The Cultural Jihad Squad

Recently, there has been much ado over exchanges between the President and a group collectively known as “the squad.” This group consists of four U.S. Congresswomen and while they are all dangerous in their own ways, I would like to focus specifically on two of them here today. While I am not dismissing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s extreme socialist agenda or Ayanna Pressley’s “you’re only authentically black if you think like me” racism, they are subjects for another post. Today, I’d like to focus on the other half of the squad. Specifically, their ongoing Cultural jihad and the danger it poses our country. 

Many Americans are familiar with the term jihad. What many are not familiar with, however, is the term Cultural jihad. Cultural jihad works like a trojan horse, a beachhead if you will, in which the jihadists establish themselves in an area and then begin to secure their enclaves. It starts with no go zones and local shariah[1]and ends with a complete takeover of the American system. Sound hysterical? Far-fetched? Fear mongering? Actually, I wish. While I am not suggesting we are there yet, what I am suggesting is twofold: one, this complete takeover is the end goal and two, it has already begun. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant to this stated goal and scarier still, this ignorance is exploited to further the agenda of the Cultural jihad.[2]

Regrettably, we can see the effects of the early stages of this Cultural jihad beginning to come to fruition within the United States today. In 2016, the United States took in more Muslim refugees than it ever had before[3]and the vast majority of those were from Syria and Somalia.[4]This is especially troubling given that Syria is part of the area responsible for the formation of ISIS[5]and Somali refugees make up the largest population segment to have joined or attempted to join terrorist camps in the last 12 years.[6]In fact, Minnesota’s fifth congressional district is the terror recruitment capital of the country.[7]Additionally, there is a convincing indication that the Somali community within the United States does not identify itself as being a part of the American community much less the Minnesota one.[8]There is also a strong amount of evidence to suggest that when a community, such as the Somali one in Minnesota, simply relocates in large numbers they are effectively transplanting themselves to a new location rather than integrating to that new location. As a result they will subsequently be less likely to embrace the values and culture of their new home.[9]This is especially true for Somalis as there is an active element within their community that specifically discourages them from identifying as “black” or “African-American.”[10] It is particularly troubling then, that this same area is attempting to spread its ideology to the rest of the country by sending their values to the U.S Congress in the form of one of their own, another refugee, Ilhan Omar.[11]

In a similar fashion, Detroit, Michigan has been previously called the Arab capital of North America.[12]Arab-Detroit, even as recently as 2016, was seen as the capital of Arab-America[13]and it too has sent a representative of its values to the United States House of Representatives by electing Rashida Tlaib.[14]It is interesting to note that Representative Tlaib, despite having been born in the U.S., refers to herself repeatedly as Palestinian.[15]This is more evidence of the same type of cultural displacement and rejection present in the Arab-Detroit community as evidenced in the Somali areas.[16]Immediately upon swearing in to her newly elected office, Rep. Tlaib hurled expletives at the President and threatened to impeach him.[17]Rep. Tlaib also has ties[18]to the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)[19]and has even knowingly shared the stage with Muslim Brotherhood representatives.[20]

Representative Omar shares similar cultural jihad proclivities as well, having actually gone so far as to raise money for extremist organizations.[21]When she is not engaging in fundraising for jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood[22]she is busy blaming America for terror activity,[23]insulting the victims of 9/11,[24] and falsely accusing the United States of slaughtering thousands of Somalis.[25]She even recently was seen refusing to condemn al Qaeda[26]and even laughing at Americans for fearing them.[27]On top of that, there is increasing evidence to suggest that she committed fraud against the United States.[28]Additionally, Representatives Tlaib and Omar also both misled their constituents on their views regarding support for anti-Israeli organizations and movements.[29]

These are prime examples of cultural jihad. Two women, with deeply held beliefs that clearly align with Muslim Jihadists, are now responsible for enacting legislation that affects the entire United States. Setting aside the religious doctrines of Islam and the evidence of its seeming incompatibility with western democracy,[30]the important thing to remember about this type of thinking is that it does not matter what we think about their religion or even what others in their religion think about their religion, it only matters what they think about their religion. The people who subscribe to this ideology believe that they are called by Allah to do everything in their power to institute Sharia law all over the world.[31]There is no room for coexistence, despite what the bumper stickers would have you believe. The adherents to this ideology believe that such ideals do not overlap. As one Muslim writer put it: “these two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat.”[32]

This type of slow infiltration, this Cultural jihad, is extremely dangerous. It is a slow erosion of our own culture and traditions with the expressly stated goal of our subjugation.[33]These are just two examples in a country of millions, yet they have already made it to our lawmaking establishments. These two women, with clear and demonstrable ties to anti-American organizations, are an active threat to the continued existence of the United States. I understand if people want to disregard these statements as hyperbole, but the simple fact of the matter is, they are not. You can go to any Muslim-organized activity in this country and hear the evidence for yourself. They insist that America will be a Muslim nation. I urge anyone reading this to remember what I said previously: it doesn’t matter what you or I believe about their beliefs, it only matters what they believe. I strongly encourage you to take these people at their word and judge them by their actions. Because actions speak louder than words, and their words are speaking volumes.

[1]Raheem Kassam. No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You.Regnery Publishing. Washington, DC: 2017

[2]The Clarion Project. The Third Jihad. 2009 or

[3]Philip Connor. “U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016” Pew Research Center. 2016 


[5]Jonathan R. White. Terrorism and National Security.9thEd. Cengage Learning. 2017

[6]Matt M. Miller. “Ilhan Omar’s Minnesota Congressional District Is The Terror-Recruiting Capital Of The US.” The Daily Caller. February 18, 2019 


[8]Kristine J. Ajrouch and Abdi M. Kusow. “Racial and religious contexts: Situational identities among Lebanese and Somali Muslim immigrants.” Ethnic and racial studies 30, no. 1 (2007): 72-94.

[9]Robert Murdie and Sutama Ghosh. “Does spatial concentration always mean a lack of integration? Exploring ethnic concentration and integration in Toronto.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36, no. 2 (2010): 293-311.

[10]Martha Bigelow. “Somali adolescents’ negotiation of religious and racial bias in and out of school.” Theory into Practice 47, no. 1 (2008): 27-34.

[11]Holly Rosenkrantz. “Ilhan Omar, first Muslim refugee elected to the House, wants to be a check on rhetoric of fear.” CBSNews. November 7, 2018

[12]Habeeb Salloum. “Detroit – Arab Capital of North America.” Al Jadid, Vol. 4, no. 25.1998

[13]Marcia C. Inhorn. “Multiculturalism in Muslim America? The case of health disparities and discrimination in “Arab Detroit,” Michigan.” In New Horizons of Muslim Diaspora in North America and Europe, pp. 177-187. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2016.

[14]Clare Foran. “Rashida Tlaib made history with her swearing-in. Here’s what to know about the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress.” CNN. January 3, 2019 

[15]Rashida Tlaib. Twitter Post. 6:12 PM – 15 Jan 2019

[16]Kristine J. Ajrouch and Abdi M. Kusow. “Racial and religious contexts: Situational identities among Lebanese and Somali Muslim immigrants.” Ethnic and racial studies 30, no. 1 (2007): 72-94.

[17]Aaron Rupar. “New Congress member creates stir by saying of Trump: ‘We’re going to impeach this motherfucker!’” Vox. January 4 2019.

[18]Jordan Schatchel. “Rashida Tlaib joins extremist imam on CAIR speaking circuit.”Conservative ReviewFebruary 19, 2019. (accessed June 21, 2019)

[19]Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha. “CAIR: Islamists fooling the establishment.”Middle East Quarterly(2006).

[20]Jordan Schatchel. “Rashida Tlaib joins extremist imam on CAIR speaking circuit.”Conservative ReviewFebruary 19, 2019. (accessed June 21, 2019)

[21]David M. Swindle. “She’s not naive: Ilhan Omar is on the road, raising money for extreme Islamist groups.”The Washington Examiner.2019


[23]Karl Rove. “Ilhan Omar Blames America First: She plays down 9/11 and falsely claims the U.S. killed thousands in her native Somalia.” The Wall Street Journal. April 24, 2019 



[26]Madeline Osburn. “Rep. Ilhan Omar Refuses to Denounce al-Qaeda, Islamic Terrorism.” The Federalist. July 16, 2019.

[27]Lukas Mikelonis. “Ilhan Omar once blamed ‘our involvement in other people’s affairs’ after al-Shabab attack on Kenyan mall.” Fox News. February 4, 2019.

[28]J. Patrick Coolican and Stephen Montemayor. “New Documents Revisit Querstions About Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Marriage History.” Star Tribune. June 23, 2019

[29]Soeren Kern. “First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel.” Gatestone Institute. 2018

[30]Steven Ryan Hofmann . “Islam and Democracy: Micro-Level Indications of Compatibility”Comparative Political Studies 2004; 37; 652 


[32]Salem Ben Ammar. Democratizing Muslim countries means leaving Islam. (translated from French by 2015. (accessed June 21, 2019)

[33]The Clarion Project. The Third Jihad. 2009

The Greatest Generation

Today is the 75th anniversary of D-Day. The day that the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy in an effort to liberate mainland Europe from the grip of tyranny. No matter how grandiose you try to make that sound it doesn’t do it justice. It’s hard for most people to comprehend the almost insurmountable odds those men faced and it’s equally hard for most people to understand the sacrifices that entire generation made in the name of freedom. What is sad to me is how that sacrifice seems to be lost on so many people.

On more than one occasion in the past two months, I have had interactions with people who would be considered millennials or younger who seem to be oblivious to the greatest generation. Example: twice now I have attempted to show someone in that age vicinity the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan, the scene showing the invasion of Normandy, and it absolutely did not hold their interest. In both cases I was completely shocked. I wanted to grab them and shake them, screaming at the top of my lungs “DON’T YOU CARE???? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?? LOOK AT THEIR SACRIFICE!!!!” But all I could do was stand by horrified, thinking I had somehow let down both their generation and the greatest generation at the same time.

Before I go any further, I want to stress this is not a knock on millennials or any of the younger generation. They catch a lot of flack, and not all of it is warranted. Let’s face it, the Boomers and Generation X were the ones who raised them, so many of their perceived shortcomings owe at least a little thanks to that. Or, to paraphrase Marcus Aurelius in the masterpiece that is the film Gladiator, their faults as children are our failures as parents.

The problem is that it is ancient history to them. The remaining veterans of that era who are trotted out on D-Day, Veterans day and other occasions to serve as the feel good props for everyone to say they remember have no relationship to them. At best they are their great-grandparents or great-great-uncles and aunts. That’s the best case scenario. In most cases they may be farther removed than that, if they have any relationship at all. The harsh reality is these are simply old people to whom they have no connection. The events of World War II may as well be Peloponnesian War, it is that distant to them.

That is a hard pill to swallow for those of us to whom these people are our grandparents and parents. We have direct relationships with the people involved. When I see the stunning visuals of Saving Private Ryan or the brilliant Band of Brothers, I am imagining my grandfathers and great-uncles. When I hear about the sacrifices of the people back home I think about my grandmothers and the remaining family members who were not over there but lived through it. I think about them because these are people I knew and know. I have direct relationships upon which to draw with the people who lived these events. Most millennials and younger, sadly, do not.

Another perhaps even harder pill to swallow is that these children grew up in a time of war that was vastly different from other wars and as a result they are a bit desensitized. The casualties of D-Day alone are almost the same number as the total for the entirety of the Iraq war, so the size and scope of World War II is lost on them. To them, war is no big deal. They lack the frame of reference that we have. They don’t understand the brutal, ruthless tyranny that we were fighting against because they are now being bombarded with the idea that Donald Trump is some kind of dictator.

Despite my usual proclivities, I am not trying to make this a political post. What I am simply trying to do is shed light on the differences between how we grew up and how they did. It is a drastically different world today than when the people of the greatest generation lived. Let’s face it, it is even drastically different from when I grew up. These worlds are night and day. They are as different as Mercury and Pluto. They simply are not the same.

Even the moniker “the greatest generation” only works to drive a wedge between that generation and this one. When they hear us say that our grandparents were the greatest generation, oftentimes today’s youth take it as an insult. It comes across to them as though we are proclaiming “you’ll never be as good as they were.” Rather than taking it as something to live up to, to be a person worthy of their sacrifice, it has the unintended effect of further alienating an already estranged generation. For a generation constantly bashed on social and traditional media by their forebears it does nothing to encourage, only discourage.

Still though, it’s a shame. It’s a shame because what those people did was unlike anything in the history of the world. I don’t say that to be hyperbolic. People went on rations, they worked in factories to make the equipment, they spent what little money they did have to buy bonds to fund the war effort. Women who had never worked outside the home, and had no desire to, went to work to keep everything going. Audie Murphy, who became one of the great legends of the war, was 5’5″ and weighed 112 pounds when he joined the Army and he had to talk his sister into helping him lie about his age just so he could enlist. He wasn’t alone either, many other young men did similar things just to step up and serve their country in the name of freedom.

Because that’s what this is all about: freedom. The reason we praise them so much and call them the greatest generation is because they willingly made sacrifices that caused themselves extreme hardships and even death just to stop brutal tyrants from conquering the world. From Normandy to the Pacific, from Africa to Russia, these brave souls threw themselves willingly into harms way so that the tide of tyranny could be stopped. What’s more, they knew that many of them would die but they did it anyway.

This is why we make such a big deal about them. Because they made sacrifices that most of us can’t even comprehend just to ensure freedom. Because they laid down their lives willingly in order to change the tide of history. Because they fought to give us the very freedoms the we all take for granted every day. This is why we call them the greatest generation, because they sacrificed themselves so that we wouldn’t have to.

We would all do well to remember and honor that rather than simply paying it lip service as it seems we so often do. Because it isn’t the younger generation’s fault that they don’t understand these things, its ours. We haven’t lived it for them and we haven’t shown it to them. We can’t hold them to a standard that we fail to meet ourselves. We don’t get to parade the men and women of that time in front of their faces while admonishing them for living in the world we created with what that era gave us. It isn’t fair to them and it isn’t fair to the greatest generation.

So take the time this D-Day to reflect on those sacrifices. Examine yourselves and see if you’re adhering to the standards they set or hiding behind them. Then, make adjustments accordingly. I know I’m going to.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

In the wake of the recent shooting at a government building in Virginia Beach which left twelve people dead, Virginia’s Governor has called a special session of the legislature to enact gun control. I wish I could say I am surprised. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone is.

It is no surprise that a left-wing governor, embroiled in controversy over his racism, wants to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights. It is a politically expedient thing to do in his situation, and certainly a relief for him and those around him. He now has a good crisis to exploit, thereby relieving himself of some political pressure as a result of his racist tendencies. The unfortunate thing about it though is that it illustrates how far we have drifted from the original foundation of our nation.

The flag of Virginia depicts a person (a tyrant) being killed with the latin phrase “Sic Semper Tyrannis.” This phrase translates to “thus always to tyrants.” It is a graphical representation of the attitude present at the foundation of our country. The attitude that our rights are inherent, that they are given to us by our Creator, and that defense of those rights against those who seek to trample them is one of the highest ideals to which one should aspire. More than that though, it was the idea that this was the only legitimate purpose for the existence of a government.

It seems that we have come full circle. Now, rather than protecting our rights, the government again seeks to trample them. As I write this, there are literal cheers and applause as the Governor of Virginia and his administration hold a press conference to demand that we surrender our rights. Under the guise of protection against the backdrop of a horrific event, people are cheering on the idea that if we strip the law-abiding citizen of their rights then we will all magically be safer.

Never mind that murder is already illegal. Never mind that people were stripped of their rights and not allowed to carry their own personal protection within the building in which this terrible tragedy occurred. Never mind that if even one of them had been able to do that this tragedy might well have been averted. No, never mind any of that. What we need now is the further erosion of the fundamental rights to life and liberty inherent to us all.

Therein lies the absurdity of it all. The people who worked inside that building had their rights stripped from them and as a direct result they were murdered by someone who had no regard for their lives, much less the laws that were supposed to make them safer. The very definition of the word criminal is “one who has committed a crime,” therefore criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. So why, then, do these people cheering think that more laws will somehow protect people?

The answer is, they don’t. Clearly no rational person could honestly believe that another law will stop a person who is intent on breaking the law. It’s asinine. They know this will make no difference. That’s not why they are doing it. What they really care about is their agenda. This incident is something they see as an opportunity to implement their agenda.

The primary reason for the enactment of the Second Amendment was to allow for the citizens to resist a tyrannical government. It wasn’t for hunting, it wasn’t for sport, and it wasn’t for collecting bits of nostalgia. It was for protection. The fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property but that’s another blog) exist with the knowledge that there are those who would attempt to deprive you of them. Accordingly, the most basic of all rights then, is the right to defend yourself from said oppressors.

And that’s where the rub comes in. These people know that to enact the type of government that they ultimately desire they will need complete submission to the state. As long as the citizenry have a means to resist that submission, they cannot achieve their goals. That is why they hold disgusting press conferences dancing on the graves of people who aren’t even cold yet championing the further erosion of your fundamental rights. Because it suits their agenda. They cannot, in the words of Barack Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, let a serious crisis go to waste because it’s an opportunity to do things they could not do before.

Now I realize some people may be inclined to think that I am conflating the issues, but I am not. Look at it objectively. Every single time one of these things happens, they immediately trot out their arguments in favor of gun control. Every. Single. Time. I can almost hear the argument now “well yeah, because people were shot with gun, if the gun wasn’t there it wouldn’t have happened.” But that’s an absurd argument for a variety of reasons.

The gun was merely a tool. The intent of the person to murder innocent people is the real issue here. The lack of regard for human life. The complete breakdown of the mental state of a person that leads to the justification of a moment’s anger as a legitimate cause for mass murder, that is the issue.

Now before someone says it, “but the gun made the killing easier and allowed for more victims.” No, actually, it didn’t. What provided that opportunity was the fact that law-abiding people within the building were left without a means to protect themselves. That is what caused the high number of fatalities, not the gun.

Nevertheless, they always seem to have some ready-made solutions involving more restrictions on guns. The removal of the gun from the hands of the citizenry is an ongoing crusade for them. It has nothing to do with the crime that was committed, it is a part of their agenda. These incidents actually work in their favor because it gives them a fresh platform from which to spew their madness. Notice how no matter how many facts and statistics you show them that refute their claims, they stick with it? Their responses are ready-made because their agenda already exists.

This is why they froth at the mouth and make much ado over incidents like these. Their socialist, communist, big-government utopia is within arms reach, all they need is but to eliminate the guns. It’s so close they can taste it. “Think of the children!” “Agony, agony!” “Won’t someone please do something?!?!” “Thoughts and prayers aren’t enough!!!” They scream as they wring their hands and gnash their teeth for show, all while salivating at the thought that they can achieve their true end goal.

Unfortunately for them there will always be people like me who see that end goal for what it is. Tyranny. I will not sit idly by as you parade innocent victims around and try to use them as a justification for the enactment of tyranny. Those victims did not deserve to die and your previous tyrannical gun control efforts are directly responsible for their deaths. I will not fall victim to your propaganda and give up more of my rights to aid your agenda. Depriving me of my right to defend myself does nothing to prevent tragedies such as these, it only serves your agenda. An agenda which, by the way, goes against this country’s foundation and against the foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As evidenced by the flag itself, that is not what the people here stand for, and it never will be.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right, you don’t get to violate it. As far as I am concerned, every law is an infringement. I will not comply, I will not submit. I will not give in to your gun control agenda, or any of your agenda for that matter, and I will fight you every step of the way as you try to implement it. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

It seems the political arena has devolved. No, I’m not talking about the absurdities that are the calls for impeachment and the equally asinine chants of “obstruction of justice”. I’m talking about how the political parties have drifted, and in some cases sprinted, away from their original ideologies. Specifically, the Republicans.

Sure, it’s easy to call out the Democrats for their shift from “ask not what your country can do for you” to the open embrace of “gimme gimme gimme” socialism, but that’s not what I’m talking about either. What I am referring to is how the Republican party has disregarded its principles in favor of becoming “Democrats lite” (yes, that spelling was on purpose). That may sound harsh, but it is exactly what has happened.

Gone are the days of the competition between Wilsonian progressives and the party of lower taxes. The political arena has now reached a point in which there are two parties competing over who one gets to run your life. While they may not necessarily run on a platform expressly stating that, it is, however, what they are attempting to do. Look at the debate over Obamacare, Republicans fell victim to the “what are you going to replace it with?” trap. When a doctor diagnoses someone with cancer, they go in and try to remove it, they don’t ask what will replace it. Likewise, a party that claims to be for small government should not be having arguments over what the replacement for Obamacare is, they should be focused on its repeal.

Similarly, the State legislature in my home state of Virginia is controlled by Republicans. Granted, it is a slim margin but a margin nonetheless. Despite this, a recent bill was passed that will create in increase in cost to every member of the Commonwealth for almost everything we buy. It was an increase in the gas tax along interstate 81 as well an increase in fees related to trucking. The irony here is that this was passed in the name of improving the roads.

Why is this ironic, you ask? Well, because every time someone like me starts talking about reducing government, cutting spending, and lowering taxes we are inevitably hit with “muh roads.” The big government types always like to try and justify their outlandish spending on ridiculous social disasters by conflating all spending with that of legitimate government expenditures such as roads. Now, here they are, justifying an increase in taxes by stating that it is needed for the main thing that they are already taxing us for. The worst part of it all (other than the negative impact it will have on the entire commonwealth) is that the bill was not just passed by the Republicans, it was written by one.

It’s bad enough that the Democrats are inching us ever closer to their big government utopian dreams, but now we have to worry about Republicans as well? It’s absurd. It’s not why you were elected. You campaign on smaller government and low taxes yet when we send you to represent us, you just try to implement your own version of the Democrat agenda. The funny thing is, this is exactly why the Democrats keep winning.

When you try to do the same thing as someone else, you cannot win by being a lesser version. There is a reason Coke is more popular than Diet Coke. On top of that, Republicans are seen as the party of Evangelicals so if you’re trying to run someone’s life and their two options are secular and Evangelical, they’re going to choose secular every time. No one wants their life being run by someone who is “holier than thou.” This is why you lose.

More than that though, this is why WE lose. We lose because you present people with a choice that isn’t a choice. We lose because you turn around and stab us in the back by supporting the antithesis of why we voted for you. We lose because you feed the leviathan which in turn makes our lives more difficult. Worse still, we lose because the big government that we voted against gets implemented either way.

Now, before someone chimes in and thinks this is a Libertarian manifesto, it isn’t. Libertarians come in two types, those who put the LIB in Libertarian and Republicans who smoke pot. That’s not to say that I don’t support Libertarians, I do. But I think that if Libertarians spent half as much effort at reforming the Republican party and getting it back to its foundation as they do trying to convince people that they’re not Republicans…well I wouldn’t have needed to write this blog to begin with.

Therein lies the crux of my argument: the Republican party needs a Reformation. We need Republican Protestants. Our own versions of Hus, Luther and Calvin, if you will. People who will help us to rid ourselves of the McCains, the Romneys, and all those who are working against a Republican president rather than with him. Our own Great Schism, so to speak, to drive a permanent wedge between those of us who genuinely want smaller government and fewer taxes and those who just want to control all the spending. Between those of us who believe that government governs best when it governs least and those who believe that they have the best plan to run our lives.

It will take work, but it is not an insurmountable task. It may take considerable work outside the Republican party, it may even take considerable work against the Republican party. But those of us who believe, as our Founders believed, that we should be able to run our own lives free from interference, can still win. Like St. Patrick, we too can drive out the snakes from within our party. Because with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Book Review: Bring Back the Bureaucrats by John DiIulio

The following is a revised, truncated excerpt from a book review assignment I did for a college course. Because I was not trying to be lazy and simply copy and paste I have changed a few things as well as shortened it for this post. Hopefully you enjoy…

In the book Bring Back the Bureaucrats:Why More Federal Workers Will Lead to Better (and Smaller!) Government author John DiIulio aims to resolve the problem of inefficient, and ineffective, government. The book seeks to highlight certain issues within the day to day operation of the government and provide historical context for how we, as a nation, have come to this point. Additionally, the author offers up solutions to these issues in the form of his general ideas for a path forward. Or at least, that is his intention.

 In any debate the basic building block is how you frame the debate. Or, to put it another way, the effectiveness of any argument depends upon the premise. For Mr. DiIulio, the basic premise of his argument is that the Federal government is ineffective, inefficient and in desperate need of repair as a direct result of a lack of bureaucrats. He begins the book with a basic framework from which to develop this premise, going into great detail to highlight various wastes and inefficiencies within the Federal government. He details the growth of the scope of government over time, in addition to the growth of government spending. In order to further drive home these points, he contrasts this growth with the lack of increase in government employees over the same timeframe. 

Beginning with the 1960s, Mr. DiIulio leaves very little undisturbed when it comes to government. He discusses in great detail the increases in spending, stating that from 1960 to 1975 federal government spending doubled in dollars[1]and then did so again from 1975 to 2005.[2]However, the problem here for Mr. DiIulio is not that the spending was increased, the problem is instead that the federal workforce was not. This increase in spending without an increase in the federal workforce leads to what Mr. DiIulio calls “Leviathan by Proxy”.[3]

This is the crux of Mr. DiIulio’s argument, that since the Leviathan of government cannot be tamed, the proxy system that has arisen is doing a disservice to all Americans. Because this proxy system is woefully inadequate we must therefore bring back the bureaucrats. The author cites examples of the work shifting from Federal employees to nonprofit organizations, for-profit contractors, and state and local government proxies. He laments this shift because of how the proxies have come to function. Citing that they are operating on federal funds in the way of grants, grants for aid, and contract competition. He remarks that “big government in drag dressed as state or local government, private enterprise or civil society is still big government”.[4]

While Mr. DiIulio certainly makes a valid point about big government in that regard, it is here where his argument as a whole begins to unravel. It would appear from his argument, as well as his proposed solutions, that the issue for Mr. DiIulio is not that government has become Leviathan but rather that it is done by proxy. It seems that the author is perfectly fine with ditching the “by proxy” in favor of Leviathan. Indeed, he seems to think that not only is the big government Leviathan acceptable but preferable. In fact, he devotes an entire chapter to explain how if we only knew how government would end up growing that we would have been better off accepting the big government plan in the beginning.[5]

Therein lies the problem, this is a flawed premise. It is illogical to think that efforts to reduce the size and scope of government are somehow responsible for the growth of government. Because the government now shifts from the federal level to the state and local level (in certain cases) and uses non and for-profit contracting does not in and of itself mean it is responsible for the government having grown. The big government programs still exist and as such these are merely efforts for government to get around the limits and restrictions that those of us who favor smaller government try to put on it. 

The issue is the big government not the by proxy. Mr. DiIulio’s entire argument is based around what amounts to an “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach. Since government always tries to grow, we should just accept it and allow it to grow rather than put in restrictions. But this too is another flawed premise. In arguing in favor of ridding the “by proxy” in favor of Leviathan, the author never actually gives a reason as to why this approach is better. His argument amounts to “it’s happening anyway, so we may as well revert it all back to federal bureaucrats”. Absent from the pages of this book is any coherent reason as to why federal bureaucrats would be better than private enterprises or even state and local proxies. In fact, the latter should be just as good as a federal bureaucrat given that they are also bureaucrats, just at the state and local level. If bureaucrats truly provide a superior service then a state bureaucrat is just as good as a federal one, is it not? 

Additionally, Mr. DiIulio brings up an important point with regard to federal bureaucrats, albeit a different one than he intended. He points out that the current system “undercuts public administration’s democratic accountability”[6]and to him this is a reason why the system needs to go back to the federal bureaucracy. This argument does not hold water either though, because an unelected bureaucrat is not in any way democratically accountable. There is no reason to think that simply by virtue of reverting the administration of the big government program back to the federal government then that will somehow make the program more accountable to the public. In reality the opposite is often true. It is not uncommon to see that in most cases a lack of accountability is one of the main reasons for inefficiency within bureaucracy.[7]

The role of government should be as minimal as possible. Our founders started with that premise and designed our Constitution to give very specific enumerated powers to the federal government. They knew and understood that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”.[8]Furthermore, to Mr. DiIulio’s point that the increase in federal workers is somehow more beneficial simply because there are more of them I must refer to the words of James Madison: “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one”[9]

This is the fatal flaw within Mr. DiIulio’s argument, there is nothing about it that lines up with the intent of the founders. While Mr. DiIulio makes some excellent points that the current system is also not keeping with the original intent, that does not in any way justify succumbing to the big government Leviathan. The problem is that the government has grown too large and interferes in every aspect of American life, not that it is interfering inefficiently. The solution to that is not to give us more of the thing we don’t want, the solution is to stop the interference.

I will say the book itself is an interesting read given the level of detail that the author goes into with regard to spending and government programs. Also, there is a section at the end containing rebuttals to his arguments from two sources who are on opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. He includes these in an attempt to refute them, however, from my perspective he never actually addresses their concerns.

All in all, the book was enough to keep me reading, if only because of the fascinating mental gymnastics required to arrive at some of his conclusions. In the end, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend reading this book unless you have some free time that you want to spend annoyed. But even then, there are surely better ways to annoy yourself.

[1]. John DiIulio. Bring Back the Bureaucrats Why More Federal Workers Will Lead to Better (and Cheaper!) Government. Templeton Press, 2014. P. 14

[2]. Ibid

[3]. Ibid. P. 6 

[4]. Ibid. P. 42 

[5]. Ibid. P. 79-89 

[6]. Ibid. P. 7 

[7]. Ronald N. Johnson, Gary D. Libecap. TheProblem of Bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press. 1994. P. 2

[8]. Ronald Reagan. “Inaugural Address.” Address, January 20, 1981.

[9]. James Madison. Federalist 48. Ed. Clinton Rossiter. New York: Signet Classics, an imprint of New American Library, a division of Penguin Group (USA), 2005.

Someone has to be the adult in the room…

We’re in deep trouble if, as it apparently seems, that someone is me.

Recently, for those unaware, President Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made headlines by announcing that she was planning to eliminate funding for the Special Olympics in an effort to reduce the department’s budget. Predictably, this was met with a chorus of agony and hand wringing from people on both the left and right. President Trump eventually overrode her though and insisted that the funding would remain in place much to the delight of many of the aforementioned hand wringers.

Here’s the thing though, he was wrong to do that. That statement will come as a shock to many people for many reasons, not the least of which being that I’m sure some people think I worship the guy. But I’ll say it again: he was wrong to do that. And if you’ll allow me, I will explain why.

Before I get too far along though I’d like to provide some background about my extended family. My grandmother has five siblings. As I was growing up all of those siblings and their children, and their children, would get together multiple times throughout the year in various ways. For the most part the entire extended family lived fairly close to each other so there were always gatherings of some sort going on. On top of that, at least twice a year, Thanksgiving and Christmas, the entire extended family would get together.

The reason I bring this up is because within that extended family there were four people with Down Syndrome: my cousins Bonnie, Randy, Richard, and Dennis. I grew up with these people and saw them on a regular basis. They were part of the family and while I knew some of them much better than others, I had many interactions with all of them. They have all passed on now, but they were important members of our extended family and each one blessed us all in different ways.

Of all of them, the one I had the closest relationship with was Dennis. He lived with his mother, my grandmother’s sister, in the house literally just up the hill from my grandmother’s house. Every Sunday we would go to my grandmother’s house for lunch, or Sunday dinner as it is better known, and many times after lunch I would walk up the hill and shoot some basketball with Dennis. We would talk and he would tell me what was going on in his life and he was just one of the warmest people I have ever met in my life, an absolute joy to be around. I think fondly of every time I got to interact with him, and I would be willing to assume that everyone else in our family feels the same way.

I say all that to provide context, not to attempt to claim that I have some better understanding of the type of people to whom the Special Olympics provide valuable outlets and services. I do understand the value of the Special Olympics and the value that it provides the people involved at every level. I wholeheartedly agree that the Special Olympics is a valuable and needed organization.

What I do not agree with is that it is within the purview of the Federal Government. Or any government for that matter. That is why I say that President Trump was wrong to override Betsy DeVos with regard to its funding as part of the budget for the Department of Education. The Special Olympics, while a valuable, and dare I say, noble organization, is not the responsibility of the taxpayer by way of the Federal Government.

I expressed that sentiment yesterday on Facebook and I received a reply that actually surprised me. Both because of who it was from, although that shouldn’t have, and because of what the argument consisted of. The argument that came to me was essentially this: “we wasted money on that garbage Mueller investigation, we can afford to fund the Special Olympics. Especially since it isn’t that much money.”

On its surface I suppose that isn’t that bad of an argument. We certainly did, as taxpayers, waste multiple millions of dollars on an investigation that at best was a giant waste of time and money and at worst a coup attempt. Surely, given that we throw money at terrible things such as bogus investigations we can afford to throw some money at such a good cause as the Special Olympics, can we not? Well no, actually. You see, the problem with that argument is the wasteful spending. The problem is that we spent money that we should not have, so the solution to the problem of wasteful spending is not to give us more of the thing we don’t want. It is not any sort of rational justification that since we waste money on one thing it is ok to waste it on another. This is a flawed premise. More than that though, it’s how we got here to begin with.

The whole attitude of “we’re spending the money anyway” is how we end up in situations where we are funding things that we should not be. Despite how good it may feel to know that we as taxpayers are spending our money on something such as the Special Olympics, it is still an improper use of tax money. The big problem is that no one wants to be the bad guy who stands up and says no. But someone has to. So, I guess that someone is me.

And therein lies the problem. In the age of social media politicians want to have some kind of thing that they can point to in an effort to say “see look what I did!” No one wants to be the adult who has to make the tough decisions, because being the one to make the tough decisions isn’t fun. The disciplinarian is usually not the “cool” parent and what we have in the majority of our politicians is the equivalent of a bunch of people fighting over who gets to be the cool one. But, in keeping with the parenting analogy, it’s never good for the child when parents take that approach.

When a child is never told “no”, they become uncontrollable and in the long run a detriment to not just themselves but society as well. So too does government. Like the gluttonous child whose parents let them eat whatever they want without regard, the government also becomes an insatiable blob devouring budget restrictions in the same way children engorge themselves on junk food. Addicted to the “sugar high” of this feel good spending the government becomes the bloated leviathan due in large part to simply never having been told no. That is why it is up to adults to stand up and say “enough!”

Just as with the child, it is for its own benefit that we tell the government no. It doesn’t matter what well meaning program we happen to stand up and say no on, the point is that it will never be one that the governmental child wants to let go. People who get up in arms about the elimination of funding for something like the Special Olympics are like the family member or friend who says “oh come on, what could it hurt? Let the child have the candy.” The problem is that the child has already had too much candy and it is now up to the parent to put their foot down and say, for the child’s own benefit, “that’s enough”.

I understand that such decisions will never be popular. That does not in any way alleviate us from the responsibility of having to make them. Not every decision that gets made will be popular, and that is ok, they are still necessary. Neither will these decisions always be easy. Again, that does not mean they are not the responsible and correct decision to make.

The worst part about the whole thing for me though is that all of this is completely unnecessary. The Special Olympics only receives 10% of its funding from the Federal Government, if it cannot find a way of increasing its funding to survive upon losing 10% then perhaps it has bigger problems to begin with. Or maybe, just maybe, all of the people who wring their hands, pull their hair and gnash their teeth at the thought of a private entity losing Federal funds could step up and put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps they’d be willing to fund this noble enterprise so desperately in need of money rather than sitting back with a smug sense of accomplishment that they kept it funded by extorting the rest of us.


Hello everyone. I’m going to keep this short and sweet. For the first post I figured I’d give you a heads up as to what you can expect with this blog.

I am first and foremost a Christian. Everything I do comes from the perspective of Biblical Christian Worldview. I think it is important that you know that upfront because 1) I’m not trying to hide it and 2) it will help you to know where I’m coming from.

While I do not claim to be a perfect Christian, if there even is such a thing, I am doing my best to adhere to God’s word and live accordingly. I do not think I am better than you nor am I holier-than-thou.

Next, I am a Conservative. I believe in low taxes, a limited federal government and the elimination of all but the bare bones government. If the left and right are defined as the left being a complete and total government control of everything and the right being a complete absence of government, then I am as far right as is humanly possible without the total elimination of government. I don’t like anarchy because it can only last until someone with more guns shows up. That’s a gross oversimplification but this is already a longer post than I intended it to be.

Lastly, what can you expect from this blog? Well it will certainly be about politics that’s for sure. That’s a big part of who I am. But more than that it will be about pretty much anything I feel like writing about. It will be politics, pop culture, book reviews, movie reviews and possibly even occasional sports. It’s a blog, and it’s my blog, so whatever suits my fancy.

Hopefully you’ll enjoy it.