Egyptian Bloodbath: This is What Democracy Looks Like

America’s “Occupy Wall Street” movement has compared itself to the Arab Spring, a social media driven revolt that caught fire earlier this year. Both “democracy” movements were lauded repeatedly in the mainstream press, even as conservatives warned time and time again that such praise was misguided.

While the Occupy movement has turned into a festival of arrests for petty crime, radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and even Al Qaeda have rushed in to fill the anarchic power vacuum resulting from the uprisings. Now that the fruits of democratic destabilization and resulting Islamization are becoming clearer, it would behoove us to examine the mismatch between the left’s laudatory rhetoric and the visual reality of the situation.

The left may cry foul and allege that such comparison is unfair, and that to make a democratic omelet, it is necessary to break a few eggs (eggs being human skulls).  But it is well-known in political science that democracy is an unstable political system and rapid democratization is a very unstable and often bloody process.

Lest anyone should forget, in the midst of the Egyptian uprising, the CBS reporter Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a crowd in Cairo. Below is a picture of Ms. Logan moments before the brutal and despicable attack:

An anomaly? Not hardly. More recently, this is how those chivalrous, “misunderstood” Egyptians have treated women who dare express their “democratic” rights.

Get the picture?

And with the rise of Islamist groups in the Middle East, the rights of women and homosexuals are only going to degrade further. Perhaps it is time for the left to support individual rights and the rule of law, rather than the false seduction of democracy for the sake of democracy?

Advertisements

Non-Controversy: Cain’s Hypothetical ‘One Soldier for All Gitmo Prisoners’ Call

A lot of controversy was stirred up on the right recently about Herman Cain’s comments on a hypothetical ‘one soldier for all Gitmo prisoners’ swap, which he gave to Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room on CNN. Influential blog Ace of Spades reacted in horror that a Republican candidate could even contemplate such a trade, let alone endorse one.

But that he would authorize such a hypothetical trade is not what Herman Cain said, or meant. He made it clear that it was a “judgment call” and he would need to see all the facts before making such a decision. Apparently, that is not good enough for those schooled in the “one never negotiates with terrorists” policy.

Cain was set up by Blitzer, who posed a scenario to get him to give an imagined answer. His answer would then be treated like that is his policy, and used as a cudgel to bludgeon conservatives off of his candidacy. While it appears that Cain had some coaching on dealing with answering imaginary scenarios, it was not drilled into his head enough that one does not answer “hypotheticals.”

The point is that Herman Cain never said he would make an exchange like Netanyahu had authorized – one thousand terrorists for one soldier. Cain goes out of his way to say he didn’t have all the facts at hand, or whether Netanyahu was right or wrong. Then Blitzer uses this question to frame a second question, about a potential exchange of one U.S. soldier for all the prisoners at Gitmo, and this is what Cain said: “I could see myself making that kind of transfer.”

That answer is all the right is focusing on, a hedged comment that he could see himself making that kind of transfer. But what else did Cain say in the rest of the interview surrounding that quote?

Apparently CNN doesn’t want you to know exactly what Herman Cain said, because it has altered the text in the transcript to bury his comments. But I have put them out below:

BLITZER: Did the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu do the right thing in exchanging 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who had been held by Hamas for five years?

CAIN: I would have to know all of the considerations he made to say yes or no, because I’m sure that there were a lot of considerations that he had to make in order to make that decision.

On the surface, you would say one for hundreds doesn’t make any sensuous [sic – sense!]. But here’s how I make decisions. And this is why I respect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so much. He looks at all of the facts before he makes a judgment call. We don’t know all of the facts.

BLITZER: Could you imagine if you were president — we’re almost out of time — and there was one American soldier who had been held for years, and the demand was al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, you have got to free everyone at Guantanamo Bay, several hundred prisoners at Guantanamo.?

Could you see yourself, as president, authorizing that kind of transfer?

CAIN: I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer, but what I would do is, I would make sure that I got all of the information, I got all of the input, considered all of the options. And then the president has to be the president and make a judgment call. I could make that call if I had to.

This is much ado about nothing. So Cain could see himself authorizing “that kind” of transfer, but it would have to be a judgment call, and he would need all the facts, if he had to? [Continued on Political Crush]

Obama's Foreign Policy: We're Dying to Find Out What's in It

It seems only months ago (because it was) we were inundated with the images of a ‘democratic’ conflagration in Egypt, coming on the heels of the less visible Tunisia uprising. The demonstrations launched a cascade of upheavals across the Near East, now being aided and abetted by America’s commander-in-chief.  But just who are Americans coming to the rescue of?

In Egypt, we had more crossed-signals from the Obama administration than the exchange of a transvestite female in a male gay bar being hit on by a drunk lesbian sailor.  And at the end of the day, what did Obama’s support of the freedom fighters for democracy and freedom get us?  A military junta and the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood government in under a year.

Mark Steyn brought up a great bit of social anthropological observation when he noted the attire of Muslim women in Egypt over the generations as adjudged by the graduating pictures of all-women colleges.  Thirty years ago, women were fairly chic, modestly but modishly dressed in the Western fashion.  Over time, women started covering up, wearing non-revealing clothing like leg-length dresses.  Within the last ten years, prestodigatario! out come the hijabs and signs of creeping sharia law.

The men on the street in Egypt may be fighting for “democracy,” but they are also fighting for sharia.  Who ever said they were mutually exclusive?  Look at Syria’s Hamas, a terrorist organization with a primitive form of Medicare – elected democratically, rules despotically.  One can expect similar governments to spread across the Near East, as corrupt relatively pro-American tyrants are replaced by corrupt anti-American tyrants (and one uses the word ‘relatively’ in the sense that hamhocks are relatively better for you than fatback).

In Libya, we have a nuke-hungry madman who was reigned in by the foreign policy of a hawkish swaggering cowboy and his death lord right-hand man, who wasn’t so much born as was spewed forth from the oil swamps.  Two years later under Obama, and a war against self-same nuke-hungry madman is being waged by a faux-pacifist hawk not only simultaneously ceding America’s sovereignty to a world body, but its spine.

Whereas in the past a truly American-led coalition may have struck fear in our enemies, and possibly may have stemmed a geopolitical riptide, today the U.S.’ participation in any ‘coalition of the half-willing’ comes across as ‘mailing it in’ (to invoke a postal service expression soon to be replaced under Obamacare by ‘stitching it in’). We are apparently leading, yet not leading, in remarkably non-unilateral fashion, a grand coalition half the size of Operation Enduring Freedom to depose, no! capture, no! – perhaps reprimand? – the head of a foreign government who is opposed not just by unknown ‘freedom fighters’ but also their backers – al Qaeda!

In ten years from 9/11 we have gone from The War on Terror, a phrase scoffed at and heartily opposed by every lefty worth his salt (all two grains of it), to aiding and abetting the aims of al Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood.  While Americans could not stand a “blood for oil” war, sham narrative that it was, even less are disposed to put up with ‘blood for snake oil.’

And just who is the head of the above-mentioned coalition?  France?  The same France who fled with its proverbial tail between its legs from Algeria in 1962?  The same France who got us mired in ‘Dien Bien Phu – thanks for nothing Henri Navarre‘ in 1954?  The same France…oh forget it, this is exhausting.

President Obama’s foreign policy is uniquely foreign: it doesn’t resemble anything before seen.  While Jimmy Carter was a micromanaging peanut-for-brains, he didn’t intentionally go abroad stirring up trouble.  The Iranian revolution was not the result of a desire by Carter to foment any upheaval, but was the natural result of his weak-kneed capitulation. Today, we have a new kind of Democrat foreign policy disaster: a president who goes abroad lifting the lid off every Pandora’s box of problems he can find.

Whether it is his absence in Iran, his meddling in Honduras, his apologies in Europe, his bowing in Japan and Saudi Arabia, his backing of potentially pro-Islamist insurgents in Egypt, his half-hearted prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now his endorsement of an operation in Libya with no clear goal, Obama seems to be in a competition with himself to outdo his disastrous domestic policy with even more disastrous foreign policy.

But maybe we misunderestimate the president. Perhaps Obama’s serial bungling of foreign affairs is all part of a re-election strategy to make people forget about the flailing economy and the impending disaster of Obamacare. I guess we’ll all just have to go along with Obama’s foreign policy to find out what is in it.

Radical Alliance Threatens to Destroy the United States

It is rare to come across in print a writer whose exposition of a subject mirrors almost exactly what one concludes after extensive research. One of a small group of prominent thinkers who gets it is Andy McCarthy. From his latest book,The Grand Jihad:

“Neocommunism is leftism liberated by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many naively believe the Soviet demise would be a cautionary tale for the left, a warning against the hubris of big-government schemes to perfect man and society. The opposite, instead, is the case. David Horowitz, today’s most eloquent and incisive observer of the revolutionary left, the movement in which he was raised and on which he turned so fiercely, offers a perfect diagnosis:

Far from instilling humility in progressives….the collapse of socialism has revived their self-righteousness and reenergized their assault on the democratic West. The disappearance of the Soviet bloc has had only one consequence of note. It has lifted the burden of having to defend…an indefensible regime. Because the utopian vision is no longer anchored in the reality of an actually existing state, the left can now indulge its nihilistic agenda without restraint.

Nihilism is the key. Today’s hard left is defined by what it is against: the United States, free-market capitalism, and any foreign policy premised on defending American interests or promoting individual liberty. Only this part of the agenda is concrete, leaving neocommunism elastic enough to strike alliances with any movement that shares it. What necommunists are for, by contrast, is a set of abstractions – ‘social justice,’ ‘equality,” redistributive rights,’ the ‘rule of law,’ and of course, ‘our values.’ The details of those can be worked out later, once the more pressing imperative of undoing the existing order has been realized.

This explains Obama‘s ruinous spending, the trillions in debt, far surpassing in just a few months the total debt accumulated since the nation’s founding. Not content with that accomplishment, the president is rushing headlong to bankrupt the treasury permanently with additional trillions for nationalized healthcare and crushing tax increases – which experience assures us will reduce total revenues available for redistribution – including a “cap and trade” energy scheme that will nullify industry’s capacity to generate value. Critics from the right and what used to be the mainstream left are dumbfounded, wondering aloud whether the new administration is in over its head. This drastically underestimates Obama. Quite the opposite of overwhelmed, he has methodically done exactly what was predicted by those who took the time, during the 2008 campaign, to study his radical background: exploiting the new administration’s wind-at-its-back period to crush the capitalist system under an enormous commitment of future dollars, a commitment that will be nigh impossible to roll back once the public is finally roused from its slumbers. This ‘change’ is not designed to create a new system. Its purpose is to destroy the old one. What comes next is negotiable.”

The Grand Jihad joins David Horowitz’s The Unholy Alliance and Dr. Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate as key books exploring the insidious nexus of Islamist-leftist collaboration to destroy the United States.

America’s War on Terror: On Security and Liberty

If one hearkens back to last Christmas Day, the Obama administration‘s gift to the nation was a number of terrorism scares that raised red flags regarding the ability of this government to seriously and adequately protect Americans from terrorists. These provided warning signs that jihadists finally figured out that President Obama is the “weakest horse” yet, and is steadily retreating in the “war on terror.” What are we to make of the inability and unwillingness of the president to take on America’s enemies?

The Obama administration lacked the political will to fight terrorism from the very beginning. The president’s lack of military and intelligence experience, and his background as a community organizer (the politically correct term for a social agitator), suggest that the current leadership vacuum in our commander-in-chief should not be all that surprising. But what is surprising, and what has caused the young grasshopper to surpass the ways of the old pacifist master Jimmy Carter, is his outright hostility to anyone who would suggest that a war with terrorists actually exists. Well, a war with Islam-inspired terrorists, that is.

One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to declare open season on “right-wingers.” In the wake of the DHS’ wildly inaccurate report on “right-wing extremists,” which paints the reactionary rise of racist groups and armed militias by conflating Cro-Magnon conservatives with American freedom-lovers, there has not been a single newsworthy act of violence by a “right-winger.”

Despite massive outpourings of American patriots to oppose the government takeover of the healthcare system (as well as the grotesque bank and auto bailouts), of the hundreds of thousands who participated in the “tea parties,” not one elicited as much as a fine for littering.

False alarms of right-wing extremism included rampaging veterans returning from “overseas contingency operations,” the possibility of reprisals for terrorism carried out on innocent Muslims, and the supposed “murder” of a census worker by backwater Kentucky rednecks (still waiting for the retraction for that one).

But under the Obama administration, the most blatant acts of political violence have been the assault of conservative tea party goers (here, here, and here), and anthrax mailings to Republican representatives.

Meanwhile, on the “manmade disasters” front (we wouldn’t want to use the language of the “politics of fear,” would we?), there were some major terrorist attacks carried out by jihadists, and by the looks of things, there are more in store.

The worst of the lot was the Fort Hood shooting, which was carried about by an Army Major known to have tried contacting Al Qaeda. More recently, there was the near mid-flight murder of airline passengers courtesy of a crotch-bomb wielding jihadist with links to Al Qaeda and who was on the TSA’s no-fly list. OK, one of the no-fly lists. Apparently, the alleged “attempted attacker” was outed by his own father earlier; which really wouldn’t have mattered if he was assisted onto the plane without a passport.

Significantly, the attempted bombing was not thwarted by the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, despite assurances by “Big Sis” Janet Napolitano that “the system worked” (until Obama clarified that the system “didn’t work”); but rather it was stopped in progress by a vigilant passenger and a heads-up steward. The Christmas Day attack was followed by a spate of security breaches, including a (used) rocket launcher belonging to a Muslim man found at a Houston, Texas airport, and a security checkpoint failure at the Newark airport in New Jersey.

Predictably, these security lapses have not been a call for a renewed resurgence in the war on Islamic terrorists, perhaps even taking the radical step of fighting for victory in Afghanistan, but instead has been used as a pretense to further infringe on American civil liberties.

With leftists in office, it is hard to decide if their responses to security failures better illustrate their disdain for individual rights; their willful blindness, which results from a politically correct worldview that equivocates the Koran with the Bill of Rights; or their active or subconscious sympathy to the “freedom fighters'” cause.

Certainly, there is some merit to question the Democrats’ commitment to civil liberties. The track record of the staunchly progressive American Civil Liberties Union is more anti-American than pro-freedom. Defending the non-existent “rights” of non-citizen enemy combatants not to face military justice served up in tribunals, which are designed to handle detainees while the country is in a state of war, is but one glaring example. The support for the civilian court trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, which would logically extend citizen rights to a sworn enemy of the American people, is a case in point. We also have the pro bono work of Attorney General Eric Holder on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay (and it should be noted that 19 Republican Senators voted to confirm him).

Unrelated to the war on terror, we have the Holder-led DOJ dropping the case of two New Black Panther members in Philadelphia, who intimidated voters. The cherry on the top is the infamous FLAG website, which proposed to Americans to snitch on anyone spreading “disinformation” on healthcare. The term “disinformation” is an intelligence term that reeks of a KGB-modeled campaign to turn Americans against one another.

The next possible answer to why the progressive Democrats’ prosecution of the war on Islamic jihadists is so lackadaisical is simply that they are ideologically confused. In the progressive’s world, being “compassionate” is equivocating all groups of humans as equal, as well as their cultures and ideologies. Does a particular ideology promote death? That’s irrelevant. Does an ideology inspire a culture that leads to a diminution of respect for freedom? So what if it does?

In the perfect world of progressives, no one fights over ideologies; therefore, the best thing to do about Islamic radicalism is to ignore it and cease our ideological “hegemony” over other nations. Even better, redistribute the wealth from those spoiled middle class Americans to the underprivileged jihadists (who are not typically underprivileged, but often upper class). That will address the socio-economic problem of “class envy,” the explanans universalis for all the world’s problems, at its root source.

Then we have the theory that Democrats often side with jihadists because they are both fundamentally anti-American at their core. By using the term “anti-American,” I am not identifying America as a socialist utopia, which is the presumed defense of radicals who argue that “they love America too.” Well, if you love America so much, why are you trying to “radically transform” it?

To back up this seemingly unlikely thesis, Dr. Jamie Glazov painstakingly details the left’s penchant for siding with America’s enemies in his book “United in Hate“; from Columbia hosting a speech by the holocaust-denying, Jew-hating President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, to the despicable support for the North Vietnamese shown by the likes of Jane Fonda and Shirley MacLaine. The pattern on the left seems to be that they are attracted to whomever happens to be America’s worst enemy at the time, including fascists (see Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism“), communists, and, as suggested by their defense of Palestinian “freedom fighters,” Hamas, CAIR, and detainees at Gitmo, radical jihadists.

Does this “United in Hate” theory sound crazy? That is, is it so far-fetched that radical Democrats and radical Jihadists are essentially playing on the same anti-American team, for one reason or another, according to the international relations logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Well, let us look at the recent and the not-so-recent past and examine the track record of so-called “liberal” Democrats.

Following 9/11 there has been an inability for progressives to recognize that the terrorists we face are indeed Muslim. Even if we blotted out the 9/11 attacks from history, we would still have the matter of the numerous Muslim attacks on the U.S. to deal with. There was the U.S.S. Cole attack, off the coast of Yemen; the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; and the first WTC attack, just to name a few. All of these attacks were carried out by Islamic jihadists.

Then there was the 3/11 Madrid bombings, which possibly influenced Spain’s elections, as well as the London bombings. We can even go back before the fall of the USSR, to the Lockerbie bombing and the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. All of these terrorist acts were carried about by Islamic jihadists. Still, the progressives refuse to face the fact that in our ongoing war with terrorists who are out to kill Americans, we face a predominately Muslim enemy.

A highly disturbing news item that goes virtually unreported in the American press that provides some evidence of Democrats siding with the enemy, is that several members of Congress, all Democrats, are receiving money from and/or actively collaborating with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is a well-documented unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, which led to 108 guilty verdicts, including the funneling of nearly $12 million to the officially classified terrorist organization Hamas. These members of Congress include: Rep. Andre Carson (D – IN), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D – OH), Rep. Shirley Jackson-Lee (D – TX), Rep. Al Green (D – TX), Rep. Nick Lampson (D – TX), Rep. Bill Pascrell (D – NJ). And it is not like these Democrats don’t know any better. Several Republicans, including, Rep. Sue Myryck (R – NC), Rep. Trent Franks (R – AZ), Rep. John Shadegg (R – AZ), and Paul Broun (R – Ga), have gone on the record warning of how dangerous and deceptive an organization CAIR is.

But direct evidence of any Democrats’ intent to compromise U.S. security is, and would be, hard to come by. All we have to go on is a track record.

If we go back further back in time, modern liberals and progressives refused to acknowledge the danger coming from Russia, the chief state of the “former” Soviet Union. The U.S. therefore partially left itself open to subversion and espionage in the Cold War because its culture of freedom, including freedom of dissent, provided the perfect petrie dish for openly undermining America’s traditions, values, and institutions.

The left, without a hint of reflection apparently, embarked on a decades-long campaign from the 1930s onward to savage the cultural foundations that led to America’s rise in prosperity and power. The left did this while believing that they were redressing America’s supposed sins of capitalism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, and slavery (which officially ended 150 years ago), without even pausing to think if they were doing exactly what America’s enemies wanted them to.

This made the left so ideologically blind to such blatant cases of communist infiltration as those of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, key spies who directly impacted the formation of the United Nations and the Soviets’ nuclear weapons program, respectively. Rather than examining the evidence of espionage with all the seriousness demanded of the cases, they not only dismissed the accusations out of hand, but shot any messenger who dared “red bait” the fellow-travelers.

More immediately, we have the matter of Democrats (and Republicans) refusing to acknowledge that Russia is our adversary today. America is still referred to in Russia’s revamped intelligence services as the “main target. ” There are good reasons to believe that for today’s Russian Kremlin, undermining the security goals of the United States is “business as usual.”

We can thus easily see that the perfect strategy for those who hate America, including the Russian government, would be to “cross-pollinate” ideological subversion (see KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov), espionage, and radical Islamism. The KGB and its progeny have been working for decades to fuel anti-Americanism in the Middle East, a campaign led most notably by former Prime Minister Yevgenii Primakov. Primakov recently blamed the U.S. for the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran (despite the fact that the Russians are helping to build Iran’s nuclear reactors). There are even suggestions that Primakov assisted Iraq in their military preparations before the second Iraq War.

Despite the poor track record of Russia following the fall of the Berlin wall, key leftists in the Clinton White House like Al Gore and suspected communist fellow-traveler Strobe Talbott caused us to lower our guards once again, assisting the building of a two-faced oligarchic kleptocracy with taxpayer money, and paying no mind as Russia became increasingly authoritarian and even belligerent.

In addition, there are reasons to suspect the purported causus bellum of Russia’s war on Chechnya. Supposedly fought due to the threat of Chechyan separatism, the war is widely seen to have been started by former President Boris Yeltsin for domestic political reasons. The war not only bootsed Yeltsin’s public approval, but it gave Russians the political smokescreen to be seen as collaborators with the U.S. in the ongoing fight with Muslim jihadists. The highest-ranking intelligence defector to the U.S., Sergei Tretyakov, suggests as much at the close of the intriguing work “Comrade J.”

More recently, the blast in Afghanistan that killed four members of CIA, including a high-ranking officer, is said to be carried out by a double agent, who had also contracted for Jordanian intelligence. The infiltration of our intelligence services by members of Al Qaeda, or recruited foreign agents posing as moles in terrorist groups, was only a matter of time. I’m not saying that Russia is behind this security disaster, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was. The opportunity for countries like Russia to fuel Islamic radicalism as a proxy means of carrying out war on the United States is just too ripe. This is why the Democrats’ “kumbaya” approach to international relations kicks open a hornet’s nest of security problems for the U.S.. The world is interconnected in ways that the modern liberals can’t grasp because of their cultural relativist viewpoint and their lack of realist sensibilities.

The point is that under Democrat administrations there is a tendency not to take our enemies seriously. The learning curve for radicals is not only inordinately high, but as we saw with the Carter administration, never-ending. It is no small hint at how America’s enemies see Democrats that the hostage-takers in Iran turned over the American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

So what can we take away from this analysis? Did most progressives and liberal Democrats of yesteryear actively work to subvert the U.S.? No. It would be much too easy to find the literal smoking guns that would give away the game. Instead, America was ideologically subverted; through academia at the well-spring, and trickling into the schools, the media, and the legal system. This was not done with blatant pro-communist propaganda, but with the obliteration of reasoned self-interest, through subjectivism, solipsism, philosophical pragmatism, and a host of theories that erode the perception of objective reality, and are therefore conducive to ideological manipulation in the direction of collectivism.

The key ethic that primes modern liberals for self-destructive behavior is altruism, which makes it the highest act of virtue to sacrifice oneself for a higher cause. Altruism is the antithesis of rationality, which is the faculty that man needs for self-preservation and the preservation of a free country (see Rand).

It is really no surprise, therefore, that progressives are literally unable to see threats to America rising from outside its borders. Progressives, or more frankly, neo-marxists, only see threats to their civilizationally-suicidal cultural relativist agenda arising from within. Mexicans coming over the border and draining taxpayer dollars? Not a threat. Communists and socialists undermining the culture of freedom that has preserved the United States for over 200 years? Not a threat. Muslim jihadists infiltrating our universities, military and intelligence services? Not a threat. Those who would dare boldly argue that America, with all its history, traditions, and institutions, is the best, freest nation on earth? Dangerous right-wing extremists.

The best reason for why modern liberals and progressives have been ill-equipped to fight the War on Terror is the same reason that they were unable to confront the USSR during the cold war. Altruism dictates that serving one’s self-interest, whether when dealing with others economically, or when confronted by one’s fiercest enemies, is morally wrong. Altruism is not as much a moral principle for neo-marxists, who have been inoculated with the nihilistic value of moral relativism and post-modern subjectivist ideologies, but it is more of an ingrained, intuitive, and nearly irreversible feeling that overwhelms one’s ability to make right-and-wrong, black-and-white judgments. In the upside-down world of progressives, emotion trumps rationality.

Suggested reading:
Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness
Mark Steyn – America Alone
Melanie Phillips – Londonistan
Steve Emerson – American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us
Jamie Glazov – United in Hate
Bill Gertz – The Failure Factory
Pete Earley – Comrade J
Christopher Andrew – The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel – The Venona Secrets, Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors
John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr – In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage
John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr – Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America
Whittaker Chambers – Witness
M. Stanton Evans – Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies
Robert Jervis – Perception and Misperception in International Politics