Recently in Statism Category

To be or not to be... - Shakespeare. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. - Bill Clinton. Don't use any word that has ever made anyone feel bad at any time in human history. - John Robinson.


"Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expresses in exactly ONE word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."


So now the State Department has begun lecturing American citizens on speech code. Everyone who thought the State Department was tasked with foreign affairs raise your hand. Although I must say, this goes along neatly with the notion Americans are the real terrorists. Indeed, to the DC elite we are the new "American Indian" to be broken and if not broken, destroyed. Just watch.


At any rate, State's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson kindly offers a list of things we're not allowed to say:


-          Hold down the fort = Anti-Indian.

-          Going Dutch = "Negative stereotype portraying the Dutch as cheap."

-         Rule of thumb = "An antiquated law, whereby the width of a husband's thumb was the legal size of a switch or rod allowed to beat his wife."

-          Handicap = "Rooted in a correlation between a disabled individual and a beggar, who had to beg with a cap in his or her hand because of the inability to maintain employment."

-         Black and Tan = Nike produced this "sneaker without realizing the phrase once referred to a group 'that committed atrocities against Irish civilians.'"


Robinson concludes his magnificent diatribe of stupidity this way: "Choose your words thoughtfully. Now that you know the possible historical context of the above phrases, perhaps you will understand why someone could be offended by their use." Beyond just creepy - talk about a "chill wind blowing", the demand is actually fairly ironic if not impossible to follow. The demand was born in ignorance and will die in ignorance.


I wonder if Robinson would also include words like "communism", "socialism", "atheism", and "Islam", which in their "historical context" are associated with the greatest genocides and acts of cruelty the world has yet seen?


Or maybe "Democrat", a term Americans over the decades have seen associated with:

-          Slavery

-          Segregation

-          Socialism (see above)

-          Enemy-appeasement

-          The genocide of 50 million as the result of banning DDT

-          The genocides in Southeast Asia as a result of our withdrawal from Vietnam

-          The infanticide of millions of unborn babies

-          The open call to kill off the elderly and the weak so Obamacare can focus on the young and strong


But who needs to be partisan? Let's look at some everyday words including those that were not so common until media run by liberals like this guy began filling movies and TV shows with them. Others have been with us a lot longer and have some really crazy historical beginnings:


A shot in the arm

Based in drug culture with the bonus of causing anxiety attacks of those severely afraid of the needle.


A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

Inspires hunting, which in itself offends leftist sensibilities, but hunting also implies self-sufficiency, which is the greatest evil of all to a liberal and most certainly can cause upset.


An arm and a leg

Insensitive to amputees or those missing limbs since birth or otherwise disabled.


Bats in the belfry

Insensitive to crazy people, insensitive to bats; belfry is a reference to churches, which will offend the irreligious.


Chick flick

Clearly sexist.


Damn; also dayum!

To be sent to Hell


Gild the lily

A term of reckless extravagance that may offend Michelle Obama.


Gung ho

An Anglicization of a Chinese phrase "kung ho" (work together). It is evil because it is Anglicized without sensitive care to pronounce it authentically. It is also evil because it was coined during WWII and used in the context of killing Imperial Japanese combatants.



See "screwed"


In spades

A 20th Century phrase derived from modern playing cards that are connected to gambling, which in turn is connected to gambling addiction. Thus, to use the term "in spade" is to be insensitive to someone who might suffer from such an addiction.


Joined at the hip

Derived from the obvious reality faced by Siamese twins and therefore offensive to those of Chinese descent and twins of all sort.


Jury is still out

Derived in the 19th Century from American court proceedings. Given how evil and racist our criminal justice system is, using this reference will cause many people great emotional hardship.


Kick the bucket

Glorifies animal cruelty. In the 16th Century, a bucket was also a word for wooden beam, from which animals readied for slaughter would be hung by their feat. The term derives from their death throes.


Loose cannon

Offensive to crazy people and also uses imagery of violence and militarism, which is also sexist and racist due to the colonial period when cannons were most often used.



Nits are baby lice. To nitpick is to go through someone's hair to remove lice. This is biased against poor people.



Enlightened liberals believe this term is derived from a context having to do with lynchings in the 19th Century.  It is our hope that George Lucas removes this word from Han Solo's dialogue in the upcoming 4-D remix of Star Wars so that we can have a new hope with that change.


On the warpath

Heaven help us! Clearly anti-Indian.


Paint the town red

Implies disregard for all manner of proper conduct. It is rooted in a drunken 19th Century event in which Englishmen literally painted several buildings red, thus they literally carried out in deed that which is so very wrong with the words in this list. They were also English and men, some of the most oppressive, evil people the world has ever seen.


Real McCoy

Refers to Scottish whiskey and thus glorifies alcohol consumption.


Red letter day

The Catholic church marked religious holidays in red on their calendars, thus it is a sacred term and offensive to irreligious, other-religious, and non-religious people.



Essentially, this literally describes forcible sex, i.e. rape. As do the phrases "grab your ankles" "bend over", etc. Yet, their cultural meaning is not literal at all. Much the same way Shakespeare used "pregnant" figuratively in reference to an idea right in the middle of a time when the use of the word in the literal sense was taboo and the use of taboo words could be harshly sanctioned:


Of government the properties to unfold,

Would seem in me to affect speech and discourse;

Since I am put to know that your own science

Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice

My strength can give you: then no more remains,

But that to your sufficiency as your Worth is able,

And let them work. The nature of our people,

Our city's institutions, and the terms

For common justice, you're as pregnant in

As art and practise hath enriched any

That we remember. There is our commission,

From which we would not have you warp. Call hither,

I say, bid come before us Angelo.


That liberals like Robinson are ignorant of actual "historical context", etymology or literature, however, is strangely unsurprising.


Up a tree

Derived from possum hunting, this phrase glorifies hunting and the patriarchal colonial construct.


Upsidaisy; also Upsa daisy, Upsy-daisy, Oops-a-daisy, Oops, Oopsy-daisy, Hoops-a-daisy, Whoops

A term derived from the obsolete "upaday". Furthermore, "daisy" is derived from "day's eye" because the flower opens during the day. This term suggests that only those who are fully awake during the day are prepared to handle the rigors of life, which is clearly dayist (not to be confused with deist).

Wear the pants

Obviously sexist.


Wild and woolly

Offensive for many reasons. It was coined in the 19th Century to describe the Old West, so it glorifies that unfortunate time. There are also racial overtones. In 1850, the first example of the phrase took this form: "wild and woolly-haired Negillo". Negillo may have been a proper surname, but we know what the racists of that time really meant. As proof, the second example of the phrase's use was against Bill Clinton, dubbed by Al Sharpton and others in the 1990s as the "first black president." Even though the second-known use of the phrase occurred 117 years before the presidency of Mr. Clinton, it is clear from reading the passage of this Missouri newspaper just what was meant:


"W. A. Palmer, the South Bend, Indiana, murderer and paramour of Dolly Tripp, was for several years resident of Clinton. Bill always was one of the 'wild and woolly' kind and would associate with the demimonde." (P)resident Bill (of) Clinton!


That paper was The Sedalia Daily Democrat, however, so there are some conflicted feelings about whether or not to mute this last example while we also continue to mute the fact that the Democrat Party is so strongly associated with racism throughout America's history.


Indeed, beyond the political, what does "alcohol" mean to the child of an alcoholic, "sex" to victims of sex abuse, "car" to someone who lost a loved one in an auto accident, "money" to someone who lost it all in the markets? Many, if not most of our phrases have been used in a negative context at some point in history. If not all of them.


"'It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take 'good,' for instance. If you have a word like 'good,' what need is there for a word like 'bad'? 'Ungood' will do just as well - better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of 'good,' what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like 'excellent' and 'splendid' and all the rest of them? 'Plusgood' covers the meaning or 'doubleplusgood' if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought."



I suppose George Orwell might reflect also that in the animal farm of words, some words "are more equal than others."  



Martin is the assistant editor for Tea Party University, is currently a master's student in national security studies, and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He served as Texas Chair for Students with Newt Gingrich for President. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.




-          "Pregnant" via Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare

-          Paragraph quotes: 1984 by George Orwell

-          Word usage citations and some of the definitions by

-          "Some . . . are more equal than others.": Animal Farm by George Orwell

Enhanced by Zemanta
Reagan in the White House private quarters wit...

President Reagan with Judge Robert Bork at the White House, 1987

Tonight Barack Obama won. The left, as we all very much know, wish to see Barack Obama re-elected as America's tyrant-in-chief and in every Republican primary tonight Barack Obama walked away with another victory on the road to re-election in November. The left realized over half a century ago that in order to impose its will in a country where only a tiny minority of Americans self-identify as "liberal", the left must fight a war of misinformation, for which it needed to use the hammer and anvil of education and the media. 

The enemedia (enemy-media) accomplished this quite well in 1987 after misogynist liberal Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement. Powell sided with the majority in the infamous 1977 Coker v Georgia case in which the liberal Court nullified Georgia's death penalty for aggrivated rape. In Powell's concurring opinion he infamously stated: "Although rape invariably is a reprehensible crime, there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury." No "serious or lasting injury"? Naturally, there was no outrage from feminists on the left because Powell was a liberal. The more things change... 

So Reagan decided to replace Powell with not only a conservative Originalist, but also one of the truly greatest legal minds of our time: then-DC Circuit Judge Robert Bork. The media circus began with 'round-the-clock character assassination of Bork by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and the other usual suspects with the help of the far-left media. It worked, and it was a watershed. Not since Watergate had the media been so influential in changing the outcome of a contest for high office - in this case, a nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  

One of the primary roles of education for leftist academia has been to subdue critical thought, which clearly has been subdued increasingly over recent decades - and the role of entertainment media must also be noted in pushing the notion that one should always follow one's emotions rather than seek objective truth. And so our government of wolves has been salivating over our nation's transformation into a flock of sheep.

In the last two decades, the news media - though having had a left-wing bias for much longer - decided it was time to pull out all the stops in pushing its preferred policies and candidates. In 2004, it failed, thanks to a GOP unified behind an incumbent president. It was not enough that one or two bloggers could prove what is now known as Rathergate; those blogs needed also to be widely promoted and supported by a movement in order to not be simply ignored. When CBS tried to smear President Bush with a forged document claiming he was a draft-dodger, it backfired: the critical information reached the voter and rather than seeing Bush destroyed, Dan Rather's career came to an abrupt end.

In 2008, there was no incumbent Republican president in the race, which only poured gasoline on the establishment's unhinged jihad on conservatives within the party to purge them from every appointed and elected office. By the summer, the establishment had succeeded in imposing John McCain on the party, with much help from the far-left media, which had its own separate agenda, but nonetheless momentarily allied itself with the GOP establishment to ensure the weakest possible candidate - and also the most liberal and controllable, in the unlikely event he should win - would face Barack Obama in the fall. Conservative bloggers went to work again, uncovering a treasure trove of damning information about then-candidate Barack Obama, but this time the establishment-led McCain campaign kept its distance and gave such efforts no legitimacy - in effect, signing its own political death warrant. Enemedia spared no expense or salacious story trashing the McCain campaign while at the same time the McCain campaign repeatedly told conservatives they were not wanted. Certainly Senator McCain was happy to try to create a coalition by bringing a conservative onto the ticket, but this clearly roiled many of the hardline establishment who sought to solidify their control of the party since the late 1990s. Since 2008, there has been a steady stream of sad discoveries about McCain campaign staff working to sabotage Sarah Palin, apparently willing to prove another great truism once again, that the establishment would much rather see a Democrat win the White House than a conservative - apparently on any part of a ticket. 

Ultimately, however, even the establishment purists would prefer to see one of their Republicans in the White House to a Democrat, however that may be accomplished. The American Spectator in October of 2008 noted several former Romney 2008 staffers then working for McCain-Palin sought to sabotage McCain-Palin in order to allow Barack Obama to win in 2008 (and implement Obamacare - based on none other than Romneycare) so that Mitt Romney would have a shot in four rather than eight years without running against a sitting president of the same party:

Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th." 

In 2012 it has been much the same - in fact, as we know, with many of the same tired players. Presently, the far-left media are using Rick Santorum to push Reagan Conservative Newt Gingrich out. Santorum's qualifications for such an honor are that he is most likely to be defeated by Mitt Romney, but in the unlikely event he isn't and in the even more unlikely event Obama were to self-destruct, still promises to be controllable (he is a "team player", after all) as a Senator with a record as a big-spending, big-government, China-friendly, manage-the-decline shallow slogan-chanter. Indeed, one of the few differences between Santorum and Romney lies only in the theme of the shallow slogans they mindlessly chant. Bothwere pro-abortion self-described anti-Reagan progressives until it was politically unhelpful to be such, and both have an equally disastrous record in government.

If the media succeed in weaponizing Santorum against the only Reagan Conservative with a proven record of success - Newt Gingrich, they will then destroy Santorum so that Romney will win the nomination, after which they will destroy Romney. It's such an old playbook that really, enemedia can do it with their eyes shut. If Americans do not seek to educate themselves, then they will be spoon fed a deadly toxin like infants by the agenda-laden far-left dinosaur media and will act foolishly based on the misinformation they've received and not only will Newt Gingrich - another great Reagan Conservative leader with one of the greatest minds of our time be "Borked", so too will our nation. "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding," but "a fool despises wisdom and instruction". (Prov 3:13, 1:7) An apathetic people and representative government cannot exist concurrenty for long.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

American Statism: Aping Putin?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Newt Gingrich is in good company: Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Boris Nemtsov know what it means to be the dissident candidate and to face the darts of running against the establishment and its media. Stand strong, Newt. You are fighting for your grandchildren's future and for ours.

This is something I predicted would happen in 2009, that American statism without intervention would increasingly mimic the electoral authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.

As a boy I worked on Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign and read and watched everything that had to do with him. As I grew older, my love for the Gipper only grew as well. That's why I'm with Newt. I also know where Mitt Romney and his ilk come from: they were the ones who not only opposed Reagan but hated him - and hated the American people for wanting to be in control of their government.

In 2006 the establishment hit the first major wall of resistance since the era of Newt Gingrich as House Speaker. The American people were resolute to stop the amnesty legislation the Senate was seeking to pass that would allow millions of illegal aliens to cut in front of legal immigrants and American citizens and become a new voting bloc to ensure the votes of millions of Conservative Americans would be rendered inconsequential. In the height of the battle, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter pounded his fist on the lectern on the floor of the Senate and exclaimed, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" But the American people had a different idea, an idea that was firmly based in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." And so the establishment lost and not long thereafter, Senator Specter was primaried out of office and replaced by a more conservative Republican.

The battle won, the war waged on. Increasingly, the establishment media became more brazen with each passing year. They were caught and frustrated in 2004, when Dan Rather's forged documents revealed an attempt by CBS to alter the outcome of that year's presidential election. In 2006, MSM struck back, both with its nakedly biased coverage of mass protests by illegal aliens and events leading up to the fall midterm elections. By 2008, the establishment's media was back with a vengeance. It began by anointing weak liberal Republican Senator John McCain for the nomination, then dutifully torpedoing him the moment the nomination was clenched in favor of Barack Obama. The coverage was so slanted, it became the focus of several feature documentaries and countless other serious points of examination. The sad part about American establishment media is that unlike Russian media, which is compelled at the barrel of a gun, the US press subjugates itself freely.

With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of Congress and after Barack Obama's election in 2008, the establishment set to subdue the American people as they did the Native Americans so many generations ago, and to punish us for asserting our fundamental human rights as expressed in the Constitution. One of the means by which they sought to do so was by enacting Obamacare, which gave the state complete control over whether each of us would live or die without a trial or even the accusation of having committed a crime. Socialized medicine, they knew, was like a death penalty for the innocent, and it was touted by supporters like Robert Reich as a way to kill off the feeble and elderly.

What resulted, however, was probably not anticipated: a backlash that spawned the Tea Party, which became a movement so vast that one of its protests on the Washington Mall exceeded in size the total present for Barack Obama's inauguration, which itself had set the record for crowd size on the mall.

By November 2010, the movement had gained maturity, leading to the largest sweep of House seats in US history, as well as those in state houses. The establishment scrambled and quickly appointed stalwarts like Speaker John Boehner to manage the damage.

In 2012, the establishment is determined to use whatever means necessary to destroy any candidate who is a serious reformer, as we see with incomparable bias in MSM as well as Fox News and Drudge. And in the noise of the chaos of seeking to destroy Newt Gingrich, another negative side effect of all this nasty campaigning by Romney is that we might forget about our Tea Party candidates running in congressional races. Therefore we must both stand strong with Newt while giving of our time to the other races that matter, too. It's a good deal of work, but it is still so much less than that which those who wear the uniform must so often face.

This primary season we have a choice to make. We will either choose a man who stands with the far left and looks at you and me with contempt or we can choose Newt Gingrich - a proven Reagan conservative bold enough and moral enough to stand up to the establishment and carry the torch of the people - and Reaganism - into the White House. Let's go with Newt.

In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Obama-Media Complex: Made in Putin's Image

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago detailing Russia's disappointing departure from rather short-lived aspirations of democracy in the 1990s and how Vladimir Putin's concept of a managed, electoral authoritarianism (to borrow from Francis Fukuyama) meant that by controlling the media he controlled the elections. As a result, Putin's government managed to guarantee the outcome because he controlled the information the voters needed to make their decisions.

So Newt Gingrich faces a confluence of things which for a host of disparate reasons seeks to have him lose to Romney. On the part of the pro-Obama media, we see an unflinching advocate with a bullhorn in on hand and duct tape in the other so it can both talk over and silence the opposition. With the bullhorn, the media strategically chants whatever it must at any given time to protect the administration. It then brings the duct tape into the GOP presidential debates and silences any it wishes to marginalize.

Indeed, the media's strategy at the moment is to see to it that the weak, threadbare liberal Mitt Romney wins the nomination. One might be a bit tongue-in-cheek and say that last night's debate was an ABC-orchestrated infomercial for a worthless product called Mitt Romney, although at least ShamWow had "wow" in its name.  And it is true that Willard "Mitt" Romney is an incredibly flat dullard - although President Obama may arguably come up even shorter in that area - which is why both he and the left in general realize they must not only promote Romney but destroy his opposition beyond recognition, at least until Mr. Romney secures the nomination. What Alexander Solzhenitsyn once noted about the 20th Century seems just as true today about candidates like Romney, which is possibly another reason why the media prefer him: "Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press."

The reality, however, is far more serious than a comical dysfunctional former governor with a 34 percent approval rating who abuses his dog and only talks about saving the life of the unborn if it saves his career. As we've learned, this is the way an MSM "debate" works in the modern era: Silence Newt, give Romney all the time, pronounce Romney the winner. Hello Vladimir Putin. And that should be the worrisome part. In effect, the American media is doing exactly what Russian media has been doing for twelve years since Putin took power with the exception that at least Russian media had to be coerced. American media hasn't had 300-plus journalists murdered by the regime - no, all it needed was some common ground and a few fancy invites to the White House. The shameful and perhaps most disturbing part about Romney (or perhaps evidence of his sheer stupidity) is that he's perfectly okay with this as long as the Obama media takes out Mitt's enemies, too. Even with the guy endorsing Mitt who tried to ride that ride back in 2008 only to have it turn around and bite him once he clenched the nomination, Mit seems utterly oblivious to the fact that being last to be lead to the slaughterhouse still means you're being taken to the slaughterhouse. It seems we have learned very little from the McCain disaster four years ago. But RINOs have been trying to inoculate themselves against conservatives ever since the Reagan Revolution, which is part of the reason why they so willingly join forces with Democrats and the liberal media to destroy conservative candidates.

Will Newt win it or is he somehow destined to become the next Garry Kasparov? I believe he will win, but it will be difficult. Newt is truly an historical figure of a potential magnitude of greatness that he may well go down as one of the actual top-four presidents in US history. So why would it be so hard if Newt finds natural resonance with the American people if he is such a gigantic figure? Again, the answer: the gatekeepers in the media. The American people cannot vote for someone they do not realize even exists, instead believing the evil cartoon character the media has created in his stead. Judging by the debate last night in which Newt was limited to fewer chances to speak than even Jon Huntsman who sits at the bottom of the polls, it's clear that the media realize Newt's initial surge came about by his ability to speak directly to the people much as Reagan did. The media would like to see Romney nominated because they believe he will lose to Obama, but even if Romney somehow defeats Obama, he is by far the closest thing they have to Obama outside of Hillary Clinton. So the media is working overtime to cut off Newt's mic while creating a host of fables about him that would be easily dispelled by any direct contact. So far, they've succeeded somewhat with help from the usually-right leaning but pro-Romney Drudge Report, Fox News, and over $10 million in false attack ads by Romney and his wingman Ron Paul, which the media have apparently forbidden Newt form defending himself against.

To borrow an idea from Speaker Gingrich himself, Newt plays chess, Romney plays checkers, and Barack Obama plays tic-tac-toe.* And right now both the checkers and the tic-tac-toe guy are playing "get the guy with the chess set". So we shouldn't by any stretch see this cabal of anti-Newt media or the virtual blackout during the debate last night as a nail in the coffin. Newt is smarter than all of them put together and I have no doubt that the champion of great solutions will solve this challenge, as well as the next, which is defeating Obama. Newt's sights are set and we need to stay behind him as he fights to restore the greatness of America, and certainly with each new step along the way, we begin that restoration, or to borrow from Newt's own words, "Nothing will turn America around more than Election Night when Barack Obama loses decisively." But as we seek to return the reins of power to the people, we also need to take time to reflect on the values that made us great. The media must also return to the values of integrity and fairness so that our great and free society can thrive and its people prosper. The media has been headed down a very dark path in which the lie has increasingly "become a moral category but a pillar of the state", as Solzhenitsyn also noted about life in the Soviet Union. He also famously said that "the strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

So as we elect Newt Gingrich as the 45th President of the United States next November, let's remember what Newt himself has told us: we also have much work to do. Health starts on the inside and works its way out, not from the top down. We have no way to predict what will become of Russia but we are in full control of what we as Americans become.

*"It's one thing if the White House can't play chess. It's another thing if the White House can't play checkers. But if the White House can't play tic-tac-toe..." - Newt, January 7th, 2012


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0



About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Statism category.

Liberty is the previous category.

Persecution is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.