Obama-Car (Not Care – Car)

by Robert Arvay

News item (fake, at least for now):  Obama-Car – yes, that’s right, not ObamaCARE, but Obama-CAR, is the next major initiative of the government.

Obama will require that every American must purchase a brand new car. If you like the car you already have – you’ve heard that crap before, haven’t you? You can keep your car, but you will be fined – unless you buy an Obama-Car.

The Obama-Car will run on solar and wind power, or maybe its solar-wind-power, and fish guts. Parts for the car will be supplied by Solyndra, Fisker and a consortium of companies from China, Russia, Syria, Libya and Kenya …

Responding to people who complain at the $2 million cost of the vehicle, Obama replied by saying that the cars already owned by Americans are “crummy.” The Obama-Car is much, much better. For one thing, it seats fifty people comfortably.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

Home Defense Foundation of New Orleans

Exclusive to The Bold Pursuit

by Cap Black

Conservative. Libertarian. If you fall within one or both of these categories, the 2014 midterm Congressional elections are dangled before you like carrots to goad you into electoral action.

The GOP is in shambles, beaten by an unimaginably motely combination of outright socialists and cultural shock troops, the dregs of society who have trampled over whatever traditional values remain within the possessed husk of the Democratic Party. Cap Black seated with the big smile & white ball capMany grassroots, right-of-center folks are in a quandary. The recent government shutdown spectacle left some siding with Senator Cruz and company while others were aghast at hard working federal employees being used as political pawns, in their opinion.

Will the GOP make gains in the US House of Representatives next year? Disgruntled traditionalists (this one included) ask, “Does it matter?” in an apparently post-traditionalist America.

A Libertarian friend pointedly said during a recent discussion that the culture war is over, the Left won and that all traditionalists have remaining is promoting self-defense, something we both do in respective roles at the Home Defense Foundation (HDF) of New Orleans, with my Libertarian friend as our founder and me as coordinator.

In a land where age-old values are eclipsed by amoral experimentation, HDFs’ focus on free self-defense training and pro-safety legislative reform like “Fix 1420,” Louisiana’s justified homicide statute, may be all traditionalists have left.

2014 will come in due time, but first we must weather potential unrest when food stamp allotments are reduced by $36.00 for many clients on November 1st, 2013 and another Thanksgiving and Christmas with less money and less buying power than before.

Self-defense truly might be the last conservative cause left as the shadow of this “new normal” threatens to asphyxiate America.

For more information on the Home Defense Foundation of New Orleans and fixing state law 1420, please visit: http://www.hdfnola.org

Fix 1420 Letter Writing Campaign! Keep Home owners Safe!


Failure Will Never Fail: The Socialist Doctrine

by Robert Arvay 

There is no shortage of anecdotes to prove that socialism is an inherently self-destructive economic system. Yet, for centuries, humans have persisted in their efforts to make it work. History continually repeats itself. An unbroken string of tragic failures has taught socialists nothing. Here is a short list of them. 

When the Pilgrims first came to the New World (America), they instituted a socialist, indeed a communistic, economy. Everything was to be equally shared by everyone. All the work, and all the fruits of labor, belonged to one and all alike. The result was predictable: starvation on a large scale. It seems that people are much more willing to share in the fruits of other peoples’ labors, than they are to share in the labor itself. The consequence was deadly. Too little was produced, too much was consumed and the only thing that was shared was hunger. About half of the settlers died before they adopted a capitalist, private-ownership philosophy of economics. After that, the Pilgrims became prosperous and well fed. (For more details:www.libertyunderfire.org) 

When the earliest Christians formed their first society (see the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament) they used a similar model. Indeed, the Bible even chronicles how two of the members of that society were put to death after they held back some of their money from the community. This Bible passage has been used by some to propose that communism is the most Christian form of society. 

However, when the exact passage is read, a very different picture emerges. Ananias and Sapphira were punished, not for holding back, but for fraud. They expected to pay less than they had agreed, while partaking of the full benefit of the social contract they had signed. 

The primary difference between the form of communism practiced by the earliest Christians, and the form practiced by modern day totalitarians, is that no one was forced to join the Christian community. 

An anecdote for which I cannot presently find the reference relates the experiment with socialism in a small town in Minnesota in the 1800s. The town council was outraged when it discovered that merchants selling food in the town market were charging exorbitant prices. The merchants would buy food from farms, and sell them in town for ten times what the farmer got. That is a one thousand percent mark-up! A law was passed, limiting the price of food to a ten percent mark-up. The merchants protested that this narrow margin was not enough to cover their costs, their losses, spoilage, unsold food, wear and tear on their wagons, and so forth. The town council would not yield. The merchants then stopped buying from the farmers. With no food in the market, citizens had to go themselves to the farms. There, they discovered that once they had to bear the costs that the merchants had borne, the effective price of food was far more than what the merchants had charged. Competition between merchants had kept food affordable, and suddenly, it was no longer affordable. 

Reluctantly, the town council repealed its unwise law, and once again, the markets were open. Interestingly, however, the citizens remained resentful. Despite the clear experience of the failure of their misbegotten law, they continued to believe that the merchants were being unfair. 

Another example from memory (I have the college economics textbook somewhere) involves a factory. The workers made such enormous demands, under threat of strike, that the owners finally decided to sell the factory. When they were unable to find a buyer, the owners decided to simply close the business down. The workers, faced with loss of their jobs, offered to buy the property and run it themselves. For a time, matters seemed to go well. The factory belonged to the workers. When any worker slacked off on the job, the other workers had an incentive to prompt the recalcitrant worker to do his job. Profits were still too low to provide much pay, so the workers paid a management company to increase profits. Sure enough, profits went up, and so did salaries, but the workers were still not happy, so they decided to sell their shares in the company to investors, who then bought the factory. Once this was done, the workers immediately resumed their unrealistic demands for higher wages, for paid time off, and for more benefits. They did this, even knowing that it was such demands that had driven the factory to ruin in the first place. 

The common theme here is that (with the exception of the Pilgrims), people never seem to learn from their experiences. Failure is supposed to be a great teacher and this is often true for individuals, but not so for society at large.

One explanation for this is that free markets are portrayed by socialists as predatory, feudalistic, rigged systems, such as those in many third world nations; but the so-called evils of free markets do not result from free markets, rather, they result from un-free markets. In the United States today, markets are politicized to the point where the government’s undue influence benefits only the government and no one else. Free markets do indeed require government— good government. When that government sees its function as that of preserving freedom, free markets are amazingly successful. Examples of government’s proper role include the passage of anti-trust laws, contract enforcement, anti-fraud, full disclosure rules and other principles vital to free markets. 

Unfortunately, the US government has itself become predatory, fraudulent and feudal. Instead of preserving and protecting individual freedom, the US government restricts freedom far beyond what is necessary and prudent. The US government views its citizens as existing only for the benefit of the government, and not the other way around. 

As was the case with the Pilgrims, it will probably require a total collapse of the American economy, complete with tragedies and atrocities, before Americans return to free market principles. Once Americans have properly learned that lesson, and begin enjoying the blessings of freedom— they will, in all likelihood, promptly forget, and set back on the road to socialism once again. 


Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

Evil and Freedom, Power and Principle

by Robert Arvay

Why does God permit evil? One does not normally think of this as a political question, but it is. It is also one of the age-old questions, not merely a question seeking an answer, but frequently, one which casts an accusation. The often-intended implication is that a good and merciful God, one who is almighty, would never permit evil, and would never permit the suffering and pain that evil inflicts upon the innocent and helpless. Surely, a good earthly king would not do this.

So let us ask the question politically. Why does God permit evil?

A clue to the answer is found in the very definition of evil. It is a definition not found in the dictionary. In short, evil is a violation of God’s will. Acts of evil are not merely mistakes, but a well thought out opposition to God’s commands, and to God Himself.

The first recorded political act of evil occurred in heaven, when Satan led a rebellion against God. One must wonder why Satan could have thought that his rebellion had any hope of success against an all-powerful God. Surely, Satan could not have thought he had any prospect of overpowering Him who has all power.

What if, however, Satan’s rebellion was based not in force, but in deception? What if he thought that he had found the one vulnerability that makes rebellion against God possible? Could God have such a vulnerability?

Freedom. God gave to Satan, indeed to all angels and all humans, the one God-like power that makes God vulnerable to us. He gave us free will. He gave us individual sovereignty. He gave us the power to violate His free will. He gave us the power to crucify His only Son. How does this apply to politics today?

During the past few years, we have witnessed the forces of evil take increasing hold in America. We have seen holy matrimony undermined by easy divorce, and by casual cohabitation. We are seeing parenthood replaced with abortion. We watch as news and education are being perverted into propaganda and indoctrination. And on and on it goes, as the pristine ideal of America sinks slowly into the mud of corruption.

So it is that we are watching as the rebellion in heaven has come down to earth.

      “. . .Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath. . . .”

(excerpted from Revelation 12:12)

The enemy has not conquered us by force. Instead, it has enlisted many of us to its side, by deception. The end goal is tyranny, and tyranny more ruthless and more brutal than that inflicted by any military conqueror.

 In moments of great frustration, many of us, myself included, have wished that we could simply rebel, and that we could replace by brute force what we have thus far failed to achieve by persuasion. God could have done that long ago. Why hasn’t He?

Again, the answer is freedom, a God-given gift.

When we begin to fantasize that we could replace our presently degenerate system of corrupt politicians by brute force, we must be careful to weigh the consequences. To be sure, there are times when force is right and necessary. The Founders of our nation knew that, but the nature of their rebellion was to cast off tyranny, not to substitute for it the same tyranny with different tyrants.

I have sometimes wished that a few wise men and women who are in positions of power might execute a coup, and install rulers who are more to my liking.

It would only be temporary, of course. The newly installed dictatorship would hold power only so long as necessary to replace the false propaganda of the left, with the truth of the right. It would only rule just long enough to restore Constitutional principles. Once a few vital plans had been implemented, then the new tyranny— the good tyrants— would voluntarily relinquish their absolute power, and return power to the people. They would have remained uncorrupted themselves. Wouldn’t they?

If this sounds like a pipe dream, it is because that’s what it is. If it sounds like the evil empire foretold in the Bible, perhaps that is because it would give rise to such.

Near the beginning of this commentary, evil was defined as a violation of God’s will, a definition not found in the dictionary. There is also another part of the definition that is not found there, and that is this:  evil is self-destructive.

Most people seem to think that in The Revelation, God intervenes to destroy the Satanic empire in the battle of Armageddon. If my reading of the scripture is accurate, that battle occurs only after the Satanic empire has fallen, when the kingdom of Jesus rules, and when Satan attempts one last time to destroy it. Before then, the Satanic empire has already fallen. It falls of its own weight, like a giant oak tree, outwardly mighty, but eaten from within by corruption.

Freedom must be defended, and at all costs. It must be defended by force when necessary, but never by imposition of a tyranny that poses as a good.

 As we are instructed in Galatians Chapter 5:

      13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

In other words, we must use our freedom only for good. America has been blessed with freedom, but too many of us have used that freedom for vileness and debauchery. In doing so, we are bringing about our own self-destruction, a fate that no enemy, foreign or domestic, could inflict upon us.

The cure for tyranny is freedom. The cure for falsehood is truth. The cure for evil is goodness.

Yes, I will still fantasize from time to time about “good tyrants” taking over the government, but that is a product not of any wisdom, but of frustration at seeing evil in its wrath destroying our great nation. I will still be tempted to think that all we need is a better king.

But I know how badly that story ends. 

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

New column in JWT’s Journal today

You may not be aware that there are several ‘blog feeds’ on The Bold Pursuit, including JWT’s Journal, a column by John Wayne Tucker, a former minister, teacher and candidate for U.S. Congress (MO). Mr. Tucker’s latest column, “Who is Really Responsible for the Government Shutdown?”

You’ll also find intriguing commentary in The Patriot’s Notepad and Patriotic Perspectives, as well as breaking stories on our Newsmax page.

We’re building out a new section, The Aerie, to highlight books, music, poetry and art by creative conservatives. Please check it out – and let us know if you have a book or creative work to share with us.

Our syndication partner, US4Palin, provides a daily stream of information about former Governor and candidate for the vice presidency, Sarah Palin.

Thank you for visiting The Bold Pursuit. We hope you enjoy our work (we’re all an volunteer army – no paid staff or writers) and invite your friends to visit our site.

~ Clio, Publisher



Civility, Civil Disobedience and Civil War

by Robert Arvay

As we watch American war veterans tear down the barricades, we are witnessing the early stages of massive civil disobedience.

Those barricades, blocking the entrances to national war memorials, were spitefully erected to keep American citizens from honoring the warriors to whom we owe our freedom. The purpose of those barriers was to inflict emotional torment, a ploy to whip Americans into compliance with a law that nobody read before it was voted into being, and the consequences of which are now, predictably, proving disastrous.

At the same time that American citizens were told that they were not allowed to visit their memorials, illegal aliens were treated, at taxpayer expense, to an outing on the national mall, courtesy of the same government that slapped our veterans in the face.

You’ve heard of governments in exile. We have become an electorate in exile; forced from the homeland of our Constitutional rights, into the foreign territory of colonial rule— rule by an arrogant, powerful elite which recognizes none of our rights at all.

So much for the civility that was promised to the sheep who fell under the spell a great speaker of words, a spell of which the Bible warned us:

Daniel 7:25,  King James Version (KJV)

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The Revelation, 13:5,  King James Version (KJV)

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Obama might not be the anti-Christ, but then, neither was Hitler. Both men, however, serve as portents to prove that what is predicted in prophecy is not too fantastic to really happen.

We were promised civility, and now we see civil disobedience. If it gets worse, and I believe it will, then the next step will be civil war, a war not between geographies of land, but between territories of the mind.

On the one side will be those whose faith is in government, ever bigger, ever more powerful government. History shows the outcome of that:  unrestrained power generates only one thing, and that is a lust for more power— a lust for absolute power, which as the adage warns us, corrupts absolutely.

On the other side are the people who recognize that governments are composed of fallible people, people who are neither more wise, nor more benevolent, than the ordinary citizen. Therefore, governments must always be held in check, scrutinized closely, and made firmly accountable. Should all else fail, those governments must be subject to removal.

As the Declaration of Independence clearly states:

. . . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .

Somehow, a large segment of the American people forgot that governments cannot be left on auto-pilot. Citizenry is hard work. And as our war veterans clearly understand, it is dangerous work.

We must be civil when possible, and civilly disobedient when necessary. Our Founders recognized that the next step, civil war, is the last resort. They took that step.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer


Some Thoughts on Unionism

by Alex Burwasser, Guest Contributor

First and foremost, I support the right of private sector workers to organize and bargain collectively (which nearly always means that a labor union will serve as the workers’ bargaining agent). My support is based on our Constitutional right of free association.

Anyone with even just a casual awareness of the history of the American labor movement no doubt understands the appalling conditions endured by many workers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Child labor, excessive work hours, and unsafe working conditions were only part of the miseries workers had to endure. It is to the labor unions’ credit that they were able to create public awareness and work to remedy these excesses.

Unfortunately, as unions became larger and more powerful, they became power centers all of their own, existing more and more for the benefit of the union leadership rather than the workers whose dues they were collecting. At some point, it seemed that the workers the union bosses were paid to represent had just traded masters (i.e., oppressive and greedy union bosses replaced oppressive and greedy employers). The graft, corruption and other criminal activities of some of the larger union organizations are well documented.

Fast-forwarding to the present, there is far less need for labor unions today. A plethora of state and federal statutes has long been in force that address all the legitimate grievances raised by the labor movement founders. As a result, unionized private sector workers today receive far less value for the dues skimmed from their paychecks than in times past. This is one of the reasons that the percentage of private sector unions has shrunk so dramatically (up to 35% of the labor force at its peak back in the 1950s/60s as compared to 8% today).

The other reason for this catastrophic decline is that today’s markets are more globalized and competitive. Unionized companies are less efficient than their non-unionized counterparts as a result of the burdens of higher labor costs, cumbersome work rules, and an inability to easily trim out less productive and unnecessary workers. Since this raises production costs, unionized companies are less competitive. As a result, large unionized U.S. industries have suffered huge losses in market share since the 1960s. (In fact, major portions of large, important, basic industries such as steel, auto, and shipbuilding employing millions of workers have fled to offshore domiciles and right-to-work states.) Private sector unionism is thus self-limiting – if the union is too “successful” in its contract negotiations, either the owners move the operation to a right-to-work state (or even offshore) to obtain relief or the business eventually shuts down and surrenders its market share to the global marketplace.

In sharp contrast to my support of the right of private sector workers to unionize, I strongly oppose public sector unionization. Public sector unionism is a recipe for poor governance, corruption, and an inefficient, bloated public sector workforce with wages, salaries, benefits, and job security far in excess of that available in the private sector for comparable work. The problem is easy to understand. Public sector unions inevitably back selected local politicians usually Democrats) with campaign contributions and other aid. When these “bought and paid for” politicians are elected and then later face these same union sponsors across the bargaining table, they are very reluctant to bite the hands that feed them. Thus, there is nobody at the bargaining table representing the taxpayer in these negotiations. The result is a sweetheart deal for the unions. Over time, however, the municipalities and states collapse under the burden of the resulting unsustainable pension and healthcare obligations.

The recent Detroit bankruptcy is an excellent case in point. This was not just a one-off event caused by an isolated case of bad governance and gross corruption. It is actually a template for the future of public sector unionism in particular and blue state governance in general. Back in the 1930s, President Roosevelt (who was a strong supporter of private sector unions) stated his opposition to public sector unions. Similarly, back in the 1950s, George Meany (then-president of the AFL-CIO) likewise stated his opposition to public sector unionism.

Unlike private sector unions whose excesses are clamped by market realities as discussed above, there is no similar clamp on the excesses of public sector unions. Without competition, the costs of these excesses can be shifted onto taxpayers for a very long time.

Public sector workers really don’t need unions. All government organizations have generous public sector worker laws that obviate the need for representation. Non-unionized public sector workers mostly are required to put forth but modest effort, receive adequate compensation, and cannot easily be terminated for poor performance. At the end of the day, public sector unionization is a recipe for poor governance and extravagant benefits that must be funded by taxpayers. On the whole, these taxpayers have lesser compensation, much less job security, and healthcare and pension benefits that are but a pale imitation of those received by public sector workers. Unionized public sector workers have become privileged public masters rather than the more modest public servants that they were hired to be.

Addressing the issue of compulsory unionism, I argue that since the right of free association is the basis for the legitimacy of labor unions, this same right should likewise be the basis for the right of workers to refuse to join and not become unwilling conscripts. While those workers who believe that they obtain value for their union dues should be free to join, unions should not have the power to override the right of free association of those workers who do not believe the value of union membership is worth the dues they would be compelled to pay.

The counter-argument is often made that workers should be required to pay for benefits they receive (i.e., since both union and non-union workers benefit when unions successfully negotiate a favorable contract, the non-union workers are in effect getting a “free ride”). While this is a good talking point with a certain smell of truth, the right of free association, which is the basis for union legitimacy as discussed above, is a far more compelling and overriding argument. Stating this more forcefully, since the legitimate basis for union existence is the right of free association, these unions cannot then walk into the room and credibly claim with a straight face that this same right of free association should not extend to non-members.

Looking at this counter-argument from a different angle, if we accept the premise that unions should be able to levy unwilling conscripts based on the argument that they would otherwise receive unearned benefits obtained through the efforts and sacrifices of their unionized brethren, then it would follow that any organization that claims to benefit non-members could likewise draft unwilling conscripts and force them to pay dues. Thus, those advocating compulsory unionism would have to accept the absurd premise that the Chamber of Commerce, PTA, Rotary Club, and many other civic organizations that claim to accomplish public good should likewise be able to force compulsory dues-paying membership.

An equally compelling (though less discussed) issue is that union membership often has no net benefit. Since unionism has been a large contributing factor to job losses as discussed above, workers could reasonably conclude that any short term benefits would be outweighed by the elevated risk of unemployment. In other words, unwilling workers could reasonably argue that unions are a net detriment rather than benefit to their livelihood, and that they should hardly be expected to pay dues to an organization that threatens this livelihood.

The bottom line is that unions sell a representation service to workers that is not unlike attorneys selling representation to their clients. Like all services, price and quality are optimized by the forces of competition in a free market place. If competition is replaced by compulsion, higher prices and poorer service (more specifically, higher union dues, higher pay and perks for the union bosses, and fewer worker benefits) are the predictable result. As a small-business entrepreneur, I have no legal monopoly that allows me to compel any customer to buy my products. I similarly expect unions not to demand this extravagant privilege.

/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

Anarcho-Capitalism: The Road Less Traveled to Serfdom

by Don Hank, Guest Contributor

After years of investigation and thought, I have decided that, despite the libertarian rejection of socialism, I do not accept American libertarianism. The American libertarians, spelled with a capital or small L, are generally indoctrinated by the von Mises wing of the Austrian School, in contrast to the European libertarians, who lean toward Hayek.

What’s the difference?

While Hayek believed in law and order, despite his libertarian approach to economics, the more radical of the von Mises wing (not necessarily Von Mises himself) believe in something called Anarcho-Capitalism, which teaches an ideology that has never been tried on a national scale and, while it seems tempting to many, is not based on anything tried and true, merely on philosophical conjectures.

Here is that definition:

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

The focus is therefore on private vs. public security, where the depositing of security functions in the private sphere would supposedly be superior in functionality and quality and would somehow be more fair. However, since the State is not involved, there would be no law or rules to use as guidelines. Further, only the rich could own the latest security systems, and since the State would not participate in security and crime control, there would be no mechanism for keeping the security system from being corrupted and little or no help for the little guy. The individual or company who could afford less security would be a sitting duck for the richest criminals. Without a centrally defined concept of law and order, there would quite simply be none. Soon the nation would be divided into fiefdoms and most of us would become serfs (not to say we aren’t already becoming serfs in our overregulated world, but in Anarchy, there would be no recourse). Capitalism itself, without a moral underpinning, will soon become corrupt and the same bankers who now rule over our inflated currency with an iron fist and rob us blind will soon rise to the top of an anarchic system as well, simply by adapting their methods to it. After all, they are already tacitly given carte blanche to rob us. In an anarchic system, that tacit carte blanche would give way to an explicit carte blanche.

Without a moral basis, and without law and order, the whole thing will blow up very quickly.



Here is a novel idea no one has tried:

Look at economic and social models that WORK. Stop arguing over untested theories. Instead of launching into endless philosophical discussions on the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth, simply count the teeth.

Humans have had the scientific method for centuries, yet they are careful to limit it almost exclusively to the laboratory and the field of science and physics.

The Fed has never tried real world objective scientific research. The Keynesians who control national and supranational economies eschew it. The result is that the entire West seems poised to collapse.

Thus, the anarchists are already in charge.

Thus, the only difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and the system we now have is that we call our present anarchy democracy. And we call our anarchists public officials and bankers.

In the libertarian system we could call them what they are…

… but we’d still be their slaves.

Don Hank

/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;