"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the DETAIL of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a METAMORPHOSIS of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -April 20, 1831 Letter from James Madison (dubbed Father of the U.S. Constitution for his role in drafting of the text; see also The Federalist Papers, published on behalf of the American system as one of limited government of by and for the people of A Free Republic)~
"MODERN CRYPTODESPOTISM, which arrogates to itself the name of liberalism, finds fault with the negativity of the concept of freedom. The censure is spurious as it refers merely to the grammatical form of the idea and does not comprehend that all civil rights can be as well defined in affirmative as in negative terms. THEY ARE NEGATIVE AS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO OBVIATE AN EVIL, NAMELY THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE POLICE POWER [OF GOVERNMENT], AND TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM BECOMING TOTALITARIAN." -Ludwig von Mises in chapter 21, The Theory of Money and Credit~
Prov. 11:3 - If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?
Obama was talking about children who the doctors had tried to abort, but who came out still alive and breathing, in the open air. Such children are not by any definition mere fetuses. They are children. Yet he would allow them to be killed, at least by deliberate neglect.
I have talked about this part of Obama's past before because it shows what a hardcore extremist this man really is. There is so much more in his background that needs to be known but the media doesn't like to report it.
In "light" of Obama's hardline stand against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act we shouldn't be surprised that he was trying to force every organization and group which employees people such as religious charities and education institutions to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives as if it was some kind of national emergency.
If the government can force us to buy contraceptives and abortifacients, as Obama and his regime claims, why not, as RUSH has argued, force people to buy toothbrushes?
What Obama has done is indefensible and its part of an extremist agenda that has been deceiving and destroying America. Yet we find ourselves arguing with people who defend this man or don't even the truth about him or any of these outrageous and tremendously incredible positions and calls which have been severely unAmerican and alarming.
Don't take my word for it and especially don't take Obama and the Democrats word for it. Just look around record numbers of unemployment record breaking levels of people taking food stamps. Gas prices way up. Yet no attempt is made to cut spending which is out of control.
As Bill Whittle has pointed out, Iraq and Afghanistan, plus other military costs and discretionary spending combine to make 18% of spending in total of what was spent in 2011. The rest of all the money was for everything else the government does. Most of the money is domestic spending and that's what needs to be cut because all the programs and benefits are the main reason for the debt. The rise of gas prices is like the rise in the price of precious metals such as gold, silver, and it will keep going up especially as the value of the dollar goes down.
This is how America is being destroyed through economic warfare. This is exactly what Columbia professors declared in the "Cloward-Piven" Strategy : to cause economic collapse and crisis in order to force everyone into a socialist/communist system. This program and agenda has been in play for a very long time. The Democratic Party has been the political front for this plan and the unions and immigrant rights issues are only the way in which the leaders of this manipulation get more votes to gain power in the courts and government agencies to achieve their goals.
Obama is one of these radicals and it takes a radical to know one and to expose and defeat one. That has to be us, people who care about the future of America and who really want to fix our problems instead of "transform" America into something which the constitution was written in order to protect us from. We have to understand what it means to be a radical and what it means to be on the left or on the right because they are not the same thing.
The left is defined by big government "socialist" economic views and the right is the opposition to such a thing. The right is more reliant on tradition and autonomy aka self-reliance. This is why it was such a BIG LIE to claim that Mussolini and Hitler were right wingers; Mussolini wanted the state to have final say and control over businesses and Nazi is short for the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party."
So what about the terms radical and conservative? A radical is a sort of rebel while a conservative is more of a person who wants to protect things as they are. For instance, a KGB agent in the totalitarian USSR would fit the description of conservative, but if this agent was on American soil he would be considered radical because the supreme law of the US frames and defines a system of limited government and free enterprise. That's the US constitution which defines a people who have a government in order that it doesn't become the other way around: a government which controls a people.
Earlier today I posted this to Obama's facebook from a Tablet which was having issues and thought I should share it here also:
hey Barack I like the way you got California to lower its education standards and pay more, have less of a say, and after this say, "thanks master, pllease let me have another" like a whipped , dependent and helpless sheeple.. How did u get California to give you its votes dude? Have you thanked the L.A. Times for hiding and keeping that video of yo and Rashid Khalidi from the public yet? Its in that 2008 article by Andrew C McCarthy. Just a mention. To everyone ese here : how about we CHANGE it back people! Change it all back and kick out the bums who do what they can to overthrow the American way openly defying the American constitution .and who put people in place and positions such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who actually recommend ed to another country that this American constitution which she swore an oath to uphold is no longer relevant or recommended in the world of 2012. because these people believe that the government should have more power and control over our lives . which our constitution was designed to prohibit. eople pay more for the "privilege" of such nonsensee. nmeanwhile the people are told that the government is not spending enough and other such nonsense ch as the idea that government creates jobs s and private enterprise causes poverty and unemployment! I think that is actually backwards and everyone knows it. But then gain what else do you expect except rising unemployment rising food stamp participation rising inflationary pressures throughout the economy and mediocre performance after agovernment and revolutionary political and academic hack Saul Alinsky army led by apresident who was raised by a communist mother, abandoned by a communist economist Kenyan father who wrote some book on "our socialism" and raised by a grandfather who took this president to be mentored by communist Alinskytype organizer/lawyer propagandist "uncle" Frank Marshall Davis.
See also:
AND ALSO The details and the parts of the story of the Palestinian Israeli conflict which you might not learn if you listen to Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama (Look up the two names together plus Los Angeles Times*) and other extremists and shady characters:
Maybe we should try to understand our situation a little better.
Angelo Codevilla in his Claremont Review of Books essay, The Chosen One points out:
"...SINCE THE DAYS OF KARL MARX'S FIRST INTERNATIONAL A CENTURY AND A HALF AGO, THIS VERY HUMAN OPPOSITION BETWEEN SOCIALISTIC THEORY (EGALITARIANISM) AND SOCIALIST REALITY (OLIGARCHIC OPPRESSION) HAS BEDEVILED THE LEFT. Marx laid the problem bare in his "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in What Is to Be Done? (1902)—the foundational document of Communism. By acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people's representative, but rather its "vanguard," Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habits it forcibly reshaped. Communism's undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from What Is to Be Done? and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man's suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., "false consciousness" and "socio-economic anxiety"). But that is ever less convincing. THIS IS WHY THE MOVEMENT ARGUES SO STRENUOUSLY WITH ITSELF ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW MUCH IT SHOULD DISSIMULATE ITS AGENDA."
(The essay from which the above quote is taken discusses and analyzes Dreams from my Father by BARACK OBAMA; The Audacity of Hope by BARACK OBAMA; Radical-in-Chief by STANLEY KURTZ and other books which show Obama's extremist ties and ideologically Marxist pedigree and upbringing. It goes a long way towards understanding the mentality towards the American people and form of government which Barack Hussein Obama holds.)
This brings us to David Horowitz's Freedom Center pamphlet, Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution: THE ALINSKY MODEL...
This pamphlet gets into the "popular front" vs. the up-front revolutionary agenda of utopian hardliners and hacks such as Barack Obama. Understanding' Obama and the left's intellectual leaders and influences is key to understanding what is happening in America today.
Quoting from Horowitz:
My parents, who were card-carrying Communists, never referred to themselves as Communists but always as "progressives," as did their friends and political comrades. The "Progressive Party" was created by the Communist Party to challenge Harry Truman in the 1948 election because he opposed the spread of Stalin's empire. The Progressive Party was led by Roosevelt's vice president, HENRY WALLACE, and was the vehicle chosen by Communists to lead their followers out of the Democratic Party, which they had joined during the "popular front" of the 1930s. The progressives rejoined the Democrats during the McGovern campaign of 1972 and with the formation of a hundred-plus member Progressive Caucus in the congressional party and the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency to become its most important political force.
As David Horowitz points out, "THERE'S NOTHING NEW ABOUT RADICALS CAMOUFLAGING THEIR AGENDAS AS MODERATE IN ORDER TO DISARM THEIR OPPOSITION [...] It was Lenin's idea too, from whom Alinsky appropriated it in the first place." (See Horowitz quoting p. 37 of Rules for Radials by Saul Alinsky)
It doesn't seem that there is enough education on what the Cold War, between the Soviet Union and the United States, Communism and Capitalism, was about. It is all very superficial and conveniently glossed over. No real general understanding about why and how limited government and economic freedom and liberty works and how Communism fails while violating the principles and rights which the American constitution is there to safeguard.
People don't really understand why some are so motivated and hellbent on the betrayal of America and liberty in the first place. This, too, must be explored and explained. It is not merely "esoteric discussion."
Why is America in such shambles today? Most Americans believed America to be this indestructable titan, and giant in science, progress and economics. Yet look around at the moral, economic, and spirtitual wasteland that is becoming more and more prevalent in this country.
There was a false sense of security because people had good reason to believe that no foe, no enemy could defeat and destroy America. Especially in a military confrontation. None really wanted to believe, to notice, or take seriously the threat and danger from within, which continues its war against America and her values. Yet, we see a more and more offensive and audacious army and network of organizations working (academically, politically, culturally) to push God away from America and the American mind while strengthening the powers of government and the would-be masterminds who know how to rule society and the economy better than the citizens themselves.
People don't believe that some people would WANT to achieve this result, which America's enemies from abroad have called for, the destruction of America.
They "can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal, and more equal than other." Horowitz, and I, say "OH YES THEY CAN." You just have to put yourself in the Communist/Marxist and "we can't wait" mindframe:
There is no goodness that trumps the dream [and promise]of a heaven on earth. And because America is a real world society, managed by real and problematic human beings, it will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies to compensate them for their longing for a perfect world [...] Compared to this heaven even America is hell.
So, having a better understanding of motive and of the "why" (the desire to achieve misguided utopian promises based on the myopic dogma of Karl Marx which the current president was fed by his Marxist mother Stanley Ann Dunn Ham to Frank M Davis and through his life as he self-reinforced this erronious and destructive point of view,) we can go back to examining the "how" of where America is today.
In pages 18 and 19 of Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution: The Alinsky Model we find that
While the Communist Left pretended to be Jeffersonian Democrats and "progressives" and formed "popular fronts" with liberals, the New Left radicals disdained these deceptions, REGARDING THEM AS A DISPLAY OF WEAKNESS [and inauthenticity.] To distinguish themselves from such popular front politics, sixties radicals said they were revolutionaries and proud of it.
New Left radicals despised and attacked liberals and created riots at the Democratic Party conventions. Their typical slogans were "Up againt the wall motherf-ker" and "Off the pig", telegraphing exactly how they felt [...] THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ALINSKY'S ADVICE TO RADICALS IS TO LIE TO THEIR OPPONENTS AND DISARM THEM BY PRETENDING TO BE MODERATES AND LIBERALS.
Deception is the radical's most important weapon, and it has been a prominent one since the end of the sixties. Racial arsonists such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright pose as civil rights activists; anti-American radicals such as BILL AYERS pose as patriotic progressives; SOCIALISTS POSE AS LIBERALS. The mark of their success is reflected in the fact that conservatives collude in the deception and call them liberals as well.
Here's another key point:
CONSERVATIVES THINK OF WAR AS A METAPHOR WHEN APPLIED TO POLITICS. FOR RADICALS, THE WAR IS REAL. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as "racists," "sexists," [...] It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not ("liberals" for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is first of all a comradely critique of the sixties' New Left. What bothers Alinsky about these radicals is their honesty - which may have been their only redeeming feature [...] THERE'S NOTHING NEW ABOUT RADICALS CAMOUFLAGING THEIR AGENDAS AS MODERATE IN ORDER TO DISARM THEIR OPPOSITION [...] It was Lenin's idea too, from whom Alinsky appropriated it in the first place.
Lenin is one of Alinsky's heroes (Castro is another). ALINSKY INVOKES LENIN IN THE COURSE OF CHIDING THE RHETORICAL RADICALS OVER A FAMOUS SIXTIES SLOGAN, which originated with the Chinese Communist dictator Mao Zedong. The slogan was "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," and during the 1960s it was a favorite cry of the Black Panthers and other radical groups. Regarding this, Alinsky comments: "'Power comes out of the barrel of a gun' is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. LENIN WAS A PRAGMATIST; WHEN HE RETURNED TO WHAT WAS THEN PETROGRAD FROM EXILE, HE SAID THAT THE BOLSHEVIKS STOOD FOR GETTING POWER THROUGH THE BALLOT BUT WOULD RECONSIDER AFTER THEY GOT THE GUNS." (Rules for Radicals, p. 37)
I'll leave it at that.
(P.S. If you would like to get copies of Barack Obama's Rules for Radicals: THE ALINSKY MODEL, they are available at the FrontPageMagazine.com BOOKSTORE for $3.00 a piece and $1 dollar a piece when purchasing 25 or more copies. Its is not the cheap kind of paper but of the high-quality waxy/glossy higher end stuff and a very handy size. Pass these around to friends and please share and link to this post if you found it useful. Thank you. )
Only awareness about the truth of this situation will lead us out of this mess and undo much grave damage and roll back and finally defeat the dangerous and immensly destructive project of the bankrupt unsupportable socialist command-economy model which put the people of China, North Korea, Cuba and the former Soviet Republics under totalitarian bondage and civil, scientific, and economic, mediocrity.
This awareness is necessary today so that history does not repeat itself and the greatest, most innovative, prosperous and truly progressive nation on earth perishes.
This is the wish of an American patriot in action and friend to all who love liberty.
Bill Whittle gets to the heart and soul of what the anti-slavery, abolitionist, Republican Party is all about and explains the common thread between Communism, Nazism and Fascism. It is the essential nature of the danger posed by Marxist and Socialist propositions and policies to civilization, humanity, and progress.
It is my view that the political machine and matrix which is expanding the authority and power of government over our lives, hurriedly imposing the agenda of America's would-be Limo-lib Marxist masters, has effectively harnessed the benefits of money to achieve this aim while doing the opposite of improving the lives of the average person. I think it was Lenin who said that Capitalists "will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." The victim or the public over which those who desire to take over and co-opt enterprises, businesses, corporations and industries and control and appropriate them for socialist ends hardly suspects or expects just how twisted, extreme and fundamentally wrong the policies and threat which Marxism and cold calculating radical ideologues poses to everyone.
It is both tons of money along with a different form of selfishness and corruption (spiritual) than the one which Marxists like to assign to the capitalist bourgeousie society (greed) which moves and keeps the zombie-like dead-to-reason extremist Democrat Party machine in business while virtue and liberty are mere semantics in its collectively lost mind.
I am aware of a cabal of such individuals who are overindulged, and overpayed such as Jamie Gorelick, Nancy Pelosi, John Corzine, George Soros, Blogojevich, et al, who have done very well for themselves and profited tremendously from their bad and corrupt policies while Americans across the country with no political connections have taken tremendous losses during the age of these failed socialist ponzi-schemes and accelerated crony-socialism (aka crony capitalism), which they command and and deliberately foster and personally profit from by exploiting the weak and unsuspecting American bourgeoise people who allow them to get away with so much.
I've also seen these same very wealthy individuals demanding higher taxes for the wealthy while saying that they would not sacrifice and donate their own ill-gotten and undeserved gains voluntaryily to needy derelicts such as the bankrupt US government or anyone living within, unless everyone else was forced to pay.
So, they actually prefer outspending their political opponents, which they do easily and often, instead of voluntarily pooling their resources and directing their efforts and these resources to actually helping the truly helpless with just a fraction of the funds and efforts they prefer to spend in indirect, ineffective, and counterproductive ways. I am confident that all the money and support that has gone to radical causes and the Democratic Party from California alone from just a handfull of millionaires and billionaires would be adequate to overwhelm those who are truly helpless and needy.
It seems to me that it is religion rather than politics which Limo-lib Marxists need to find.
I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS ISNT THE ONLY SENSE OR CASE IN WHICH THE PERCEIVED (BOTH SUPPOSED AND ACTUAL) ILL GOTTEN GAINS WHICH LIMO-LIB MARXISTS CONDEMN, YET BENEFIT FROM, BECAUSE IT IS -ACCORDING TO THEMSELVES- THE SYSTEM'S FAULT, WOULD BEGIN OR CEASE. Basically if you are a Marxist of the kind I speak of (not being naive or with reservations and reconsideration) you believe that you have a right to plunder exploit and cheat in a liberal society because it is the liberal economic system itself which you wish to condemn and destroy and war against anyway.
How dictatorship (for the proletariat, for the great race, or any other ostentatious justification) and the Alinsky school of thought that political might makes right should carry the day as the Democratic Party, or radicals in those institutions and organizations (media, political, educational etc) imply through their activities and arguments serves society better than the supposedly inferior bourgeouis or Judeo-Christian American ethic has yet to be shown.
Yet both the Democrat and the Libertarian organizations and agendas work against this essentially American bourgeois Judeo Christian philosophy. What good capitalism if it becomes hollow and corrupted thus being the easy picked target for appropriation to the socialist communist marxist cause by which the capitalists will be hung by the very rope bought and sold in a market dominated by the iron fisted manipulators and marxist robber barrons who are actively marketing evil rather than contributing to an education for and of American virtue and ethics at home and abroad.
Meanwhile we have a media and entertainment industry run by and for powerful opinion and impression shaping LIEberal Marxist MEDIA flacks who re-enforce and play an integral role in such socialist machinery as I am speaking of .
For example, see the friendly niceguy-early-morningshow-host-hat wearing *Matt Lauer* ATTEMPTING and trying to discredit the book and author (*Michelle Malkin*) of CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies with both shifting of blame and picking and focusing only on what he thought to be the weakest argumentation in her very damning and heavily researched cited and referenced book. Really, are the aspects in the #1 selling book which Matt Lauer objects to and presented viewers so much worse and outrageous than the disturbing things which it documents and shows its readers in the whole work ???? When Democrat Marxists are forced to talk about things, be sure that you will get the whole story somewhere else. Just like Soviet Regime Marxsists. That much you can expect.
"It is what a man is impelled to do with his knowledge which justifies or indicts his education." -W.F. Buckley, Jr.
So the question remains:
Why would the Democrat Party be more welcoming and so fixated on pushing socialist and marxist policies and legislation, thus absurdly undermining the American constitution and limited government system which it frames and defines while the Republican Party generally, it is believed, and willed, stands against these things?
Why have the parties aligned themselves the way in which they have and what is the basis of this dichotomy.
My bottom-line theory, in a nutshell, is that the Democratic Party of the United States, BECAUSE ITS LEADERSHIP FINDS SOCIALISM AND MARXISM MORE CONVINCING AND PERSONALLY APPEALING THAN LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND BIBLICALLY DEFINED MORALITY, and also because the emphasis and umbrella of a "democratic" or more shift-oriented definition for a political organization/party, and term, lends itself more to the notion of politicking, and is therefore better suited as the umbrella and vessel by which the subversive Alinsky agenda and tactics by which it operates under is hosted.
Activism and politicking go hand in hand. Conservatives are less likely to want to politik against their traditions, norms and what they view as the foundations of their own nation and of civilization, while Radicals do.
This is why the Democratic Party is dominated and controlled Marxists and Socialists and why the Tea Party movement, another party engaged in a similar radical and democratic way, except fundamentally Conservative, Capitalist and religious has emerged in response to what has been happening in and to America. Clausewitz said "war is the continuation of policy by other means" and I believe the inverse is true as well: politics is the continuation of war by other means.
The Democratic Party is the host and practical friend of socialism and communism on the installment plan because its agenda is shaped and led by those who wish to overthrow the American way and replace it with a fundamentally antithetical form of government which is not based on the same American Constitution which these officials claim and swear allegiance to for politically democratic and practical rather than expediency rather than allegiance to the actual thing. They will say to themselves and others behind closed doors that they are not lying because they are trying to be loyal to America and to themselves. You do not want to "fundamentally transform" something you believe is fundamentally right and which deserves loyalty, correct? That is to destroy it and replace it with something else.
If the same highest and most fundamental American laws, principles, values and precepts which Democratic Socialists draw their own positions in government from stand as obstacles for what they want to see, these laws and principles are discarded and violated without hesitation as the opportunity to get away with it is evaluated and assisted by the misguided political scientists and lawyers among them evaluate and consult with cover from their misguided radical allies in the media and other institutions.
-- If there are no fixed moral laws and virtues there is only manipulation. It is in the nature of socialism and the Marxist and socialist ideology because they themselves are manipulative in essense and it cannot be otherwise. Thus we get Man and Government Manipulation. Since men are no angels, as the authors of the American Federalist (No. 51) would write, the thin line between slavemasters and governing officials/authorities evaporates and becomes concealed within moments and between the countless events decisions and actions which lead to this fundamental transformation.
C.S. Lewis would try to politely warn his English, American, international and even secular audience rather than just his Christian and religious audience about this in his book, The Abolition of Man published in 1943. W.F. Buckley, Jr. would also try to politely warn about this ongoing process and socialist and atheistic bent which he documented and witnessed in his book God & Man at Yale after his graduation there sometime in the 1950s. The administrators and faculty, especially in economics at Yale University were leaning towards a progressing "collectivist" and atheistic approach.
In this book is where Buckley would famously write that the duel between collectivism (per communism) and individualism (per limited government) was the same battle as Christianity and atheism "reproduced on another level." Ronald Reagan would also make this argument in a ceremony in observance of captive nations, as President of the United States, when he argued that:
Two visions of the world remain locked in dispute. The first believes all men are created equal by a loving God who has blessed us with freedom. Abraham Lincoln spoke for us.
"No man," he said, "is good enough to govern without the other's consent."
The second vision believes that religion is opium for the masses.
It believes that eternal principles like truth, liberty, and democracy have no meaning beyond the whim of the state. And Lenin spoke for them.
"It is true, that liberty is precious," he said, "so precious that it must be rationed."
Education has become more about politically correct truth management than the pursuit and power of real truth. Religious philosophy that claims to be neutral in all values judgements when it itself remains judgemental -against the Christian faith and against limited government. In God & Man at Yale Buckley warned that Americans were making a grave mistake by removing God as part of the equation in the pursuit of truth at this University, and also from discussions involving politics and culture, actually. In fact, he showed that Yale was failing to live up to its original charter to promote Christianity and liberty.
That's right, Yale University was founded in order to promote Christianity, as part of its aim to educate and empower its students and make a better world. How many people know this today?
Buckley would quote Alfred Griswold, president of Yale from 1950-1965, that "it is not too much to expect that the character of [the] political and social institutions of [countries, including the United States, in the next half century] will reflect the character of their schools and universities."
And Buckley showed that the orthodoxy was becoming one in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ was becoming more and more absent. All sides of an argument, including in religion, the changed Yale would reply to Buckley, would now be "presented impartially and as forcefully as possible." Yale as a corporation, as an organization, and university had effectively divorced itself from God and Christianity as Buckley documented the how where and why in his book from the perspective of a student who witnessed it as it happened.
He traces it to the idea and implication that religious philosophy really has no role in human affairs and education or it becomes "unfair" and biased. Was this in accordance with the education of America and of Yale's founders? Absolutely not.
America never really shied away from religion or arguing that there might possibly be superior moral ethic - and yikes, even a better path to prosperity and even scarier any religion or creed superior to any other? Heavens not that. Yet this really started to happen in America when the Communists started demanding global revolution and socialism and American campuses started being Occu-pied by professors and students and blame-America firsters who sided against their own country, promoted the ideas of her enemies during and after the Cold War.
See also Ten things Every Christian Should Know About The Founding of America, #5:
The education of the settlers and founders of America was uniquely Christian and Bible-based. Our Founding Fathers all received a thoroughly Christian education at all levels. All America’s early universities—including Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton—were Biblically Christian in their origins. Rare was the American of 1776 who did not know the Scriptures.
We still have religious philosophy in education, except it is not Christianity but an egalitarian concept and frame of mind and implication that no religion is better than any other except Humanism, Socialism and Libertine-ism. Faith that these are good things despite the fact that they are NOT what has made America so productive, inventive and great rather than simply being affordable benefits and indulgings within a cornucopia which was produced by great virtues and a fruitful faith in God and liberty. I guess the analogy here indicates the occurence of a great spoiliation and corruption.
The fact that we need God in our lives is becoming more and more apparent as the soft-humanistic rhetoric of multiculturalism and non-judgementalism makes way for greater and greater corruption, strife, vulgarity, poverty and government power as we begin to move backwards away from liberty and free market economics which libertarians want to have yet believe can be maintained without God's blessings and favor.
This is ultimately at the heart of America's education and spiritual crisis today in which we have actually become more subjective rather than more objective with the supposedly more inclusive and supposedly more enlightened and supposedly more "open" humanist and secular to the core approach.
This conceptual/spiritual vacuum has not been filled with fairness and truth and it can be seen in what has been going on on American campuses and in the abandonment of intellectual integrity in the name of revolutionary partisanship which is part and parcel to the socialist ideology itself. The socialist demand for change is the demand for more control. It can't be otherwise in a free republic. Or at a university which was originally established to teach values and instruct individuals on the right way to do things.
In my view, the difference between the Democrats and the Libertarian agenda is that one wants more more control and government micromanagement in human affairs coupled with no moral absolutes while the other wants to couple less government and more liberty with the idea that freedom is means having no moral absolutes. If Obammunism and Keynsian economics is communism on the installment plan then Libertarianism is corruption on the installment plan. The less moral a people become the more need they have of masters and more likely they will be to desire the position to master others.
Abraham Lincoln, America’s Founders and Ronald Reagan all make libertarians cringe with their biblical references and militarily strong defensive and offensive positions - yet had these traditional Judeo Christian ethic leaders not prevailed in their day and had they been neutralized by Libertarian-like equivalence-laden appeals that we should have just played nice with the bad guys of the world who would leave virtuously selfish, self-centered, peace-loving people who subscribe to the military power of neutrality, the wishful thinking and let the ruthless have their way with the world, their victims, and our allies and it won't matter theory then history and America would look very different today. It is a kind of permissive neglect and indifference under the guise of peace and love. America would have been broken up by the slave-loving states, or not even come to be in the first place if Americans agreed to lose their freedoms and have higher taxes put on them the King of England, their overlord which they divorced in the American Revolution.
The Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union with its nuclear tipped missiles pointed to the United States, Europe, and its totalitarian controlling dictatorial government and regimented economy which stifled and smothered the productivity, spirit and potential of millions of human beings would have continued and resulted in God knows what more besides mass starvation, shortages and much evil and suffering. Direct rather than passively and falsely as is the case which the opponents of capitalism try to make.
Unfortunately only the Communist military superpower and state in the Soviet Union disappeared rather than the same ideas that have been making inroads in the United States of America and which are now destroying her from within because they are antithetical to her constitution and spirit.
In my view, the secular to the core worldview and psychology simply does not present and produce the same spirit and character which one must have in order to appreciate the Amazing Grace of God and the full understanding and appreciation for the inscription found on the Liberty Bell which is extracted from the book of Leviticus, 25:10 - which reads, "PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF" We must be liberated from our own sins as well as from that of others to have real freedom, liberty and purpose. Sin is wrong and sin is addictive and therefore a form of bondage and error.
Perhaps it is a symptom of avoidance from difficulty, avoidance of judgementalism and avoidance of unwanted burdens which is reflected in the Libertarian and multiculturalist antipathy to Christianity and the Jewish and Christian faith in God as the ultimate truth and source and first authority in what is wise, true and in order. Psalm 111:10 reads "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." It does not read "fear of authorities" or "fear of disapproval" or "fear of disagreement, conflict and social duty and work" is the beginning of wisdom. Yet this unbiblical view that wisdom is the result of moral equivication, neutrality and denial is found in the misguided pacifistic isolationist notions of morality and international affairs.
It don't make sense when there is a world of corruption, chaos, tyranny and nonsense running rampant. Especially if there is truly a message of peace and true liberty which needs to be shared and inculcated in our leaders and our people. We, the people of the United States of America.
Which is very much in need of a sort of exorcism of so much rot and corruption that is destroying her and her people from within.
There is a particular passage of bible study material that I found to be very relevant here. It is focused on Luke 19:28-40
In Jesus's time "The time had come to worship with loud exuberant confessions. This had to be said and the people who had been gifted by God to speak were shouting." (And all of us are gifted by God) Yet other voices back then, such as those today in academia and the media, entertainment culture demanded of disciples and followers of Jesus to "keep your religion to yourself."
Just as "when our culture says ‘keep your truth to yourself, others have their truths that are equally valid.’ Whatever you do, don’t be loud about it."
And to that Jesus had one answer. “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”
If those who are divinely gifted with the ability to speak remain silent, then those things that do not have the gift of speech will cry out. And the word for cry out a word that the Greek created out of the sound that a crow makes when it cries out (onomatopoeia).
The implication is that all of creation will convulse with the message that Jesus is Lord, the Messiah of God.
How did the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a Republican, put it? That's right, he said "INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE."
Stones cry out.
So America, we must not be cowed into silence when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to academic pinheads and not to any would-be kings and authorities over our lives and world because neither it nor we belong to them.
Politically correct equivocation, neutrality and pacifism in the face of evil are irresponsible guideposts, especially for those who claim to argue and stand for what is right in whatever capacity or position in which one may afford to stand in due in large part to the blessings and security made possible because these were secured to a large extent before such individuals even came into this earth.
This is why Libertarians cannot take the step forward which it takes to lead America in this world. The biblical perspective is absent in their ideology and brand of education WHICH diverges from the American way - AS DOES THAT OF THEIR SOCIALIST-ANARCHIST COUSINS WHO FIND THE PRACTICE OF SUBVERSION AND BETRAYAL THE MOST SUBLIME FORM OF PROGRESSIVE DUTY AND OBLIGATION.
These two groups are aligned against such bible-thumper talk and reasoning as the following, by President Lincoln at his second inaugural:
“If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether’
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”
Imagine such talk from a Democrat or a Libertarian. The Libertarian leg is a wobbly, morally unstable and unreliable one. You cannot answer the vile and evil aggressions, threats and corruptions of society and culture of this world and within America with someone like Ron Paul.
America SHOULD define Marriage as between one man and one woman. America SHOULD stand against any potential Pol Pots, bin Ladens, Stalins etc., etc. Their opposition to sumptuary laws, i.e. drugs prostitution, their position against the enforcement of ceasefire agreements and dealing with America's enemies and state sponsors of terrorism more severely such as by sanctions, are such examples of the Libertarian/Libertine creed. The Libertarian/Objectivist free enterprise and moral anarchy formula can’t hold up what is in the best interests of society and of the family. By itself it does not square with the biblical precepts and ethic which America was founded upon and brought to be by in the first place all the way back to the pilgrims and puritans who left Europe to see and build a nation that would be more in accordance with these same precepts of both their faith community and tradition as well as of liberty. They sought independence from the authority and power of man, and yes, sin as well - raising arms when it was called for and in their interest to fight and charge against.
It is the charge which America’s founders found their duty to make, the same which Lincoln and Reagan were called to keep as they carried the torch of freedom of truth and justice forward. You cannot divorce what is preached from what is practiced, as our media and corrupted education falsely teaches and preaches to Christians and Religious Jews. Indeed, at a certain level, besides on the physical plane -dare we call it spiritual- it IS war. And so it remains a war between those who believe in the liberty, sovereignty and dignity of the individual and those who don’t.
Libertarianism -at best- sidelines America morally by capturing and making the argument for the anarchy of production as opposed to control by the state, yet it assists LIEberal Socialism and Communism by divorcing America from God and the biblical virtues and precepts which best compliment the free market economy and civilization known as America. Thus weakening America and neutralizing her in a world of corruption and tyranny, and yes, sin.
Indeed, at a certain level, besides on the political plane -dare we call it spiritual- it IS war. And so it remains. A war between those who believe in the liberty, sovereignty and dignity of the individual and those who really don't.
Another fun and related educational vid that needs to be shared: "Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats" by Alfonzo Rachel
I would like to produce the proper citations and sources in support f the argument that I want to make here, but I am at a car wash at this tme, using a tablet device by which copy-pasting even links is a bit impractical as I would like to point pretty concequencial concepts and what are realities in my opinion in a timely way, to share them with a friend I just met before I lose the opportunity to share this with him as events continue to move and the world continues to turn.
My friend said that the unemployment numbers are inaccurate and unreliable and I agree with that statement. I share his view of the economy as immortal and unkillable.
The view of an economy which parallels man's own unlimitd possibilities and
creative productive potential so to speak. so why the concern?
...
Obama's EPA is killing the economy with costly rules -Examiner Editorial
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/obamas-epa-killing-economy-costly-rules
George Soros Helped Craft Stimulus Then Invested in Companies Benefiting -WYNTON HALL
http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/21/george-soros-helped-craft-stimulus-then-invested-in-companies-benefiting/
GEORGE SOROS
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
