So I met a real living, breathing, talking, shouting, offense-taking Hillary supporter the other night! Oh man, I knew I was in for a treat when we rolled up to his house after a long night of drinking (them, I'm driving) and I saw a poster-size Hillary sign in his window. The fun started a few minutes before, when the last bar, someone mentioned something about Mountain View, which is a generally well-to-do Silicon Valley kinda town, when (we'll call him Mr. Hillary) started going on about how suburban towns like Mountain View were what's wrong with America, that having big yards is just terrible and really only keeps us from interacting with our neighbors. It turns out that Mr. Hillary is married to Mrs. Hillary, who works for the California elect Hillary campaign. I was told he loves political conversation, and relishes in putting people in their place, so I decided to keep a couple of heavy guns at my side with their safeties off, just in case (I'm talking, of course, about Second Amendment rights).

He justified stealing more money away from rich people just because they "can afford it" and that won't have any adverse effects on the way things are going.  He used the words "it takes a village" to raise a person, that people should be more in love with their government and be eager and welcoming for it to hold everyone's hand from cradle to the grave. He does not believe that freedom is enough any one man or woman needs to succeed in America; in order for America to succeed, every child should attend Headstart before they go home because Headstart prevents crime. He thinks that allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns, in addition to the criminals and cops who would otherwise have them, is bad for society and increases our fascination with violence, murder, and mayhem. He firmly believes that the individual is inferior to the collective, and should sacrifice his individual motivations for the good of the community. The idea that citizens are capable of contributing individually to their communities mostly through commerce and charity is not agreeable to his understanding of political theory. In fact, he says that having a supportive conscience of such political views mentioned above may be grounds for dismissal of another person's future company.

In my honest opinion, this man is completely lost to us as freedom-loving, champion of the individual Americans. He is utterly and hopelessly lost to the belief in the power of one man to better reason his own life and those closest to him rather than any collectivist, bureaucratic society.

But if we are to compete with his ideology and prevent it from choking the nation our Founders carved out for us, from destroying all that our ancestors did to arrive here and build their own personal American Dream in the form of living free to achieve life's riches and from the tyranny of others, we need to do what we can to end his kind's ability to monopolize our children's education. Students learn his ideology as fact and often neglect to mention the existence of a rubuttal, even if that argument is fact. For example, he was completely disagreeable to the fact that states which offer Right to Carry permits to law abiding citzens to keep and bear firearms reduces incidents of violent crime.Teaching starts at a young age, younger if you're Hillary Clinton, hence all the efforts to support and expand early childhood government education programs like Headstart.

Granted, a few things are necessary for the common defense of life, liberty, and property, but if clearly and appropriately limited, the commonwealth can be something to be proud of because of its rich heritage and dedication to the cause of freedom for its citizens. We should learn from our history and realize the dangers of tyranny we experienced when deviating from this objective. The citizenry can only share in the common bond as Americans if they feel their accomplishments are their own and not somebody else's projected onto them.

People like Mr. Hillary who support such causes and candidates blindly refuse to believe they are attempting to project their vision from America on potentially vehemently disagreeable citizenry; in effect, they wish citizens would just morph into subjects and ameliorate the process of bureaucraticization. That is exactly what happened in the 1960s when thousands of baby boomers followed the example of the hippies on Haight-Ashbury who didin't want to conform. It's not a problem at all that they wanted out of the mainstream culture-- that's their choice, but it was a bit hypocritical to declare counter-culture and then try and spread the "enlightenment" to the masses. These same people who wanted America to be more like China or the USSR are the same ones today in Berkeley crying about how you should care more about what's happening thousands of miles away instead of four feet in front of their face.

When I left to meet my girlfriend across town, I shook his hand and inquired whether he would be good on his promise to terminate a potential friendship, to which he replied only if I come back with my political views changed. I think I got the last laugh when I told him I'd be more agreeable to just checking my beliefs at the door.