scourge and meanwhile protecting millions overseas from some of the most brutal groups in world history. The reason we are free as a nation is not simply because we are protected by our military, any military, but because of we have a volunteer military of freemen who fight for liberty and human dignity. Whether it comes to fighting against enemies abroad or at home, we are proud to know that we have a force unlike the world has ever seen, who will fight to uphold our Constitution, defend our liberty, and preserve our way of life.

The 9/11 attacks



Tyrant Saddam's Reign in Terror



The Taliban: The Truth About The War In Afghanistan

Hitler Finds Out The GOP has retaken the House

Hat tip: The Dougout

The Soviet Story

The Soviet Story reveals the untold story of the collaboration between the Nazis and the Soviets prior to and during the early stages of World War II. It must be pretty powerful because the crypto-communists at the New York Times felt compelled to unleash a juvenile hit piece against it on their website.

Hat tip: Barking Moonbat

One of the PIIGS About to Be Slaughtered

Ireland's crisis flares as investors dump bonds

By Shawn Pogatchnik

DUBLIN (AP) - Ireland's financial troubles loomed large Wednesday as investors - betting that the country soon could join Greece in seeking an EU bailout - drove the interest rate on the country's 10-year borrowing to a new high.

The yield on 10-year bonds rose above 8 percent for the first time since the launch of the euro, the European Union's common currency, 11 years ago.

The cost of funding Irish debt has risen steadily since September, when the government admitted its bailout efforts of five banks would cost at least euro45 billion, equivalent to euro10,000 for every man, woman and child in Ireland. That gargantuan bill, in turn, has made the projected 2010 deficit rise to 32 percent of GDP, the highest in post-war Europe. [Continued]

Why Today's Democrat is a C-Word

There is a lot of snorting, chuckling, and guffawing on the left about hare-brained conservative types getting all bent out of shape about the "socialist" Democrats (cue laugh track). Never mind that many Democrats are springing out of the woodwork like the economic termites they are and announcing that they are "socialist and proud of it."

One such episode came from the election-night coverage of MSNBC, an obscure network whose "analysis" resembled in some ways that of the CPUSA's (guess who they favored?). During a testy exchange between Lawrence O'Donnell and an interchangeable Democrat Party hack about who could out-left whom, Larry boasted:

"Unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I have to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals. However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20% of the electorate, conservatives are 41% of the electorate [correction: 48%] . Okay? So I don't pretend that my views, which would ban all guns in America, make Medicare available to all in America, have any chance of happening in the federal government. You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts."

There are a few points here to consider about Mr. O'Donnell's coming out party. Though you cannot argue by anecdote about this one particular host, it is striking how he had to tell us he is a socialist, or else we wouldn't have known it. He acts and talks like a "liberal," "progressive," or "socialist." Next, he wears the word "socialist" like a badge of honor, one-upping his lefty co-conspirator. In addition, O'Donnell knows that the socialist must use subterfuge, and indeed, he effectively counsels leftist candidates not to run on a hard left platform. The most chilling part came when he blurted out that he would ban all guns in America, implying that the state be the only institution allowed to possess them! And "Medicare for all," well we know that is effectively giving the state life and death control over all citizens, while weighing the value of their lives in terms of benefit to the collective.

So while some people may squirm calling today's leftist the "C-word," I have no problem doing it. We conservatives play footsie with the political lexicon so much we act like "communism" is a dirty word. Is communism "dead," just because the USSR "collapsed" in 1989? No, it just went underground, picking up new disguises, such as radical environmentalism.

So I am going to put myself out there and just say it: Today's Democrat is functionally a communist. He may not know he is a communist. He may not subscribe to Marx or Engels. But his ideas derive in many aspects from communist thinking. Feel free to yell "McCarthyite!" at any time now.

To substantiate this claim, I need to show how political lexicon changes, and the relationship of "communist" to other descriptions of leftism, such as "liberal" and "socialist." We will basically just chalk up progressivism as slow-motion or Fabian socialism.

Let's start with conservatism, to illustrate how political terms have changed over time and to provide a backdrop to who today's "leftist" is. Now "conservatism" in the European context is much different than "conservatism" in the American context. In regards to European conservatism, meaning the Ancien Regime, then the Founders of this country are to be considered liberal radicals. To us, they are classical liberals.

Today, American conservatives tend to be classical liberals at their core, but they are still called "conservatives." Over time, the term "conservatism" in the American context acquired baggage. That is because overturning a decaying monarchical system and establishing a functional regime of government are two entirely different prerogatives. Sustaining government in a competitive world of clashing states is a further prerogative, implying the need to build national defense, preserve a culture conducive to freedom and resistant to subversion, and wisely and prudently weigh the benefits of isolationism versus entanglement.

In the Burkean mode, conservatism means incremental change, so as to minimize social and political disruption. But does conservatism mean preserving cultural and political institutions for their own sake, or those conducive to freedom, while jettisoning those opposed to freedom? This is no idle debate, but much turns on its answer in the opposition of libertarian and conservative philosophy. But are both conservative? A so-called "modern liberal" would say so.

Today's "modern liberal" opposes the country's Burkean conservatism, and our history of liberty. From the point of view of the Founders, the modern liberal is a reactionary, seeking to install a counter-revolution to reimpose statism over the citizenry. The means of performing this counter-revolution are democracy and communist ideology, both ancient in their impulses, and both condemned by Aristotle in 'Politics.'

The Marxian mode of communism gave doctrinal form to the primitive impulse to redistribute materials "evenly." It specifically distorts the meaning of 'equality' in the Enlightenment context to mean equality of outcomes rather than that of opportunity.

While it can be argued that such perverters of classical liberalism should be called (modern) "liberals," I find little "liberating" about their oppressive, state-heavy ideology. In terms of their animating ideal, the form given to their counter-reactionary drive to reimpose state domination over the people, it is very communistic.

The Democrats make a living on such communistic notions as: redistribution of wealth; class warfare; ethnic, racial, and sexual "liberation"; anti-capitalism writ large; state regulation of business and commerce; progressive taxation; intentional debasement of the currency; disdain for the rule of law; coordinated propaganda in education and media; ruthless demonization and scapegoating of "class enemies," such as corporations, the "reactionary" middle class, and conservatives in general. This is addition to sharing hallmarks incidental to most socialist regimes, such as fostering a cult of personality around a demagogue, nationalizing wide swathes of the private sector, and installing massive and unsustainable welfare programs.

The difference between socialism and communism is not in kind, but lay on a spectrum; and since it is in the nature of government to acquire more power when and where it can, the breakdown of economy and society under the socialist system tends towards dissipation of social and political opposition, strengthening the conditions for communist tyranny.

Socialist policies, which in the present context are commensurate with communist policies (with the left's strengthening of the police state, we can come down firmly on the communist side of the spectrum), are mainstream Democrat Party politics, which is perhaps why many are catching on and fleeing the party. But calling today's Democrats "liberals" is what requires a stretch of the imagination, not "communists." Just because the leftists haven't installed a communist regime, doesn't mean that that isn't their ultimate aim.

A Rebirth Of The American Revolution?

This is an article well worth reading to gain some context on where we are as a nation and where we are heading. It's theme is similar to one I have discussed elsewhere: Today's conservatives come from a heritage of radicals for liberty, and today's leftists are actually reactionary neo-statists.

The key passage from Forbes:

The declaration that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," turned the known political world of monarchy, hierarchy and privilege in which subjects existed to serve the state upside down. As Gordon S. Wood makes clear in his book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, the American Revolution "… destroyed aristocracy as it had been understood in the Western world for at least two millennia. Moreover, it brought respect to the dignity of the individual, and honored their work, no matter how menial."

In this context, the modern liberal and the progressive movements can be considered a counter-revolutionary force. The leaders of these movements have pursued the use of government power to protect individuals from poor decisions and to intermediate between them and businesses. In the process, they have necessarily empowered government bureaucrats to intrude in ever more ways into the day-to-day lives of the average American. [...]

The result has been to recreate the hierarchal order of old, but one in which the role of the ancient aristocrat is assumed by the modern intellectual. Driven by the power motive, these individuals seek elected or bureaucratic office or influence through their advisory roles. The ever expanding number of regulations and agencies reflects their position that individuals cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs or cope with the social challenges through voluntary organizations. The inevitable consequence is that individual liberties have to be subordinated to the collective good, as determined by whoever happens to be in power."

[More]

The Drop in the Sea Up by 400%

http://karmodi.com/ostap/?p=5404 \

According this article, the number of libertarian Republicans in Congress has risen by a whopping 400% - from one (Ron Paul) to five (senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul and representatives Ron Paul, Mick Mulveny and Justin Amash). 

What Happens When Broke Economies Owe Money to Other Broke Economies? Hilarity Ensues.

The Broken Window Fallacy

The Other American Communist Party Gives Their Take on the Midterm Elections

Why the Left Will Never Learn

When one surveys the American terrain, from sea to shining sea, across the fruited plain, one is struck by the contrast, not only in terms of geography, but in politics. We see the relative abundance of the red states, men and women rising each dawn to set forth on productive, family-centered lives (to the extent that they are allowed to by the government). We see the human wreckage of Democrat-controlled cities, the rampant drugs and violence, the poverty, the crushing debt. We see the unsustainable burden that blue states like California and New York place on their taxpaying citizens, a model of irresponsible policy that the Obama-led federal government has heartily adopted.

For most of us rooted in workaday life, such a view of the contemporary United State is the political and economic reality. This is because we adhere to the truth. We stand in the present. We are grounded in the experiences of the past. We acknowledge failure. We know what succeeds.

But what of our political opposition? What of Barack Obama, who stubbornly believes that his policies are working, and that we just aren't smart enough to understand them? Or his followers, who are in flat-out denial not only that Democrat policies are not succeeding, but that they literally cannot succeed? Not only world history, but indeed, the American experience confirms that the Democrat's socialistic policies fail everytime they are tried, everywhere they are tried.

Why are liberals unable to learn from that experience? Why do they refuse to acknowledge reality?

To liberals, all illustrations of the failure of their policies are attributed to their unfailing scapegoats: Capitalism, corporations, and conservatives. Whether or not any causal mechanism can be identified, these are the hidden, invisible, ubiquitous forces that rule everything. Capitalism is monolithic in its expanse, synonymous in some cases with economic reality itself, and conditions our very consciousness. Capitalism is the reliable attribution for all evil in the world, which is embodied in their conservative opponents. This worldview is not nuanced, despite all their pretended learning, it is manichaenistic.

The conservative man for them is the man of the past, clinging to an outdated view of the world, one filled with human misery. Thus the mere existence of conservatives is a defiance to their cultural marxist designs, and one that fills them with hatred and revulsion. They believe that if everyone shared their opinions, then their vision will come true in reality. Therefore, all problems in the world simply means that liberals haven't social-engineered their "new man" yet. This mission to remake human beings in their preferred image (not their own image) is part and parcel of their secular drive to solve all problems and to create a heaven on earth. But what kind of condescension for your fellow man and arrogance do you have to have to set out on such a project? And what facts, reason, evidence will persuade you of the lunacy of such an endeavor? None.

For the leftist, his existential angst leads him to survey the world and see it all as an abysmal mess. He sees all around him war, racism, sexism, inequality, poverty and misery, even in cases where they don't exist, and concludes that it all needs to be "changed." It is all a grand experiment for social scientists to tinker with until they get it right, human suffering be damned.

Since it is the leftist's self-appointed task to right each and every wrong, his program demands complete, totalitarian control over politics, economy, society, the private lives of individuals, and even man's inner thoughts. Being a pragmatist in intellectual disposition, he is unable and unwilling to take his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Each case of continuing government encroachment on the individual's freedom of choice is thus not perceived as threatening by the leftist. He simply sees it as part and parcel of elites creating a better and more just world. He does not see the danger of accumulating such power over people, for two reasons: 1) He believes that this is and the country should be a "democracy," meaning it is composed of "the people" (whose minds the elites should fashion and control) and 2) that the elites are necessarily well-intentioned.

Not respecting history, he does not see how even the best of intentions lead to disastrous results. The leftist does not get that accumulating immense power in a central government, even to do "good," sets the preconditions for deceptive, power-hungry demagogues to rise to power and to utilize it to establish and sustain a power base for the sake of entrenching the elites in perpetual power.

Not understanding human nature, and believing it to be readily manipulable, he thinks the next socialist experiment can be different. He may understand that people tend to be fundamentally self-interested, but he loathes this aspect of the human condition. Thus he rejects it and purges it from his ideal political system.

Though most reasonable men can see the innovation of the U.S. Constitution, and how checks and balances and divided powers promote the common good of the Republic by pitting "ambition against ambition," the leftist does not see the innovation of such an unprecedented charter of limited and prudential governance. Modern liberals do not see the hope that is provided to the world by America adopting a creed and enshrining a guiding document that empowers people to rule their own lives.

Furthermore, the leftist does not see how capitalism has led much of the world out of poverty and misery, and just as importantly, out of necessary servitude to the political class. He concludes from his peremptory view of "modern" history, that capitalism is actually the root cause of the world's problems. The prime mover for all tragic events is uncritically chalked up to "greed." "Greed" and benign self-interest are indistinguishable to him; coercion and willing trade are the same; the necessity of having to work for a living and a de facto state of slavery are one and the same. All must be leveled, including one's faculty of discriminating between right and wrong, good and evil, and just and unjust, as Evan Sayet has pointed out.

Therefore, for the leftist, the worse things get, the better things are getting. Collapsing the (capitalist) economy is good. Demoralizing human beings (so that you can reprogram them) is good. Creating political chaos is good, because that lays the foundations for seizing control of the government.

It is not that liberals really know what it is good, it is that they know what they hate. This is the essence of the left's guiding idea of "critical theory."

It is not that equality will actually lead to what liberals say it will, it is just that it will level the whole world as we know it before an upper crust of philosopher-kings (as they view the world's future rulers to be, quite naively).

Liberals aren't really interested in reality, but in manipulating people's subjective interpretation of it. That is why you will never force them to admit failure, why they are forced to parrot each other's positions, why they must intellectually and socially conform, why they must display a false air of mental superiority; it is a false front, and underneath the facade, they have no idea what they are doing, but simply are creating crises for the sake of creating crises until the "geniuses" of the left can configure things as they see fit.

That the world is infinitely more complex than their imaginations, that reality is resistant to their utopian visions, and that human beings have agency is beyond the grasp of such narcissists. And Barack Obama is surely a narcissist. There is only one way to deal with such untethered elitists: to identify them not as hopeless, benevolent dreamers, but as power-worshiping, unrealistic malcontents who need to be expelled from power.

MSNBC Commentator Chides Colleague Because He is Not As "Socialist"!

Breaking Down the Democrat Breakdown

Many months ago, I compiled a list of vulnerable Democrats that people should target by giving time and money to their opponents. I called this plan "Adopt-a-Democrat." These were the top 101 Democrat incumbents likely to lose, but their opponents needed a little bit of help.

The idea was to: circumvent the gatekeepers at the RNC; to avoid wasting money on lost races against likely winners; to refrain from overly supporting very popular likely Republican winners; and to put the combined resources of conservatives and tea party activists into districts that will likely shape up to be extremely close and within reach of possible Democrat voter fraud.

My method was to use the Cook Report's district rating along with a conservative estimate of a Republican Generic Ballot margin of +5 (it actually shaped up to be more like 9.4%, well outside of reach of potential Democrat fraud in most cases) to determine those who made the list. Using a similar methodology, I came up with a likely Republican pick-up of 62 seats. Let us see how my strategy would have shaken out if adopted (from more likely win for Republican to least likely win):

MS4 - Palazzo (R) defeats Taylor (D)
TX17 - Flores (R) defeats Edwards (D)
ID1 - Labrador (R) defeats Minnick (D)
AL2 - Roby (R) defeats Bright (D)
UT2 - Matheson (D) defeats Philpot (R)
MS1 - Nunnelee (R) defeats Childers (D)
MO4 - Hartzler (R) defeats Skelton (D)
OK2 - Boren (D) defeats Thompson (R)
AZ1 - Gosar (R) defeats Kirkpatrick (D)
MD1 - Harris (R) defeats Kratovil (D)
TN4 - DesJarlais (R) defeats Davis (D)
VA9 - Griffith (R) defeats Boucher (D)
GA8 - Scott (R) defeats Marshall (D)
KY6 - Chandler (D) defeats Barr (R) (squeaker)
SD1 - Noem (R) defeats Sandlin (D)
WV1 - McKinley (R) defeats Oliverio (D)
PA10 - Marino (R) defeats Carney (D)
AR - Ross (D) defeats Rankin (R)
OH18 - Gibbs (R) defeats Space (D)
SC5 - Mulvaney (R) defeats Spratt (D)
CO4 - Gardner (R) defeats Markey (D)
FL2 - Southerland (R) defeats Boyd (D)
IN9 - Young (R) defeats Hill (D)
NM2 - Pearce (R) defeats Teague (D)
NC11 - Shuler (D) defeats Miller (R)
PA4 - Altmire (D) defeats Rothfus (R)
PA17 - Holden (D) defeats Argall (R)
WV3 - Rahall (D) defeats Maynard (R)
AZ5 - Schwiekert (R) defeats Mitchell (D)
CO3 - Tipton (R) defeats Salazar (D)
MN7 - Peterson (D) defeats Byberg (R)
NC7 - McIntyre (D) defeats Pantano (R)
VA2 - Rigell (R) defeats Nye (D)
VA5 - Hurt (R) defeats Perriello (D)
AZ8 - Giffords (D) ahead of Kelly (R) (undecided)
FL24 - Adams (R) defeats Kosmas (D)
NY13 - Grimm (R) defeats McMahon (D)
OH16 - Renacci (R) defeats Boccieri (D)
TX23 - Canseco (R) defeats Rodriguez (D)
MI1 - Benishek (R) defeats McDowell (D)
NY19 - Hayworth (R) defeats Hall (D)!
PA3 - Kelly (R) defeats Dahlkemper (D)
FL8 - Billrakis (R) defeats Grayson (D)
IN2 - Donnelly (D) defeats Walorski (R)
MI7 - Walberg (R) defeats Schauer (D)
NY24 - Hanna (R) defeats Arcuri (D)
NC2 - Ellmers (R) defeats Etheridge (D)
NC8 - Kissell (D) defeats Johnson (R)
OH6 - Johnson (R) defeats Wilson (D)
TX27 - Farenthold (R) ahead of Ortiz (D)
WI8 - Ribble (R) defeats Kagen (D)
CA11 - McNerney (D) ahead of Harmer (R)(undecided)
FL22 - West (R) defeats Klein (D)
IL8 - Walsh (R) ahead of Bean (D) (undecided)
IL11 - Kinzinger (R) defeats Halvorson (D)
IL14 - Hullgren (R) defeats Foster (D)
MN1 - Walz (D) defeats Demmer (R)
NJ3 - Runyan (R) defeats Adler (D)
NY23 - Owens (D) defeats Doheny (R)
NH1 - Guinta (R) defeats Shea Porter (D)
NY1 - Bishop (D) defeats Altschuler (R) (pathetic)
TX28 - Cuellar (D) defeats Underwood (R)
GA2 - Bishop (D) defeats Keown (R)
GA12 - Barrow (D) defeats McKinney (R)
IA3 - Boswell (D) defeats Zaun (R)
OH1 - Chabot (R) defeats Driehaus (D)
OH15 - Stivers (R) defeats Kilroy (D)
OR5 - Schrader (D) defeats Bruun (R)
CT5 - Murphy (D) defeats Caligiuri (R)
KY3 - Yarmuth (D) defeats Lally (R)
MI9 - Peters (D) defeats Raczkowski (R)
NV3 - Heck (R) defeats Titus (D)
OR4 - DeFazio (D) defeats Robinson (R)
PA8 - Fitzpatrick (R) defeats Murphy (D)
VA11 - Connolly (D) ahead of Fimian (R) (undecided)
IL12 - Costello (D) defeats Newman (R)
IL17 - Schilling (R) defeats Hare (D)
ME2 - Michaud (D) defeats Levesque (R)
MN8 - Cravaack (R) defeats Oberstar (R)
NY25 - Buerkle (R) ahead of Maffei (D) (undecided)
TN5 - Cooper (D) defeats Hall (R)
TX15 - Hinojosa (D) defeats Zamora (R)
WA2 - Larsen (D) defeats Koster (R) (squeaker)
WI7 - Duffy (R) defeats Lassa (D)
CA18 - Cardoza (D) defeats Berryhill (R)
CO7 - Perlmutter (D) defeats Frazier (R)
NY2 - Israel (D) defeats Gomez (R)
NY27 - Higgins (D) defeats Roberto (R)
PA11 - Barletta (R) defeats Kanjorski (D)
WI3 - Kind (D) defeats Kapanke (R)
CA20 - Vidak (R) ahead of Costa (D)
CT4 - Himes (D) defeats Debicella (R) (squeaker)
IA1 - Braley (D) defeats Lange (R)
MA10 - Keating (D) defeats Perry (R)
NJ12 - Holt (D) defeats Sipprelle (R)
NM1 - Heinrich (D) defeats Barela (R)
NY9 - Weiner (D) defeats Turner (R)
NC13 - Miller (D) defeats Randall (R)
OH13 - Sutton (D) defeats Ganley (R)
WA6 - Dicks (D) defeats Cloud (R)
WA9 - Smith (D) defeats Muri (R)

Incredibly only 44 Democrats won of the 101 incumbents selected in this list (and there are 3 races with Democrats leading yet to be decided). This list covers 44 of the 49 total seats of Democrat incumbents defeated in 2010 (after factoring in Democrats who dropped out or who did not run for re-election).

For a frame of reference, prior to 2010, the incumbent re-election rate in the House trended 94% and above since 1996. This year the total incumbent re-election rate was 86.9%. Lest we believe that the main driver of this election result was "anti-incumbent" sentiment, 49 of the 51 incumbents defeated were Democrats.

Of the above-selected races, five are yet to be decided, and two are absolute "squeakers," meaning within a few tenths of a percent. Let's breakdown these races very briefly in terms of funding:

CT4: Himes (D) - $3,325,527; Debicella (R) $1,666,749
WA2 - Larsen (D) - $1,757,186; Koster (R) $906,627
NY25 - Maffei (D) $2,741,888; Buerkle (R) $551,804
VA11 - Connolly (D) $2,215,272; Fimian (R) $2,351,201
IL8 - Bean (D) $1,995,576; Walsh (R) $465,661
CA11 - McNerney (D) $2,562,444; Harmer (R) $2,524,417
AZ8 - Giffords (D) $3,151,929; Kelly (R) $1,288,074
KY6 - Chandler (D) $1,469,871; Barr (R) $1,366,479

The Democrats outdrew the Republicans in terms of campaign funding in 6 of 7 races, and 4 of those, significantly. Although it is impossible to say if more funding would have led to better results for the Republican in each race, certainly it would have bettered the Republican's prospects. It should also be noted that the Democrats funded their Senators' races very generously and it bore them much better results than those of the House.

A few last observations. Although there was a general red tsunami crashing throughout the nation, including in the state legislatures', secretary of state, and governors' races, a few deep blue states had erected levees, repulsing the general trend. These states were Connecticut, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, and for the Senate and Governor races, California. There were a few spillover effects, such as in several California House races, and in NY19 (whose campaign I worked on), NY 20, and NY24. But overall, this was the best day for Republicans since 1938. The results were driven by a repudiation of not just incumbents, and not just the economy, but of the policies of incumbent Democrats.

Senatus Populusque Libertarianus

America's first libertarian senator has been elected, though the word "libertarian" is prone to ambiguous interpretations. Ironically, his name is a mix of Ron Paul (his father) and Ayn Rand (in this case it's just a coincidence). 

How Perfect is This?

As a metaphor for citizen-government relations, it is difficult to find a more perfect summation of contrasting ideals than the picture at right, which was re-posted by Drudge from Reuters.

Before the train of Our Pretended Lord and Master Barack Obama is a poor man begging for aid from his Royal Lie-ness.

Why is this image such a mirror of attitudes for the conservative pro-Constitution Right and the elitist faux-compassionate Left?

Prior to America's Declaration of Independence, the colonial settlers were effectively prostrate before the King of Great Britain. The Declaration was a shot across the bow to the mighty British, that we Americans would stand for liberty, as men, on our own two feet.

But it has been the objective of statists and elitists since time immemorial to humble men before them to bask in the glory of the crown's tender mercies. When free market capitalism arrived and allowed men to free themselves from groveling before the king and the nobility for table scraps, the courtesans were not amused. They plotted to capture the engine of free market capitalism and put in the service of the oligarchs, all the while blaming capitalism for whatever havoc and disruption the state caused in the process.

Free market capitalism is not an economy for the lazy, the timid, or the irresponsible. It is an economic system by, of, and for freemen.

And it works. It creates wealth, as can be seen in two hundred years of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, despite all recessions and depressions. We came a long way from bended knee before kings, but the current administration, and the political class that carries out its decrees, would like to change all that.

Are we going to bow before King Obama, The Grand Dutchess Pelosi, and the The Prince Harry Reid like Obama does to Oriental Sultanates? Or are we going to stand up like men and tell our would-be rulers that WE DO NOT NEED YOU and WE DEMAND A FREE ECONOMY FOR FREE MEN!

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

-- Frederic Bastiat