The Jay Bennish Affair – Part 2

Cornered at an airport terminal by a Fox News Channel crew, Jay Bennish said that he “presents a balanced view” to his tenth grade students at Overland High School, yet this is contradicted by the testimony of Sean Allen, the student who taped Bennish’s Bush-bashing remarks and made them public. In interviews on Hannity & Colms as well as The O’Reilly Factor, Allen contended that Bennish frequently and regularly went on such rants and that, in doing so, he presented only his own political opinions. This is clearly not a case of hearsay, as the taped comments of Bennish reveal.

When Fox News asked for Bennish to comment at the airport, he also said that he encourages his students to make use of “research and documentation.” Yet, when held as a captive audience in a classroom, what opportunity were these students given to research or document Bennish’s claims? Even if they did so on their own time, outside of class, does Bennish not realize that anyone, with a modicum of “research and documentation” could easily find abundant evidence to show that Mr. Bennish doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about?

In light of the facts, Bennish’s claims that he presents a balanced view and encourages his students to use research and documentation to corroborate that view rings hollow. It is mere hyperbole, designed to provide an obfuscatory sound bite to the press. In other words, if you can’t impress them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

One might ask Mr. Bennish exactly what “research and documentation” he has used himself to arrive at his incendiary viewpoint, but one would be wasting his time in doing so because there is none. Bennish is, himself, just another product of a corrupt university education department that, like nearly all university education departments across the nation, has been infiltrated and subverted by leftists over the last thirty years or so. If pressed to show proof of his opinions, Bennish would no doubt spew more of the same nonsense he was caught on tape spewing to his class. Like all leftists, he knows only what he believes, whether those beliefs have any foundation in reality or not.

Iran: Can We Trust Russia and France?

In my view, American leaders are becoming increasingly short-sighted and short of memory, especially when it comes to France and Russia. If we believe we can trust either to help us prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from developing, we are seriously flawed in our thinking.

First of all, France and Russia are the two countries most responsible for the foot-dragging by the U.N. that allowed Sadaam Hussein’s regime time to move its stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria before the Iraq war began in 2003. Their complicity in helping Sadaam was also designed to conceal their own illegal arms deals with Sadaam, which have been exposed by Bill Gertz in his book, “Treachery: How America’s Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies.” The movement of Sadaam’s chemical weapons to Syria in two stripped-down civilian 747s has been exposed by Sadaam’s former general Georges Sada in his book, “Sadaam’s Secrets.” These chemical weapons and the technology to develop and manufacture them was supplied to Iraq by both France and Russia.

But, more to the point of the current nuclear standoff with Iran is the fact that both France and Russia have provided nuclear technology, materials and expertise to Iran, which has been exposed, not only by Gertz, but other sources, as well.

Then there is the fact that the very existence of Iran’s current theocratic regime was brought about by the direct influence of the KGB, as exposed by the Shah of Iran’s former Minister Houchang Nahavandi in his new book, “The Last Shah of Iran,” as well as in a recent interview of Nahavandi by Jamie Glazov in Front Page Magazine.

Given all the evidence of France and Russia’s illegal support of both Iraq and Iran in the area of weapons procurement, what sense does it make to allow either country a role in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program? Clearly, neither France nor Russia can be trusted to take action against the very program that they helped create in the first place and have profited from. Clearly, it is suicidal to expect that negotiations between France, Russia and Iran is going to bring about a satisfactory end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program before Iran can develop a nuclear weapon. The two nations will obviously stall the process for as much time as Iran needs to complete a warhead and, knowing this, Iran’s regime continues their nuclear program unabated, confident in the knowledge that France and Russia will see to it they can do so. Meanwhile, the Bush administration, crippled by political correctness and infiltration by Islamists, is allowing it to happen. Furthermore, the United Nations – a failed attempt at a seat of power for a socialist one-world government, itself, as well as the most corrupt and anti-western, anti-American organization in the world – is not only completely ineffective in stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but is aiding and abetting Iran by stalling for time.

Unless both the United States and Israel, the only ally likely to use military force to stop Iran, take immediate military action, I’m afraid we may be too late to prevent Iran – and the several terrorist groups it supports – from getting nuclear weapons.

The Jay Bennish Affair

When Aurora, Colorado high school teacher Jay Bennish made the news, the other day, for his anti-Bush, anti-American tirade it was stated by the media that he’s a geography teacher.

I watched Bennish’s lawyer (who also defended the incendiary Ward Churchill) on The O’Reilly Factor this evening and he says that Bennish teaches human geography. Expecting to find this is some new leftist quasi-curriculum, I searched for the term on Google and found nothing that matched the description given by Bennish’s attorney. In fact, according to College Board.com, this subject area seems rather innocuous and deals with the environment as it is affected by and as it affects human beings.

According to Wikipedia, it is: “a branch of geography that focuses on the systematic study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with the environment, with particular reference to the causes and consequences of the spatial distribution of human activity on the Earth's surface. It encompasses human, political, cultural, social, and economic aspects of the social sciences.” Still, a fairly innocuous description – until you consider that its sub-field, political geography can lead to the type of lefist subversion that Mr. Bennish practices.

The question is, then, do the administrators of Overland High School know that what they think is a geography course is actually being taught as “political geography?” Given the intellectual climate of our educational system these days, I suspect that Bennish foists this drivel off on unsuspecting students with the full blessings of Overland’s principle. More to come as the story develops.

The Spies Among Us – The Cuban Ones, That Is

Note: The following was originally written in January 2006

For any leftists out there still stubbornly clinging to that tired old “McCarthyism” mythology they cooked up to cover their infiltration of America in the early half of the 20th century, the recent revelation of two Cuban spies in Florida should dispel that old myth, right? Well, not exactly. In characteristic fashion, what would be front page news to you and me seems to be negligible to the liberal mainstream media.

In a Google search for “Cuban spies” today, just days after Carlos and Elsa Alvarez were arrested in Florida for being long-time spies for Castro, only two links were to the Alvarez story. Amazingly enough, though, there were other links to stories about Cuban spies, some of whom were convicted in the 1990s. Funny, I don’t recall hearing anything about those cases. Must be because they occurred while a Democrat was in the oval office.

Even more to the point, of the two links I did manage to find to this breaking news that ought to be splashed across the front page of every paper in America in huge type, one comes from Voice of America, the long-time anti-communist broadcasting network and the other is from the BBC! Oh, I forgot the one Matt Drudge linked to for his Drudge Report, that being the prestigious Las Vegas Sun.

Even Fox News Channel, so often accused of being “a cheer leader for the Bush administration” by their own liberal contributor, Neal Gabler, has been eerily low key on the subject of the two elderly South Florida spies, who have been spying against our government for Castro’s regime since 1977. The frat boyish Sheppard Smith talked about the affair as if the fact that the two spies are now senior citizens (of the country whose secrets they’ve been giving away for thirty years) was something humorous. Apparently, now that they’re in their golden years, that makes it all a harmless prank, right? Just a mom and pop operation.

Where is the sense of outrage? Where is the indignation that every American should be feeling over this? Apparently we’ve become so jaded (or subverted?) that spies living among us no longer registers. Even Aldrich Ames engendered more outrage (most of it feigned by the mainstream press) than this.

According to federal prosecutor Brian Frazier, Mr. and Mrs. Alvarez were “highly placed and well regarded operatives in the United States.” That means they were damned good at what they did – which was to pass vital secret information about our country to a communist dictator who has been allowed to continue to enslave his people just ninety miles off the shores of Florida for the last forty-seven years.

I suppose I shouldn’t be at all surprised – and I’m not, of course – given that just months ago, the convictions of five more Cuban spies in South Florida was tossed out by a federal appeals court on the grounds that the spy ring was targeting Cuban exiles and not the United States, itself. Apparently, communists spying on U.S. citizens is no big deal, but when President Bush authorizes the NSA to spy on “American citizens” who may be communicating with Al Qaeda, that’s a serious threat to our liberties.

Why Perversion?

One of the questions I often hear among my fellow conservatives is, “why is it the left is always pushing perversion? Why do they support homosexuality, pornography, and so on?” Are the left simply perverts, themselves who want their favorite vices made legal and readily available to them? Well, to be sure, there are many perverts on the left, but it would be far too simplistic to conclude that this is their only rationale for pushing perversion upon American citizens.

In 42 B.C., the Roman orator and statesman Cicero summed it up when he said:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared."

That is my own emphasis on the key point I wish to make, which is that the American Left has, for over eighty years, very deliberately pushed every manner of perversion upon an unsuspecting American public for the purpose of furthering its main goal: to transform America into a socialist nation. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to undermine not only America’s government, educational establishment and institutions, but to undermine its morals and integrity, as well.

Another aspect of this agenda is particular to the personal proclivities of the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Roger Baldwin. The ACLU is a communist front organization that has, since its beginning in 1920, sought to subvert America. Early on, Baldwin expressed his politics as follows:

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Baldwin’s views on sex, marriage and the family are the central points I want to bring to your attention, however. The reason for this is because the ACLU, in every sense, is Roger Baldwin, even though he’s been dead for a quarter century. The organization’s goals and methods have not changed, despite his absence, and his personal views are still thoroughly ingrained in everything the ACLU is pursuing – everything, that is, except for its publicly stated goals, which are a smoke screen to disguise its real agenda.

Roger Baldwin was a communist anarchist. That he was also an agnostic would not be important (I’m an agnostic, myself), except for the fact that unlike some agnostics (such as myself), he had the goal of doing away with religion altogether. Not only that, he also wanted to do away with the institution of marriage. His own “open marriage” to anarchist Emma Goldman was a mockery of the traditionally accepted values and sanctity of marriage. Their “marriage” was polyamorous (they agreed to allow each other to have multiple sex partners and multiple “loves”). After their “wedding,” Baldwin dismissed their self-written vows as “pretentious and idealistic.”

In addition to his rejection of religion and marriage, Baldwin also rejected parental authority over children and, in fact, rejected the institution of the family completely. From these views of the ACLU’s founder comes the organization’s systematic attempts to remove religion from America, to pave the way for “gay marriages,” to legalize abortion and protect it as a "right," and to nullify parents’ rights to control their children’s education and upbringing.

Baldwin also rejected all laws governing the sex lives of Americans, including any and all prohibitions of homosexuality, polygamy and polyamory, pedophilia and bestiality and it is from this that the ACLU’s support of homosexual “rights” and NAMBLA’s (North American Man-Boy Love Association) campaign to legalize sex between adults and children stems from, as well. So far, the ACLU hasn’t yet begun to campaign for sex between humans and animals, but this is not far away.

How to Use the Death Penalty

Liberals believe the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to violent crime, but, as I will show, the trick to making the death penalty a deterrent lies in using it universally and consistently.

When I was a boy, in the fifties, the homicide rate in America was around 4.5 per 100,000 population. Given the population was only 151 million, that’s about 6,795 murders per year in 1950. This rate doubled during the sixties and seventies, peaking in 1980 at more than 10 per 100,000 (about 22,272 murders per year).

What happened during the sixties and seventies and why did the homicide rate begin to go down after 1980? Well, first of all, starting in the early sixties, liberal lawyers and judges, as well as a liberal Supreme Court and the ACLU, began to systematically dismantle our criminal justice system, abolishing the death penalty in state after state and undermining the abilities of law enforcement agencies while expanding “rights” for criminals.

The downward trend that began in 1980 coincides with the election of Ronald Reagan and continues through the administration of George H. W. Bush. Interestingly enough, it escalated again, to a peak of nearly 10 per 100,000 again during the eight year regime of Bill Clinton, peaking at the time during which the Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives and continuing downward since then.

Aside from the obvious correlation between liberalism and higher homicide rates, until recently, the death penalty had been all but abandoned in most states. The homicide rate began to drop as some states reinstated their use of the death penalty.

Liberal detractors of the death penalty have long held that it does not serve as a deterrent to violent crime, however, as the statistics indicate, in 1950, when most states were still using the death penalty on a routine basis and convictions for homicide usually resulted in the death penalty, the incidence of all violent crime, in particular murder, was at a figure that has never been lower since. Today, during the George W. Bush administration, the homicide rate has fallen to a little above the 1950 rate (around 5 per 100,000).

I submit that, in order for the death penalty to become a deterrent, as it once was, it must be used universally (in all fifty states), and it must be applied consistently, meaning that it should be mandatory for homicide convictions. The practice of allowing judges and juries discretionary power in sentencing should be abolished and mandatory sentencing should require no less than the death penalty for capital murder convictions. A life sentence used to occur rarely and was used only in extenuating circumstances during the fifties. Prior to the twentieth century, it didn’t exist as an alternative to the death penalty at all.

Oh, but we can’t do that, the liberals would cry. What about the wrongly convicted? Statistically, those who are wrongly convicted of murder are a relatively miniscule number in the first place. Secondly, with today’s genetic testing technology, we can virtually eliminate wrongful convictions in homicide cases if the technology is also made mandatory, both in the solving and the prosecution of murders. This would serve as more than an adequate safeguard to ensure that the guilty are punished and removed from society while the innocent go free, instead of the other way around. I guarantee the homicide rate would drop to 1950 levels (or lower) if these recommendations are followed.

Sources: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003904.html
U.S. Census Bureau

Does the Left Own Your Child’s Mind?

Picture this: a typical seventh grade U.S. History classroom. There is a boy at the podium, giving a passionate speech about how we should stay the course in the war, complete our mission and bring democracy to the people we are trying to help, instead of pulling our troops out and leaving our friends to the merciless enemies we are fighting to protect them from.
The students listening to this boy give his speech assignment are heckling him, calling him a “war monger” and so on. There are two history teachers standing at the back of the classroom, visibly displaying a contempt for the boy and his ideas that is obviously bordering upon outright hatred.

I can see the complacent smirk on your face, and I can almost read your thoughts, “So what? I’ve heard more shocking tales from our public schools, these days.”
What you don’t realize is that the boy giving the speech is me. The war I was talking about was the war in Vietnam. The year was 1965.

For those conservatives who are now in their thirties or even forties, the infiltration of our public schools by leftist teachers and administrators is a relatively recent development.
But, the fact is, this is a trend that began some forty-five to fifty years ago when the Boomer generation was in school. Is it any wonder, then, that after fifty years of insidious infiltration of our schools, largely uncontested by conservatives, the left now has a stranglehold on the minds of our young?

If the scenario I opened with doesn’t shock you, consider that within five years of giving that speech, I had gone from a conservative son of Republican parents to a long-haired radical reading books by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and protesting the very same war I had spoke in defense of when I was younger. Such was the power of a left-dominated school system, not to mention peer pressure from my fellow students. Fortunately, attentive parents and a guilty conscience eventually drove me back to my conservative roots. Will your child be so lucky, having been indoctrinated from a younger age than I was and with a level of intellectual maturity less than mine was at the time?

Consider what is happening in today’s classrooms, to your own children. What kind of adults will they become? What agendas will the leaders of our country have in the year 2020 and beyond? I submit to you that, unless we rid our public schools and our universities of the leftists who control them, or at least diminish their influence, the America we have known and loved, the America founded by patriots who spilled their blood for liberty, will cease to exist. It will become indistinguishable from the democratic socialist countries of Europe today and those countries will, themselves, slide even further into chaos over the next fifteen to twenty years as they are increasingly taken over by Muslims hostile to western society.

What can you do to prevent this? Just as you can influence your children to not use drugs or to not smoke by talking to them about the dangers of drugs and tobacco, you can also see to it that your children grow up with an accurate view of history and respect for their country. You can ask them about the political views of their teachers and fellow students. You can give them books to read, to offset the damaging influence of our public schools. These are things any parent can do, even if they can’t afford to remove their children from public school. The left can win only if you let them. Don’t abdicate your child’s mind. Be the parent.

A Rose, by Any Other Name, is Just as Red

Have you ever noticed how Democrats bristle at being called “leftists,” yet, in their own circles, they have no problem acknowledging that they are on the left? Even more repugnant, to Democrats, is to be labeled a “socialist” or, worse, yet, a “communist,” and yet, as I will show, these labels are equally as applicable to most, if not all Democrats.

Those on the Left say they really hate labels, yet the Left seems to use labels more than any other group. This includes labels used to describe themselves, as well as their enemies. For the moment, I’m going to break the Left’s taboo against the use of labels and not only discuss them, but discuss what they actually mean and where they came from and, in particular, I’m going to discuss those labels that apply to the Left itself.

Let’s start with the label “Left.” Historically, its genesis was during the French Revolution, when bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets sat on the left-hand side of the French Legislative Assembly of 1791. These were the radical Montagnards. This same definition persists in France and Europe today, in some circles, even though, since then, the meaning has reversed in American politics. Today, the Left is understood to refer to the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalists, which are socialists and communists. This is especially the case in America, but it is a designation accepted worldwide, as well.

The word “liberal” has had a similarly twisted history. It began as a reference to classical liberals, the same laissez-faire capitalists mentioned previously, but in America today, it refers to the Left, in general and, in particular, to the Democrats. Many Democrats, however, eschew the “liberal” label, some because of its original meaning (if the Left doesn’t want to be associated with anything, it’s certainly laissez-faire capitalism), but mostly because, in the words of Democrats themselves, it has become an almost pejorative label used by conservatives (who are, incidentally, the true heirs of laissez faire capitalism).



In the beginning, the Democratic Party was composed of laissez-faire capitalists, or classical liberals; i.e., Thomas Jefferson and his supporters. For the most part, the Democrats remained classical liberals until just before the mid-twentieth century, at which time they were infiltrated by communist agents of the Soviet Union.

Contrary to what the Democrats will tell you, this is all verifiable and has been proven beyond any doubt by the Venona Project, which was the top secret National Security Agency (NSA) project, from 1942 to 1980, that intercepted and decoded diplomatic and espionage cables transmitted between the KGB and their American operatives in our government. These documents plainly show that the Democratic Party was infiltrated by Soviet agents for the purpose of subverting the Democratic Party’s aims and purposes to match those of the Soviets.
Of course, the Democrats have historically denied this and have erected an intricate re-written history of the era to disguise it. This would be the so-called “McCarthy” era, a dark time of witch hunts and blacklists in which Senator Joseph McCarthy, who headed a senate investigation of communist spies within our government, is alleged to have accused innocent people of being communists and of ruining lives, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. There was, in fact, ample evidence, at the time, to convict several individuals who held high posts within sensitive areas of our government, and this was decades before the Venona cables were declassified (in 1995) and ultimately confirmed that, not only had these people actually been Soviet spies, but that there were hundreds of them within the State Department, the Pentagon and even the White House, as well as many other federal agencies.

This fact cannot be denied, and yet, it is still vehemently denied by Democrats to this day, despite all the evidence. The Democrats have been denying it since the early fifties, when the charges were first brought, and they persist in maintaining the smokescreen of “McCarthyism,” even after Venona has ultimately shown it to be a lie.

The Democrats still maintain that they are not socialists or communists, and yet, in full view of all, they openly support socialist and communist organizations at home and abroad and have for decades. This perplexing behavior reminds me of the time my little sister broke a lamp in full view of my parents and my grandparents and then tried to blame it on my little brother, despite my grandmother’s insistence that everyone had plainly seen her do it. Similarly, the Democrats will not admit they were either infiltrated by communists or that they have supported communism for decades, even though there is abundant evidence that proves they have.
Despite the evidence, Democrats today refer to themselves by various labels that are designed to obfuscate their communist and socialist affiliations, such as “progressive,” which is an old label, used since the twenties and thirties as code for “socialist” or “communist.” Those who are not aware of this – including new members of the Democratic Party who may be naïve enough to not know what they are truly supporting – will not realize that such terms as “progressive,” “social justice” and even “democracy” or “social democracy” are all code words the left uses to refer to their socialist agenda.

Are all Democrats socialists and communists? Some will say no to this; that there are many Democrats who support more or less classical liberal ideals, but, the fact is that these are really people who have been duped into believing that the Democratic Party still supports classical liberalism and that it is still the party of Jefferson, the party of freedom and civil rights, when, in fact, it is exactly the opposite and the Republican Party, not the Democrats, are the supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, free markets and individual liberty. These are ideals that, increasingly, the Democratic Party has moved away from, supplanting those ideals with the tenets of communism and socialism. So, even if many naïve Democrats don’t know what it is they are truly supporting, the fact remains it is what they are supporting, especially when the hard core left-wing faction of the party has gained control in recent years and has steered the Democrats ever leftward.

In the interests of not perpetuating the Democrats’ linguistic smokescreen, which obfuscates who they truly are, I advocate that conservatives begin calling a spade a spade and use the appropriate terminology to describe the Democrats. After all, even the term “Democrat” is no longer accurate, as it suggests one who defends democracy, not socialism and communism. Of course, if we start calling Democrats socialists or even communists, they will persist in lying about themselves, but, at least we will know who and what we are really talking about.

Why I am Not a Libertarian

When I was about twenty and in the U.S. Air Force, I had already assimilated an anti-Vietnam war stance, oddly enough. I had joined the Air Force primarily to avoid the draft and subsequently being sent to Vietnam. My function, while in the Air Force, was as a photo lab technician, stationed in California.

My parents were conservative Republicans and, while I had been in favor of the war in Vietnam in my early teens, after my mother’s untimely death from cancer in 1971 and my enlistment in the Air Force only months later, I was no longer living within my parents’ political sphere of influence. This, coupled with being in California, served to shift my viewpoint, though I still retained an allegiance to capitalistic free enterprise.

It was at this time that I first learned of libertarianism, that oddball mixture of conservative economics with anti-statist anarchism. What attracted me was the emphasis upon personal liberty, which, being in the Air Force and being an admittedly spoiled and not very mature young man who had grown up in the suburbs devoid of any real responsibility, sounded like just what I was looking for.

As I delved more deeply into libertarianism, I was somewhat disturbed that leftists were also among their membership, but, since they shared most of the same goals, I shrugged this off and focused my attention upon the writings of those libertarians who had come from the ranks of conservatism, like me.

Being attracted, as I was, by the individualist philosophy of libertarianism, I soon became attached to the anarcho-individualist and anarcho-capitalist factions of the movement. I was convinced that, in order for a free society in which individual rights were truly extant to exist at all, the existing social order and government had to be scrapped in favor of an anarcho-individualist/anarcho-capitalist society.

What I couldn’t see, despite detractors’ warnings, was that this viewpoint was not only as much a fantasy as the socialist’s view that the existing order must be swept away to make way for a socialist society, but that, in fact, my vision was exactly the same thing as the socialist’s view, with the exception of what I proposed to replace the old order with. But I rationalized even that by deluding myself into believing that, in an anarchist society, everyone would be free to pursue whatever political and social order they wanted to. The communists and socialists could band together to form their little utopias, while those of us who favored capitalism would be free to pursue our own goals.

Despite growing doubts as to how, exactly, all of this would take place, I stubbornly and blindly clung to my faith in the ideal of a stateless utopia of free individuals, each pursuing his or her own self-interest, unencumbered by the constraints of government.
Eventually, I began to concede that some aspects of this vision were highly unlikely and I began to accept, grudgingly, at first, that some minimal form of government was necessary for civil order and defense to exist, though I still clung to the idea that an army could be entirely privatized. I held the belief that anything government could do, the private sector could do better.

I was later disappointed at the extent to which privatization and deregulation actually works in practice, however. When the airlines were deregulated, during the Reagan administration, I at first applauded this, thinking it was the beginning of the gradual phasing out of big government and the replacing of it with private free enterprise. It didn’t take long to see the effects were not what I had predicted they would be. Instead of the airlines policing themselves, as I predicted all honest businesses would do, the airlines began to become lax in maintenance and safety standards and the result was disastrous. During the early to mid-eighties, air crashes began increasing with alarming rapidity and the airlines began having problems with solvency, as well. Stories about pilots asleep in the cockpit and other alarming news became more and more common.

Then came the Wallstreet criminals, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, the forerunners of today’s Enron executives. This seriously deflated my cherished notion that most businessmen were honest, hardworking folks who, if left alone by government, could be trusted to police themselves without government coercion. These developments, combined with the growing realization that the leftists within the libertarian movement were calling for something that, as a matter of course, couldn’t possibly be compatible with individual liberty, lead me to eventually stop being a part of the libertarian movement.

In hindsight, I realize now that I had neglected the effects of an ever leftward-leaning culture which was eroding such values as honesty and integrity. So, it wasn’t that I was wrong about most businessmen being honest, so much as it was that our culture, subverted by the left, was bound to have affected the moral standards of everyone in the society, corporate leaders included.

For several years thereafter, I was nearly apolitical, as I had lost faith in all political movements and I didn’t see anything to replace libertarianism with. I began to reject the tenets of the Libertarian Party’s platform, little by little. I had never subscribed to some of them, in the first place, such as the legalization of drugs and prostitution. By the mid-eighties, I had also rejected the non-interventionist foreign policy, as well. I was convinced that, not only was some minimal government necessary, but that, in a world in which other nations remained and many of them were hostile to peace and human rights, an isolationist policy was not only untenable, but dangerous.

The final straw came after 9/11, when it finally occurred to me that the years I had invested in libertarianism had not only been a complete waste of time, but had blinded me to the fact that the libertarians, like the left, are pursuing a fantasy world that can never exist on earth and that the only political group in the world that had an real efficacy at protecting individual liberty and my homeland was the Republican Party. I had known since childhood, from my conservative parents, that the Democrats were not to be trusted as they supported communism and socialism, and, after I stopped voting libertarian (where I could; the ballot was always stacked against the Libertarians, so I had voted Republican where there were no Libertarians to vote for), I voted for George Bush in 2000. This was largely to keep the left out of power, though.
When 9/11 occurred and President Bush showed his true patriotism and his mettle as a world leader, I had an epiphany. Here, I had devoted years of my life to resisting both the Democrats and the Republicans, thinking there was no real difference between them and, now, all of a sudden, the true difference was as stark and as real as it had been to me when I was a child many years earlier. I realized, at that point, that only George Bush’s administration stood as the protector of freedom and justice in the world and I enthusiastically returned to the conservative values my parents had instilled in me as a boy.

Since then, I have awakened from my long political slumber of the nineties and have not only revived my interest in politics, but have learned of the undeniable proof of the left’s treachery, revealed in 1995 by the Venona files and I have taken it upon myself to spread awareness of how our nation was infiltrated by nearly three hundred Soviet spies before and during WWII and how the Democratic Party was also infiltrated and subverted by Soviet agents. I believe that, once the public knows the facts revealed by Venona, there will be no place for the American Left to hide any longer.