I wrote a lengthy response to phony conservative Conor Friedersdork in regards to his criticism of Mark Levin's "tone". I felt I should also post it here. (also, sorry for not updating over the past few months. I've been busy with school)

Friedersdork,

Mark despises people like you because all you care about is winning elections. Mark tries to point out to all of you hacks that there is no point in winning elections if you compromise your principles. Sacrificing conservative values for the sake of winning elections is sacrificing the liberty of ourselves and our posterity. This country may be so brain-washed by pop culture, academia, post-modernist rhetoric, and the left wing press that American Conservatism may be lost and our liberty may be surrendered. That may be so, but I’ll be damned if I don’t go down without a fight! This is also what Mark believes. However, Mark is still optimistic that we can educate enough people about conservatism/classical liberalism that the pendulum can swing back in our favor. His style is his own, and if you don’t like it, tough [crap]. The First Amendment is there to protect offensive speech. It wouldn’t be necessary if nothing we said was offensive. Say what you want, but Mark Levin is a modern day Patrick Henry. Maybe some day you’ll discover the true value of liberty and Constitutionalism. There is something to be said about having solid principles that can’t be compromised. It’s actually very liberating. What are your principles anyway, Friedersdork? I believe you have none. I believe you’re a hack that is more concerned with being well-liked by liberals and winning elections than standing up for true liberty and limited government. It is people like you that have caused us to get where we are in the first place, by compromising your principles (if you have any) and allowing the left to go unchecked over the past 80 years (and especially the last 20 years). I don’t care about being well-liked by idiots who seek to compromise liberty. Those who espouse ideas that are contrary to individual liberty are my enemy, and I don’t care about being “well-liked” or “respected” by my enemy. As I stated earlier, there is no point to getting RINOs and phony conservatives elected if it results in losing our liberty. Now go watch MSNBC, nod in agreement with the “moderates”, and keep launching your “spitballs from the backbenches”.

Do you not like that tone? Well tough crap because I don’t like you! And I won’t hide behind a phony name like most bloggers. I’ve given you my name and email. Hell, I’ll even give you my phone number if you ask. Perhaps I can educate you a little on liberty. It’s a damn shame. I’m 22, and I get this stuff better than you. I understand how crucial it is to articulate true Reagan-conservatism in these trying times. You think that has earned me a lot of friends on campus? Hell no! But I’m happy with myself because I have PRINCIPLES, and I don’t compromise them just to make friends or be in good favor with my professors. Try it sometime. In the mean time though, enjoy the view from the back benches. I’ll be on the front-line in the War of Ideas trying to defend your liberty. In the words of Mark, “Thank me!”.

A few points as well: First, I called Mark a modern day Patrick Henry. I shouldn't have made that analogy, since Friedersdork is probably not well-educated about the Founding Fathers and probably doesn't know who Patrick Henry is. Second, I probably should have spent a little more time educating him instead of berating him, but in my young experience, I have found pinheads like him to be incorrigible.

This week’s issue of Newsweek has a disturbing article as its cover story. “We Are All socialists Now”, the cover says. This is not journalism; it is propaganda. The article tries to soften the tone Americans take towards socialism by offering ultimatums, such as that we “must” recognize the increased role of government in our business world.

“If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.”
                                                 - Two jerks from Newsweek who are content with stealing my economic freedoms

Socialism and big government were the “terms and tactics” used to try to try to fix the economy in the early to mid 20th century. The New Deal? The Great Society? John Maynard Keynes? Are these authors/jerks really serious? I guess revisionist history and indoctrination at their journalism schools worked. The Keynesian Big Government policies and intervention in the free market were enormous economic failures as the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman had shown all of us. Did we forget so soon? Furthermore, the path which Keynesian economics ultimately leads us is towards a soft tyranny brought about by centrally planned socialist economies. Friedrich Hayek detailed this in his ever so appropriately titled book The Road to Serfdom, one of the greatest selling social science books of all time.

When one of the most widely read news magazines proclaims “We are all socialists now”, it is evident that free market capitalism and individual liberty hang in the balance. But some of us who love freedom are not letting go that easy. I am currently in the process of spreading a message of economic liberty and the dangers of socialism via speaking engagements all around Ohio. I’m doing this without compensation. The message must be heard. If you’d like me to speak at your event or gathering free of charge, or you’d like a video of one of my speeches, email me at danheister@gmail.com .

P.S. I do not apologize for referring to these indoctrinated propagandists as jerks. Anyone who wants to steal my liberty is a jerk. Anyone who sits on a throne in Washington and thinks they know how to run my life better than me is a jerk. Anyone who can decide what someone can and can't earn in income is a jerk. Any idiot in Washington who has never run a business in their lives, yet thinks they can tell you how to run yours is a jerk. There are socialist jerks everywhere. It's time to call them what they are.

Today, every single Republican (and 12 Democrats) voted against Barack Obama's pork spending/"stimulus" bill. I am very proud of the Republicans. Given this absolute party opposition to this ridiculous bill, I fully expect the Senate to filibuster the bill. If John McCain and/or Lindsay Graham support this bill and help provide the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster, I will be the first person to donate money to the individuals who will run a primary campaign against them and defeat them when they are up for re-election.

The Right to Bear Arms: it is now only a privilege. It is necessary for us to take courses and pass exams in order to carry a firearm.  How about we make people pass an exam in order to have the right to vote? Yeah right.

The Right to Free Speech: we make some speech acceptable. And then we consider some speech criminal. "Hate speech" against African-Americans and the GLBT Community (as they like to be referred to) is now illegal. But it is somehow acceptable to spew anti-Semitic speech. I'm not advocating hate speech of any kind. However, the First Amendment was meant to protect OFFENSIVE speech; not politically correct speech. The fact that there are no hate speech statutes to protect the Jewish community speaks to the anti-Semitism of the Left. It is the progressives who always lobby for the over-protection of minority groups through "hate-speech" and "hate crime" legislation. Considering that Jews make up 2.1% of the American population, significantly less than the African American community, why are they not protected under many "hate crime" and "hate speech" statutes? Why can a woman tell the Jews that they need "a big oven", and not get prosecuted in the same way as a man who says the blacks "need a noose"? (I am not advocating hate speech of any kind here, I am merely making a point.)

The Right to Own Property (and protect it from unreasonable seizure): The 16th Amendment (power to tax income) was indeed an insult to the Bill of Rights, but an amendment is Constitutional Law and thus should be honored. However, the 16th Amendment makes no case that it is above Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says that all taxes "shall be uniform". In my humble interpretation, this means that the income tax should be an equal percentage for all; not the graduated system we have now. I would like someone to prove me wrong. The Constitution is on my side in this argument.

The most egregious offense is the confiscation of property via the income tax, because it directly subsidizes increased government control. Money is power, and the more money government has, the more power they will have, and every power government has is one less freedom you retain. Do you really want Washington Bureaucrats to make decisions for you? Or would you rather make your own decisions?

John Maynard Keynes, the economist behind most of the New Deal, acknowledged that one of the fundamental flaws of Keynesian economics was its inevitable drift towards full fledged Socialism (Friedrich Hayek described in greater detail how the Keynesian approach would lead to totalitarian abuses, and how the business cycle had its roots in monetary abuses). The further evolution of monetarist thought and capitalist theory would bring even more criticism. Economists such as Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein have shown nearly irrefutable empirical evidence that capitalism creates wealth unlike any other economic system. Modern free market and Constitutional economists such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have articulately spoke of the merits of the free market, and how unleashing free enterprise has created the greatest and wealthiest country the world has ever known. Williams and Sowell would no doubt agree that at the crux of true liberty, as our Founders intended, was economic freedom.

And then there is the concept of the "5000 Year Leap", a phrase coined by author W. Cleon Skousen. Have you ever actually asked yourself this question: "What is the difference between technology in 1776 and technology in 3000 BC"? Gun powder, and its different uses, seem to be the only major improvement in technology. In 1776, we had essentially the same technology we had been using for 5000 years. In 1789, we ratified the Constitution and became the first truly free capitalist society (many of the European countries still practiced mercantilism). One hundred eighty years later, we put a man on the moon. Even more amazing is that the first powered flight was a mere sixty six years before the first moon landing. This was not an accident. It was all the result of capitalism.

The success of free enterprise in America is undeniable. Why then are people like Barack Obama vilifying the free market and saying government is the only thing that can save us? The answer is easy: it's about control. It has nothing to do with socialism or Keynesian neo-socialism being a superior economic system. The facts PROVE otherwise. It's about creating a "benevolent dictatorship" in which a few Washington power brokers pick the winners and losers in our economy. Throughout mankind, there has ever been a struggle between those who desire freedom and those who desire power. The Washingtonians have realized that the most effective way to gain power in a republic like ours is to create dependency on the government, and that is what they have done with so many people. Upwards of 30% of our GDP is government expenditure. Under the Obama plan, it will likely get to 40%, possibly even 50%. Fifty percent! That would mean half of our economy would be state controlled. That is how socialism comes about. It creeps up on you through outrageous idealistic policy in times of crisis.

But there is hope. There are some of us out there who value freedom. There are many of us who still believe in God, or some sort of deity, because we understand the notion of inherent rights. The desire for freedom is not the result of some random chemical reactions within the brain. It is a divinely inspired calling within our consciousness. Our Founders knew this. Many of us today still know it, and that is why I hold out hope for America, especially those of us in the Heartland. The link between socialism and atheism is undeniable. In order to appreciate socialism, one would have to subscribe to the narcissistic notion that "man grants rights to man". The State, in socialism, would provide rights and entitlements for each individual on the basis of ability (the old Marxist philosophy: To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability). The flaw in this logic is that it immediately assumes that all of us are not equal. If the State were to have to determine winners and losers, as it does in socialism, does that assume that some of us are less capable then others? True freedom relies on the two radical notions. First, we are ALL created equal. America has seen more rags to riches stories than all other countries combined. It has always been, and still is, the Land of Opportunity. The second notion from which true freedom stems is the idea that man does not grants rights to man. We are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights". In America, you have the right to do absolutely anything, so long as you do not violate anyone else's rights. That's why there can never be a "right" to health care, as many socialist power brokers would like you to think. In order to ensure that "right", you would have to infringe on the rights of others by confiscating their property via income taxes (the right to property is indeed an inherent right. Should one not be rewarded for their labor? Is that not common sense?).

The main problem with socialism is that it is evident man has an inherent desire to be free. This is why socialism cannot exist in the absence of force. This force, as Stalin showed us, can result in the deaths of millions. Free speech is restricted, and economic information is not made public. There is no freedom in socialism.

But there are many of us who will not put up with it. I'm only 22 years old, but I know my friends Nick, Joe, and Beau won't put up with it, and neither will I. The rest of my friends are either ill-informed or simply don't care about politics. But many of them still genuinely believe in God, and when the time comes to either unintentionally subjugate ourselves to further socialism, or to answer the Divine call for freedom, I know that they will make the right choice.

Midnight approaches, and an even darker early morning succeeds it. But I do have faith in my generation. It will be morning again in America.

I am hereby petitioning Townhall.com to never again post a column by Kathleen Parker. It is people like her who have hurt the conservative movement. It's as if she is an undercover liberal trying to tear us apart from the inside.

Here's her latest joke of a column: http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2009/01/09/is_it_miller_time

Quick Hit:

In his best-seller Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt tells us the results of a study of a daycare in Haifa, Israel. Fed up with parents pick up their children late, the daycare implemented a new "late fee". Parents who were tardy in picking up their children would now have to pay a monetary fine. However, after the fine was implemented, the number of late parents went up. The number almost doubled. Levitt interpreted this as substituting a monetary incentive for a moral one. Parents no longer felt guilty if they were late to pick up their children, since they were now paying for it.

Liberalism is much the same. It doesn't matter how sub-standard a government program is, or the fact that tax cuts actually increase government revenue. It is easing one's mind by throwing more money at an issue in the name of "fairness, equality, and economic justice".

No one can doubt that with true freedom and limited government comes responsibility. Capitalism could not exist if there were no people to help us when we are down. That responsibility, however, should rest with individuals. If hard times were to befall me, I would first look to my family for help, then to my friends, then to my church. The government would be an absolute last resort. The fact that government has been a means of survival for some has relieved them of their moral responsibilities as individuals. Why be nice to someone if you know you'll never need their help?

Whether our tax rate is 30, 40 or 50 percent, it is evident that only liberals believe in paying off one's guilt. Only these individuals could put a price tag on morality.