web analytics
≡ Menu

Fifth Column Conservatives

Webster’s online dictionary defines the phrase “fifth column” as “a group of secret sympathizers of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or in national borders.”

This phrase has been much on my mind of late as I consider the bloodless coup d’état that is currently underway in the United States. In speech and deed the Obama faction has displayed its intention to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. The faction’s claim to presidential power rests on an overt act of contempt for the authority of the U.S. Constitution (Obama’s refusal to submit for scrutiny (as John McCain did) proper evidence that he satisfies the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency.) The destruction of the private sector economy is well under way; along with denial of the effective basis for anything like private property (the term means nothing if the government can at will and without due process of law dictate its disposition. No due process, as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, will be involved in the exercise of the Treasury Secretary’s discretionary authority to hire, fire, set salaries, etc. in any business enterprise with a government-funded credit line.)

The Obama faction’s majority in the Congress has asserted a patently unconstitutional power to dole out voting privileges in the legislative branch of the U.S. government without regard to the Constitution’s language restricting such voting privileges to states, or voting districts within them. They aim to take steps that infringe the right to keep and bear arms explicitly protected by the Constitution’s second amendment and that implicitly removes the freedom from governmental coercion in matters of religious conscience explicitly protected by the first amendment (for instance, by forcing medical workers to participate in the pagan practice of child sacrifice disguised as a medical procedure). Obama apparently has no problem with legal appointees who advocate the absurd view that Islamic sharia law can be implemented in the United States despite its grotesque inconsistency with Constitutional provisions that forbid cruel and unusual punishment and that demand equal protection of the law for all persons (without, for example, the discrimination against females routinely found and practiced under sharia law.)

Faced with all this evidence that regime change is the goal of the Obama faction, conservatives whose understanding of the term includes support for our constitutional republic have been bucking the tide of slack-jawed adulation promoted by the Obama faction’s media claque. We have been hard at work trying to awaken people to the fact that there’s nothing “business as usual” about the Obama faction’s challenge to American freedom. It is nothing short of a politically implemented insurgency.

Here and there it’s meeting pockets of resistance on particular issues, with words and arguments mostly oblivious to its general significance. Not much further down the road (after the Census has been rigged and enough illegals added to the voters’ rolls to swing any election), the political liberty for which so many Americans risked and gave their lives will be gone. I live in hope that as the true nature of their goal becomes obvious to more and more people, even some of those gulled by phony charisma and false claims of historic significance will realize that the loss of their participation in America’s historically unique exercise of democratic, republican self-government is too much of a price to pay for guilt about racism. I live in hope that they didn’t mean for their votes to end government of, by and for the people.

As it turns out the greatest threat to the effort to dispel complacency before it’s too late doesn’t come from the Obama faction. They have moved with alacrity to implement their agenda. Like a brake-impaired double tractor-trailer hurtling down a steep incline, their excessive speed stirs up a gust hefty enough to shake the unwary from their stupor, provided no one explains it away as a harmless passing breeze. But some folks stamped with a phony imprimatur of “conservatism” are doing just that. At first people like this resisted the idea that we should call Obama a socialist, as I did during my campaign against him in Illinois in 2004. Now they themselves admit his socialism, but claim that it’s a benign variety, well known in Western Europe to have caused no more than a mild epidemic of productivity-stifling bureaucracy, with no jackboots in sight. The smug epithets and ridicule once reserved for anyone who wouldn’t call a socialist a “liberal” is now heaped upon anyone who calls Obamacytes by their right names.

They are advocates of cult-of-personality fueled submission to pervasive government control (complete with Hitler Jugend style re-education of the young as uniformed “mandatory volunteers” programmed for loyal subservience to “the leader’s” will). But the Devil take anyone who identifies them by the labels historically associated with the strikingly similar Nazi, Fascist, Stalinesque and Maoist models of totalitarian socialism that wrecked havoc in the twentieth century. Obamacytes could sing the praises of Che Guevara to the tune of the Internationale, waving Mao’s little Red Book in the air in time to the music and these so-called conservatives would chide the ‘hotheads, birthers and fringe loonies who dared to notice the obvious. I suppose we must wait until they have consolidated their power and are emboldened to eliminate their opposition before we act on the hard lessons of all too recent history.

The best way to handle the threat from such totalitarians is to make sure they never reach that point. But the 5th column conservatives seem bent on making sure no one is moved to united political action to thwart the coup before it’s too late. What’s their motive? Well, the definition of a 5th columnist assumes they nurture a secret allegiance to the enemy’s objectives. I believe that the most reliable outward sign of that allegiance appears in relation to the controversies that strike at the moral foundations of liberty, where these false flag conservatives can pretend to question the political relevance of the issues involved. Of course, as such military theorists as Sun Tzu and Clausewitz understood, the ultimate aim of all action in war is to destroy the moral cohesion of the enemy. In violent warfare, that usually comes as an after effect of the successful application of physical force. In politics, it comes first.

What do you think are the most reliable markers of 5th column conservatives? I’ve asked fellow users of Twitter to share their flashes of insight on this. Why don’t you join us? While you’re at it, leave a bit of your wisdom in the comments section here. One way or another it may help to open some eyes.

{ 19 comments… add one }
  • Kimberly July 2, 2010, 1:13 am

    I just wanted to say your web site is one of the nicely laid out, most inspirational I have come across in quite a while. Thx! 🙂

  • WBoyd April 27, 2009, 1:58 am

    I have had very few hero’s in my life.
    My father was one of them. Through the average public would never know who my father was, I remember watching Generals, politicians, and members of the CIA treat him as if he was the pope.
    Though he tutored me in the “Game”, when it came time for me to be initiated into that world, he begged me and made me promise that I would stay as far away from them as possible.
    He said “He would rather see me digg diches, than get involved with those dishonorable vipers.”
    I didn’t understand his comments until my son went into harms way in Iraq. It was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.
    I have kept my word of honor to my father, and live a simple life, which I do not regret.
    That being said sir, I wish for you to know that you have been a hero of mine, for some time now, and just as great as he to me.
    Also I’m sure he would approve of my choice of hero’s sir.
    I would gladly give you my right arm sir.
    God’s speed and blessings.

  • chiu_chunling April 13, 2009, 1:37 am

    I’ll second that, and go further. If America does indeed come to a bitter end, that is no reason to discard your loyalty to the Constitution. The founders of the nation left the blueprints for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. With those documents, and the love of liberty you carry in your hearts, you can rebuild the United States of America, no matter what happens.

    It might not be quite the same…but very possibly it will be even better. Of course, it would be best to save everything you can. But remember that, whatever else is lost, there is hope if you keep faith.

  • sharonhr April 12, 2009, 12:27 pm

    Joseph Farah, Editor-in-Chief of WorldNetDaily, has made the argument that a “conservative” is working to try to hold on to something, while a “liberal” is working to expand the size, scope and power of government. The problem with being a conservative, according to Farah, is that your position is always defensive rather than offensive.

    I think he makes an excellent point. I think the new movement should consist of “constitutionalists” who seek to reinstate every single aspect of our Constitution and Bill of Rights as ratified in 1789. Many conservatives are less radical than the “liberals,” yet they swing with the wind and are influenced by lobbyists so that their votes are inconsistent with constitutional principles. There are very few, if any, congressmen left who strictly adhere to the Constitution.

    The new patriot movement that has been born since the election of Obama is that of loving our Constitution and doing everything possible to follow it exactly. That means electing people who represent those views and throwing out those who do not. It means stressing that Obama has never proved that he meets the qualifications to be president and hammering that home until we somehow get some justice. We need to be loyal to the Constitution to the bitter end.

  • sharonhr April 12, 2009, 12:17 pm

    I am now using the term “Constitutionalist” instead of “conservative.” Yes, we are all trying to “conserve” the republic, but instead of taking a defensive stance, let’s take a proactive one by upholding our founding documents. That’s why the differences between the two major political parties are so slight as to be almost invisible now; neither one represents the Constitution nor upholds it.

    I have written off any so-called “conservative” who will not address the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. Those talk radio hosts I used to listen to pre-election are crossed off my list. I have no desire to listen to them complain about Obama’s socialist plans for America when all of them could have said something about Obama’s lack of proof of eligibility before the election. That includes Rush Limbaugh, whom I really used to enjoy.

    Now I listen only to internet radio that discussed the constitutional crisis we are in and what we can all do about it.

    I’d like to believe in Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush again, but until they address the illegal and unconstitutional coup d’etat that has taken place, I don’t give them any credibility.

  • chiu_chunling April 9, 2009, 3:09 pm

    There is certainly a problem of finding a terminology that can serve the defender of Constitutional protections of liberty. Part of this is because the progressives and their allies have consciously labored for almost a century to undermine any linguistic basis for argument in favor of freedom.

    I am not fully convinced that painting the defense of the American Constitution and those values of liberty and self-determination it protects as being “conservative” was not part of the progressives’ grand scheme of redefinition in the first place. Still more dire, I do not believe those values are still valid subjects for simple conservation. I think that they need to be reinvigorated, renewed, or even taught for the first time to the several generations who have grown up almost wholly ignorant of them.

    Given that you are in the position of having to educate so many virtually from scratch, it may be an opportune time to take a new term for those who are active in a principled defense of freedom. I happen to like the term “Independent”, with all of its connotations. But my main point is simply that conservatives are…conservative. It is unfair to accuse them of betrayal of principles that are not implicit in the name they have accepted.

    Is the term “Conservative” really such a powerful label in America today, though? I had not thought so, but if it is indeed possible to quickly rally the necessary movement around that banner rather than another, then it may well be worth taking an aggressive stance with regard to those who’s conservatism is not focused on the principles of the American republic.

  • Alan Keyes April 9, 2009, 12:31 pm


    Though I find no fault with your reasoning, I cannot surrender the term “conservative” to those who have made a determined attempt to destroy its meaning. American conservatism never had the “status quo” implications of the European variety. It was built upon a moral and intellectual commitment to the founding principles of the American republic, which intrinsically and permanently challenge the exercise of all human authority in light of the transcendent truth established by the ultimate authority,the Creator God. The advocacy of liberty and self-government, based on a sturdy sense of responsibility to God and of self-sufficiency made possible by His providence, is the consequence of these principles. Vacuous and unprincipled defense of the “status quo” (without reference to its substance as judged in light of the God determined principles of justice) is therefore, by definition, false conservatism.
    Once upon a time, the word liberal (which in its Latin root refers to being free)signified an adherence to the principles of the American republic, because the aim of its constitution is to preserve and stabilize God ordained human freedom. (People referred to the republic as a “liberal democracy” to denote the limits it placed on majority rule in order to preserve individual freedom.) The term was hijacked by leftists who twisted it until now the only thing free about liberalism is that liberals want to free the selfish passions from all constraint while making free with other people’s money to satisfy them. Though the anti-republican forces of our time seek to gut the meaning of the word conservative in American politics, I think it is a mistake to let go of words rather than argue and live in a way that helps to restore their meaning. I strive to be, in the true sense of that term, an American conservative- as revolutionary as the American founders, and as deeply committed to preserving decent, orderly and stable freedom as they were. I think most sincere grassroots conservatives represent that same combination of fervor for America’s intrinsically revolutionary principles, and common sense commitment to a society that is decent, well ordered, and free. The practical key to this combination is moral self-discipline grounded in reverence for the authority of God, which is why I work so hard to rouse to action those who profess such reverence. In the end, the substance of what we seek to conserve cannot be the present circumstances (status quo) but the permanent good established for our nature by God’s authority.

  • chiu_chunling April 9, 2009, 11:17 am

    Actually, I think that joke was pretty funny. More to the point, I’m pretty sure that Rush has made a bigger ass of himself than that.

    I do not wish to go too far in disparaging conservatism. That natural caution which inclines the settled man or woman to prefer a system that already works to one which is untried is normally the greatest ally of civilization. The only problem is that America’s systems, both economic and political, are broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair, excluding the most drastic actions.

    America’s political debate is now being framed in terms of adherence to the current order, which has already squandered the greatest store of wealth and freedom ever accumulated by any nation, or wholesale adoption of socialist principles, which have already been tested in several nations great and small to their uniform denigration. The only hope is to entirely reject socialist principles, not just those that are now being advanced but also the entire accretion which has already been accepted by America.

    Conservatism is simply not well suited to this task. Only those who have a positive commitment to the principles of liberty, including those which have never been seriously tried, can guide the nation through this crisis. Many naturally conservative Americans will follow the lead of those committed to liberty, simply because they can see that the current situation is untenable. Others will continue with the current trend in government because they do not wish to acknowledge that the system is broken. Still others will huddle where they are, unwilling to move in any direction because they don’t know where to go.

    One principle of liberty which I think might be a useful guide through what is coming is the principle of localization. Think locally, act accordingly. Don’t worry about the trend of the rest of the nation, worry about the trends where you live. If the local situation is untenable, find someplace better. Build up a family, neighborhood, city, and even state that is independent and can be self-sufficient no matter what happens to the rest of the country or world. At the center of that needs to be the individual, you, who is reliable rather than reliant.

    That is the core of independence. Human limitations prevent anyone from being truly self-sufficient. All must lean on Providence for each breath, every pure thought, any certain hope. This being so, how should anyone choose to be dependent on humans?

    Do not hate them for their weakness. But do not trust to their strength either.

  • John Lofton, Recovering Republican April 8, 2009, 10:31 pm

    Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican

    PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

  • chiu_chunling April 8, 2009, 9:56 pm

    My desires are…irrelevant.

    Reagan wasn’t a conservative. He ran as a Republican, yes, but the party was never really comfortable with him or his legacy. Reagan offered people something more than preservation of the existing order. He had a vision of America that stretched out into the future and boldly sounded the advance of freedom across the world.

    And, for a time, the people of America heeded that call.

    I suppose that I date myself by admitting that my favorite Reagan policy has always been SDI. The free-market economy and all that, yeah I can see that it’s useful and all…as a way to fund spacecraft with American flags on the side dedicated to defending freedom. Nothing remotely conservative in that vision.

    I know it sounds silly. My love for America wasn’t really such a childish thing as all that. I didn’t outgrow it or anything. I just realized it wasn’t going to happen. And at some point, fairly recently in fact, I came to accept that.

  • jadavison April 8, 2009, 3:14 pm


    I guess that means you don’t think much of the Ronald Reagan presidency? Do you want to destroy the Republican party? Do you think that is a wise idea? Do you think that is even conceivable? What do you want the future of America to be?

  • WingletDriver April 8, 2009, 2:52 pm


    Is Steele pro-life or pro-abortion? Be careful how you answer since it is easy to find quotes for both. He wants to be all things for all people.

    Steele is also more comfortable with DL Hughley than he is with conservatives — not a testament to his character. When Hughley says that the Republican Party convention looks Nazi Germany, Steele says, “I agree.” Those are not the words of a decent man.

    As for Steel’s apology, Politico reports it this way: Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: “I wasn’t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he’s offended, I’d say: Look, I’m not in the business of hurting people’s feelings here. … My job is to try to bring us all together.”

    That’s not an apology.

  • chiu_chunling April 8, 2009, 1:32 pm

    I don’t think that Steele over-reacted.

    He just had the wrong reaction.

    First off, it wasn’t Limbaugh trying to replace him as the leader of the Republican Party, it was the Obama media machine trying to paint the Republicans as “Ditto-heads” (is that term out of use? I haven’t listened to Rush in a while). Secondly, as Steele should be aware, Rush has been becoming more independent of late, particularly during the end of the Bush administration. Which is to say, Limbaugh has been actively distancing himself from the party line, not angling on the inside.

    Steele was attacked unfairly, and he instinctively chose to try and placate his attacker. It wasn’t his betrayal of Rush that should alarm you (though that was certainly less than intelligent as well), but his cowardice in dealing with the media machine.

    Conservatives do not want (or are unable) to accept that there is no longer a way back. America cannot continue as it is, it cannot go back, it must advance towards liberty or bondage.

  • jadavison April 8, 2009, 9:51 am

    Michael Steele is a decent man. He just over reacted when he felt that Limbaugh was trying to replace him as party Chairman which quite frankly crossed my mind as well. Steele at least apologized which ultraliberal Democrats rarely do. They can’t aplogize because they don’t believe in anything.

  • Mau April 8, 2009, 8:39 am

    Dr. Keyes,

    Some ways I can identify the quislings are:

    1) They incessantly carp about how passing legislation is about taking care of “the people.” This is a true sign of egotism and a nanny state mentality.

    2) They consistently bemoan “the tone” in modern politics and how “gridlock” is bad for the government. The Constitution explicitly advocates gridlock — it’s called separation of powers.

    3) They think of themselves as being part of an exclusive, collegial group rather than as servants of the people. Newt Gingrich was up in arms when William Jefferson’s office was lawfully searched. How dare somebody investigate a congressman!!! Orrin Hatch speaks openly of his admiration for Ted Kennedy. Has Senator Hatch ever thought about how despicable Kennedy is on a personal level, much less the supposedly ideological differences between them?

    4) Duplicitous voting. Sam Brownback changing his Yea to a Nay on illegal immigrant amnesty when it became clear the bill was going to fail.

    5) Offering no resistance to controversial nominees. Why is it that Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork are pilloried when they are clearly qualified? Why do Roberts and Alito meet with rabid opposition while Ginsberg and Breyer breeze through?

    6) Apologizing for conservatives or distancing themselves from true conservatives — commonly called “throwing someone under the bus.” Michael Steele tried to do this with Rush Limbaugh and got his foot run over by that bus. Unfortunately for Steele, his foot was in his mouth at the time. Anyone hear from the Republican Party Chairman lately? Looks like the party was willing to throw him under the bus.

  • Humble wife April 7, 2009, 10:45 pm

    I am so troubled by the way our nation is going. I joined a prepper circuit to help like minded Americans prepare for the oncoming economic crisis.

    I am very sad at the speed that Obama has changed the direction of our nation.

    42 years ago tomorrow(April 8) my dad was killed in Vietnam- 2 months before I was born. It pains me to see how far we have come from then.

    I thank you for continuing to press Americans forward on this site and in your public arena.

  • jnewl April 7, 2009, 10:39 pm

    I came up with several answers before finally concluding that Alan was right all along. The most dependable indicator of whether one is faced with a conservative Fifth Columnist is said conservative’s refusal to call a spade a spade.

    It’s not as if there’s some question whether Obama is a socialist. His actions cannot be interpreted in any other way. There is no form of free market capitalism that puts the levers of industry (i.e. not the actual ownership, which would be Communism, but the ability to direct them) into the hands of the government. Obama is simply, as a matter of fact, a socialist. Whether that’s good or bad we can argue about, but the knee-jerk attempt to say he’s not one simply because socialism is unpopular is ludicrous. It’s like me denying that I’m male because I happen to find myself in a meeting of radical feminists. It’s not only ludicrous on its face, it’s cowardly and, in my opinion, beneath all contempt. If you’re a socialist, stand up, scream it to the world, and invite everyone to embrace it just like you do. Don’t crawl around in the dark like a lying, deceitful little bug.

    So the same goes for O’s apologists. Socialism has a definition. Either O (or his actions, at any rate) meets the definition or they don’t. If some so-called “conservative” refuses to acknowledge the obvious, with no plausible argument to the contrary, he’s a Fifth Columnist and has no claim to fellowship with honest men.

  • chiu_chunling April 7, 2009, 10:31 pm

    I would hesitate to say that there is a fifth column of conservatives who actively sympathize with the progressive agenda. Certainly there are a few key figures who basically agree with ideas like a global system of government and a hardening caste system in which the future rulers will be groomed from birth in complete separation from the masses to be governed by propaganda and finely applied intimidation. Some of these may be persuaded that they can negotiate a partial implementation of the progressive agenda, perhaps a global market without giving up all national sovereignty and individual freedom, or a global system that nevertheless leaves the people largely unmolested.

    There are even plausible arguments based on liberty for some of this, such as the connection of free market principles to free trade, or the protection of small ethnic groups against potential genocide. That such arguments rapidly break down on examination of the actual methods or objectives of progressives does not mean that the conservatives who adhere to these hopes are anything more than dupes. Most of those who believe the various inconsistent and unfulfilled promises of progressives are in the same boat, they’re guilty of being wise as doves rather than harmless as serpents.

    But there is a deeper problem. Conservatism is an inherently cautious philosophy. I do not wish to disparage caution. It is a valuable trait and a valid choice in many situations where there is doubt as to what ought be done. I often advise it. But it is not a courageous stance. In the current situation, when the aims and methods of progressives are a demonstrated fact, not only of history still in living memory but also their declared policy trends and justifications, we have no room for caution. Caution is advisable in dealing with unknown and distant danger, useless in trying to deal with a clearly defined and immediately present threat.

    A clear and present danger calls for decisive action, and such actions have to be guided by courage, not caution. Conservatism is not inherently courageous, as more than a few conservatives are demonstrating in their attempts to reach an accommodation with the advancing enemy rather than fight a terrible and costly battle. Do the cowards who would rather sit out the fighting and make a separate peace with the enemy count as a fifth column? What of those who want to raise the enemy’s colors over the city and send provisions to the gate in the hope that the enemy army will be persuaded to forego an invasion? What about those who, however wishfully, think that a cavalry expedition will be sufficient to repulse the foe, and are unwilling to suffer the expense of a full mobilization?

    We see a mix of these among our less valiant conservatives, indeed a mix of these motives in many of the individuals who disparage full preparation as being either alarmist or futile. Conservatives are…conservative. They are not in the mental habit of setting a bold course in response to situations which admit no possible continuation of status quo.

    It may be wiser to boldly state a new paradigm (however much it hurts to resort to that term) of Independence rather than try to “reform” Conservatism to serve a function for which it is ill-suited. I would not suggest that Conservatives are friends of the enemy (even those seemingly eager to reach an accommodation), but I cannot recommend relying on them as stalwart allies in a situation which makes caution a serious liability.

  • jadavison April 7, 2009, 7:16 pm

    Thank you Ambassador Keyes.

    On my weblog I predicted riots in our streets this summer and possibly the same in Russia for similar reasons. What concerns me is whether Americans still desire to be free. At present there is far more civil unrest in Russia than in our country. We have already exceeded the two centuries that have typically limited the dominance of the great civilizations of the past. I pray that does not prove to be true once again.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: