"Liberal
'Leaders?'"
or
"Progressive" Marxists?
EarsToHear.net
He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear
(Matthew 11:15-30)
Challenging both secular wisdom and religious doctrines. - Will our descendants know moral virtue?
Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats
Back to Wall of Separation? Index
"Liberal
'Leaders?'"
or
"Progressive" Marxists?
"...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville
Liberal Motto: Where You Can't Legislate, Regulate!
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." ~ Thomas Sowell
Otherwise known, as obviously evident, as secular selective human reasoning: selective tolerance, selective diversity, selective "hate," selective discrimination, selective free speech, selective reporting and transparency, etc.
Below & Archived:
Don't miss the page dedicated to George Soros.
Upfront - Defining "Liberal"
"Liberals" now prefer to be called "progressives," which their dogma actually is digressive. "Looking ahead and not behind," because history reveals the same mistakes they are now making.
"One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one." --James Madison, Federalist No. 48
Obama: the real radical By George F. Will - He (Obama) is a conviction politician determined to complete the progressive project of emancipating government from the Founders’ constraining premises, a project Woodrow Wilson embarked on 100 Novembers ago. ...Shortly before the 2008 election, he said only: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming” America. ...Progress, as progressives understand it, means advancing away from, up from, something. But from what? From the Constitution’s constricting anachronisms. In 1912, Wilson said, “The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power.” But as Kesler notes, Wilson never said the future of liberty consisted of such limitation. Instead, he said, “every means . . . by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of government” should be used so that “individual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.” Rights “adjusted and harmonized” by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the “New Freedom.” The old kind was the Founders’ kind — government existing to “secure” natural rights (see the Declaration) that preexist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress. The pedigree of Obama’s thought runs straight to Wilson.
And through the second transformative progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, who counseled against the Founders’ sober practicality and fear of government power: “We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal” and are making government “an instrument of unimagined power” for social improvement. The only thing we have to fear is fear of a government of unimagined power: “Government is a relation of give and take.” The “rulers” — FDR’s word — take power from the people, who in turn are given “certain rights.” This, says Kesler, is “the First Law of Big Government: the more power we give the government, the more rights it will give us.” It also is the ultimate American radicalism, striking at the roots of the American regime, the doctrine of natural rights.
...As Kesler says, the logic of progressivism is: “Since our rights are dependent on government, why shouldn’t we be?” This is the real meaning of Obama’s most characteristic rhetorical trope, his incessant warning that Americans should be terrified of being “on your own.” Obama, the fourth transformative progressive, had a chief of staff who said “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” More than a century before that, a man who would become the first such progressive said that a crisis is a terrible thing not to create. Crises, said Wilson, are periods of “unusual opportunity” for gaining “a controlling and guiding influence.” So, he said, leaders should maintain a crisis atmosphere “at all times.”
"As FDR aptly demonstrated, the primary method in the Left's playbook for advancing its agenda is to convert tragedy into political capital." --Mark Alexander
o The Cornerstone of Liberal-Progressive-Socialist Ideology - If President Obama and his fellow liberal-progressive-socialists are correct, ultimately everyone should be employed by the government, because only government is able to improve peoples lives, only government perceives what is best for the masses, only government can protect helpless members of the mass from predations of capitalist businessmen.
o
FIVE RULES CONSERVATIVES REALIZE &
LIBERALS CANT UNDERSTAND: (The Liberty and Freedom Foundation)
1. You cannot legislate the poor into
prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. When half of the people get the idea
that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of
them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work,
because somebody else is going to get what they work for, it is the beginning of
the end of any nation.
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it.
Progressive America By
Derek Hunter - The
seriousness of the times require serious leaders...and all we have is Barack
Obama, Congressional Democrats and a sea of unwashed “gimmie-crats” sleeping in
parks demanding more. Welcome to Progressive America. As more “Green” scandals
involving “friendly” treatment of friends and fundraisers for the president
emerge, no one with a “D” after his or her name seems to give a damn. Why would
they? It’s not their money. Spending other people’s money is fun. Spending two
as-yet-unborn generations’ money is even more fun because you won’t be around
when they realize what you’ve done to them. It’s the progressive way.
...Progressives tell you the system is corrupt, yet never mention Solyndra,
Fisker, et. al. The system isn’t corrupt. A system can’t be anything other than
a system. It’s the people who are corrupt. This doesn’t fit the progressive
agenda, so you’re not likely to hear much about it. But this is, in fact, the
heart of the problem. The progressive agenda is about control – over everyone
and everything. The movement was born of arrogance from people who thought they
knew better, thought they were better. They were racists who once looked to
eugenics to rid the world of “undesirables.” They were superior in thought and
deed – and thus uniquely qualified to determine who was worthy of what in
society. That mentality, that profound arrogance, continues to form the basis of
modern progressivism.
...Some say progressives disrespect the Constitution, but you can’t disrespect
what you never respected in the first place. The concept of limited executive
power is foreign to them...when they’re in power. Should a Republican win next
November and try to do half the things President Obama has done through
executive order, the outrage from progressives will be, well …fun to watch.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own
good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)
"The preservation of a free
government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which
separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but
more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the
great barrier which defends the rights of the people. ...The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission
from which they derive their authority, and are
TYRANTS. The people
who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
authority derived from them and are slaves".." James Madison
"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level
of thinking with which we created them." Albert Einstein
Check out ObamaChart.com, and help stop Obama's Democracy Denied Agenda! The
below chart shows how it has become standard procedure in the Obama
administration not to take no for an answer. When Obama's radical agenda is
rejected by Congress and the American people, he goes around the democratic
process to do what he wants anyway.
Is Government God?
"I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man
whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough
to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from
those of adverse principles."Â Thomas
Jefferson
"A liberal is a man who will give away
everything he doesn't own." Frank Dane
PatriotPost.us Quote Archive
- "It has ever been my
hobby-horse to see rising in America an empire of liberty, and a prospect of two
or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them.
You say it is impossible. If I should agree with you in this, I would still say,
let us try the experiment, and preserve our equality as long as we can. A better
system of education for the common people might preserve them long from such
artificial inequalities as are prejudicial to society, by confounding the
natural distinctions of right and wrong, virtue and vice." -- John Adams
(letter to Count Sarsfield, 3 February 1786) Reference: Our Sacred Honor,
Bennett, 264.
"The
spendthrifts who mangled America with the nightmare of double-digit inflation,
record interest rates, unfair tax increases, too much regulation, credit
controls, farm embargoes, gas lines, no-growth at home, weakness abroad, and
phony excuses about 'malaise' are the last people who should be giving sermonettes about fairness and compassion... Believe me, you cannot create a
desert, hand a person a cup of water, and call that compassion. You cannot pour
billions of dollars into make-work jobs while destroying the economy that
supports them and call that opportunity. And you cannot build up years of
dependence on government and dare call that hope.†Ronald
Reagan
Learn the ploys of "liberal" see
"The Progressive Politically Correct
Dictionary."
The
secret to understanding liberals Jeannie DeAngelis - For our own
good, the left dictates how much of our own money we can keep, what doctor to go
to, and which causes are worthy of support. Subjugators take it so far that they
even have the temerity to define the boundaries of what others say and do.
Liberals are deluded into perceiving themselves as the kindest people on the
planet. However, if the uninformed dare step outside the designated boundary of
thought, word or deed, a bona fide liberal will find a way to vilify, mock,
deride, and publicly rebuke, and then to drive home a point, a la Joy Behar and
Whoopi Goldberg, proceed to
stomp out of the room. Another deceptive liberal ploy is to feign personal
angst for the less fortunate. To prove caring concern, the left heavily
publicizes every act of altruism. Liberals notoriously seek face time on
live-aid telethons, weep the loudest at funerals, march in gay parades, adopt
African babies, and volunteer for inner city organizations. It is upon that
sanctimonious foundation; those on the left are able to rationalize verbal
mistreatment and dictator-like attitudes those who choose to keep philanthropic
outreach private. Liberal benevolence is fodder for billboards and former
recipients of liberal kindness are beholden to express undying gratitude,
because liberals expect to be repaid with lifelong worship expressed through
mindless votes at election time. The loving, compassionate liberal will choose
downtrodden victims to support and then proceed to make a public display of
personal goodness, because helping the weak is more about liberals being lauded
than not letting "the right hand
know what the left hand is doing."
5 Reasons Liberals Aren't As Happy as Conservatives
by John Hawkins - id you know liberals aren't as happy as
conservatives? Of course, you did. How could you not know it after
listening to them incessantly wail, gripe, whine, and complain about
everything? But, let's bring....drumroll, please -- the science! First,
here's the
Pew Research comparison between Republicans and Democrats: 1)
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility: ...2) Conservatives
are more religious than liberals: ...3) Conservatives are more likely
than liberals to get married: ...4) Liberalism just doesn't work very
well in the real world: ...5) Liberalism has turned into an
extraordinarily harsh, divisive, angry ideology: ...Liberals lie to
minorities and tell them that conservatives hate them, they tell women
that men hate them, they tell the poor they should hate the rich. They
try to pit the successful against the unsuccessful, the workers against
the corporations -- and they regularly talk about their own country like
it is one of the most godawful places on earth. That means liberals are,
at best, extraordinarily cynical people who're willing to manipulate
people for political gain -- and at worst, it means that they believe
all this nonsense, which would make the world seem to be a very
unpleasant place indeed.
7 Non-Political Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives by John
Hawkins -
People who don't follow politics tend to believe that conservatives and
liberals are just flip sides of the same coin. In other words,
conservatives are pro-life, pro-gun, and fiscally conservative while
liberals are pro-choice, anti-gun, and want to tax and spend, but
otherwise, there are no real differences. However, if you follow
politics closely, you'll find that there's a gulf as wide as the ocean
between the average politically active conservative and the average
politically active liberal. We don't just have political differences; we
view the world through very different eyes. Of course, I don't want to
oversell this because as Americans, conservatives and liberals are more
alike than different. There also tend to be differences between people
who are heavily politically involved and those who aren't. This column
focuses on those of us who are more politically active, as opposed to
people who don’t pay much attention to politics. I'd also add that in
every category, you'll find exceptions that prove the rule. Moreover,
sometimes you'll find both conservatives and liberals engaging in the
same behavior, although one side tends to do it much more than the
other. All that being said, after spending a decade blogging, here are
just a few of the genuine differences that have become apparent over the
years. 1) Conservatives are more patriotic than liberals:
Conservatives tend to focus on the positive things about America, while liberals
focus on the negative. If the first thoughts that came to your mind
when you thought of America were “slavery,†"imperialism," and "unfairly using
too much of the world's resources," you probably wouldn't like America very much
either. Conservatives, on the other hand, look at the fact that we saved the
world in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, take pride in the fact that we have
contributed so much to the planet, and
believe America has had a
tremendous positive impact on history. The conservative view produces love
of country. The other view produces a deep seated dislike of our nation. 2) It's socially acceptable for liberals to lie about
conservatives: Whether you're talking about the
New York Times,
The Washington Post, or the
Daily Kos, it's considered to be
perfectly acceptable to lie about conservatives. That's because, as
Charles Krauthammer once said, "To understand the workings of American
politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think
liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." If you think
your opponents are evil, you tend to be okay with using tactics that you would
describe as "evil" under other circumstances to fight them. If you're up people
you compare to Nazis, it’s easy to tell yourself that lying to beat them isn't
so bad. If you're in a dispute with people who you believe are just too stupid
to understand what's going on, you feel compelled to try to explain yourself a
little better. 3) Conservatives are results-oriented. Liberals are
not: If you understand one thing about liberals, understand this:
Liberalism is nothing more than "childlike
emotionalism applied to adult issues." That's why they don't care very much
about whether the programs they advocate work or not. Proposing programs isn't
really about what will help the most people to liberals; it's about making them
feel good about themselves. On the other hand, conservatives are
results-oriented, which is why they tend to be so down on the government, which
is inevitably slower, more expensive, and less effective than the private sector
at pretty much everything. 4) Conservatives care about the Constitution. Liberals
don't: Conservatives believe that we need to try to interpret the
Constitution in the way that the Founders intended it to be read and if we want
to change it, then we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Liberals believe
in a "living Constitution," which is functionally no different than believing in
no Constitution at all. If you believe in a "living Constitution," you think it
is okay to do whatever you want for political reasons and then come up with a
legal justification afterwards, which you'll then call "constitutional law." 5) Liberals are much more misogynistic than
conservatives: If you're a prominent conservative woman, you will be
deluged with
rape threats, death threats, attacks on your family, attacks on your looks, and
offers to give you a good screwing as a public service. In other words, what
you've seen with Sarah Palin is actually the same thing that happens to most
prominent conservative women, but on a larger scale. That's not to say that
liberal women don't get some of the same treatment, but it's several orders of
magnitude worse for women on the Right. That's largely because liberals claim
the "feminist" mantle and so, if they're feminists, then obviously they can't be
"anti-woman" no matter what they actually say, right? Even worse, most of the
actual feminist women on the Left tend to either participate in the abuse or,
alternately, turn a blind eye to it as long as it's aimed at conservative women. 6) Conservatives are happier people than liberals:
Despite all the claims you hear that conservatives are angry, cruel, and mean,
conservatives
are much happier people than liberals. This is something that has been
consistently proven in
studies and, let's face it -- anyone who knows a lot of liberals and
conservatives will tell you that it's not a surprise. Conservatives love the
country they live in, they're more likely to be Christian, and they take
responsibility for their own lives instead of griping that the world is terribly
unfair. If you want to be a happy person, you're more likely to be a happy
conservative than a happy liberal. 7) Conservatives are better Christians than liberals:
Certainly there are debates about social conservatism and Christianity on the
conservative side of the fence, but Christian conservatism is considered to be a
honorable and important part of the Republican base. People are going to hate to
hear this, despite the fact it's absolutely true, but Christianity and
liberalism have become largely incompatible. That's because there are so many
liberals who are
implacably hostile to Christianity that liberal Christians are left with one
of two unpalatable choices. Either they can water their Christian beliefs down
into thin gruel so as to be compatible with liberalism or liberal Christians can
choose to be cringing dogs and keep their mouths shut while their beliefs are
regularly insulted, demeaned, and attacked by their fellow liberals. Neither
option should be acceptable to someone who has a strong Christian faith.
Why Liberals Hate the Constitution - No matter how much liberals
try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the
actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction.
by Frank J. Fleming - Since there are many more conservatives than
liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why
conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to
Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a
very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of
the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport
liberals to a mining camp.
Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the
Constitution, they would say things like, "Well, we have to remember it's a
living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn't even thought of the threat of
hippies running around free when they wrote it." And then they'd look to the
Commerce Clause and say, "Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and
forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so
it's within the government's power."Â And then it just be a manner of
scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.
But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English
interpretations of the government's powers, we can't forcefully ship liberals to
Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And
that's the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas
of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts
limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when
huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably
isn't enough support for a "Liberals Are to Be
Sent to Mines in Antarctica" amendment.
And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone
leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who
will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be
freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who
give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability
to force people to do what's best and give the government all the power it needs
for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.
Until they're shipped off to the mines.
Answering
a rhetorical question By
Frank Maguire -
How Did Jefferson Know? The following axioms by Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826) American statesman, one of the authors of the Declaration of
Independence, 3rd president of the United States (1801-1809) are cautions
about how a people can lose their liberty and their nation. - When we get piled upon one another in large
cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. ...To the contrary, the "Progressives" are
Darwinians and believe that men, and their systems, are progressively
evolving for the better. They are dialectical-materialists and exponents
of meliorism, the doctrine that claims that the past can be "repaired" and
the world can be improved by human action alone with total disregard for
such superstitions as religion. Many Progressives profess to be
"Christian" but they are merely associated with a form of religiosity that
is grounded in the philosophies of men but does not hold to the validity
of Scripture; thus, they deny the words of Jesus who taught that his
Father's Word is true in its entirety. Progressives when they do
polemicize on Scriptural ethics and values reduce the Word to a
religious-humanist manifesto. Their comprehension of Scripture is that of
the proof-texting sojourner  a temporary resident, unfamiliar with the
Territory.
Video: Filibuster Hypocrisy During his
speech at The Heritage Foundation, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) blasted
the effort by some Senate Democrats to strip the filibuster from the Senate,
stating "The brazenness of this proposed action is that Democrats are proposing
to use the very tactics that in the past almost every Democratic leader has
denounced, including President Obama and Vice President Biden, who has said that
it is "a naked power grab" and destructive of the Senate as a protector of
minority rights."Â To highlight his point, he also played
a compilation of clips
from current and former Democratic Senators, including President Barack Obama,
giving passionate defenses of it in the past. The push to end the filibuster
would only
make it easier for the majority to ban minority amendments, increase
partisanship, limit debate and make it even easier to
ram bad legislation into law.
Common Cause's Filibuster Flip by
Jonathan H. Adler - In 2005,
Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed
invoking the "nuclear option"Â to end the filibuster of judicial nominees. From
a
2005 press release: Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate
leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate
about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s
historic role in the nomination approval process. "The filibuster shouldn't be
jettisoned simply because it's inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,†said
Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. "That's abuse of power."Â (Hat tip:
Don Surber)
Today, however, Common Cause is
actively supporting filibuster reform."Â It's one of the campaigns
highlighted on Common Cause's
website. Now Common Cause argues that the filibuster is "an historical accident"Â and a tool of obstruction. A filibuster is the use
of unlimited debate not to inform or persuade, but to obstruct the proceedings
of a legislative body and prevent the majority from taking action opposed by the
minority. Today, majority rule has been replaced in the Senate by minority rule.
The Senate filibuster rule (Rule XXII) gives a minority of 41 Senators who may
be elected from states that contain as little at 11% of the nation's population
the power to prevent the Senate from debating or voting on a bill, resolution
or presidential appointment. The filibuster was clearly not an original part of
the Founding Fathers" vision of our government. If they had intended a 60-vote
supermajority requirement to pass bills, they would have included it in the
Constitution, just like they explicitly required a supermajority to override a
presidential veto. This sort of flip-flop is expected from partisans, but not
from purportedly non-partisan, good-government organizations. A video
depicting the blatant hypocrisy of Democrats. (3m44s) More on their
hypocrisy and
WMDs.
Democratic Socialism By Mark Alexander - Democratic
Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism
repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a
single-party state that controls economic production by way of regulation and
income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon
supplanting
Essential Liberty -- the rights "endowed by our Creator" -- primarily by
refuting such endowment. So what do these observations have to do with the
current state of economic and political affairs in our great nation?
Unfortunately, more than most Americans currently realize. However discomforting
this fact might be, there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that Barack
Hussein Obama and his
socialist cadre are endeavoring to "fundamentally transform the United
States of America" by planting a
debt bomb, the future shockwave of which, they surmise, will
break
the back of free enterprise. From the ashes of that cataclysm, Obama and his
ilk envision restructuring our nation as the
USSA.
Is Government daddy?
- The Republic will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.
- It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A
principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
- I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them.
- My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from
too much government.
- No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
- To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Election 2008 Warnings ignored
by "We the sheeple"
and we now have President Obama
and the Democrats
"New Direction for America"
Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties By: Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler - Earlier this month, the President took the first step in rescinding a Bush administration moral conscience regulation which enforces existing legal protections against discrimination and intimidation for doctors and other healthcare professionals who invoke conscience by refusing to participate in medical procedures Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties they believe immoral.
The rule, which was finalized last year placed no restriction upon any legal medical procedure; it simply brought the executive branch into compliance with several existing laws including:
- the 1973 "Church Amendments" which protect doctors and other healthcare professionals from discrimination due to religious belief or moral conviction;
- the 1996 “Public Health Service Act Amendment" which prohibits government from discriminating against individual and institutional healthcare providers who choose not to provide abortion services or receive abortion training; and
- the 2004 "Hyde-Weldon Amendment" which prohibits certain federal funds going to federal and state agencies and programs that discriminate against healthcare providers who decline to offer or refer abortion services.
Simply put, these three venerable laws passed by Congress and signed by former Presidents protect doctors and nurses from being professionally threatened because they allow their conscience to dictate their professional actions.
Obama
vs. Reagan By Mark Alexander - "This is our moment, this is our
time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new
direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of
America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and
tell our children that this was our time." --Barack Hussein Obama
[emphasis added] ...So, given that both Reagan and Obama entered office in
a time of severe economic decline, let's contrast their proposed solutions
and the known outcomes of those solutions:
Reagan
v. Obama. ...Campaigning for the presidency, Reagan said, "This is the
issue: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether
we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual
elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we
can plan them for ourselves. ... Somewhere a perversion has taken place.
Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of
government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping
from our grasp as it is at this moment."
Upside
Down Economics by Thomas Sowell - From television specials to
newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic
problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue
us. What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government
regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but
it turns the facts upside down. It was precisely government intervention
which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." Roman historian Plutarch (c.45-125 A.D.)
It's a PITI -- Why Obama's Mortgage Plan Doesn't Work - Mark Lieberman, Senior Economist -The ambitious mortgage rescue plan offered by the Obama Administration appears to miss a couple of critical elements which could -- unless corrected as details emerge -- leave the plan dead on arrival, and that would be a pity. Indeed PITI is at the root of the problem. ...In mortgage parlance, PITI represents Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance: the components of the monthly mortgage payment. Typically, according to knowledgeable insiders, the latter two elements -- real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance -- represent about 1/3 of the monthly payment. Lenders generally require borrowers to pay those expenses monthly into an escrow account to ensure property taxes will be paid -- or, in the event of damage, that the property (collateral for the loan) is protected. PITI -- with some other factors -- is the numerator in the equation used to determine the target percentage of a borrower's income under the Administration's plan to make mortgages affordable. The arithmetic using the examples offered by Treasury to illustrate the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan suggests the goal of bringing the monthly payment down to 31% of gross (pre-tax) monthly income may be illusive at best.
Obama Fiddles While Small Businesses Fizzle - According to the American Small Business League, 97 percent of all new jobs come from small businesses, i.e., those with fewer than 20 employees, so small businesses are the primary source of real job creation. More than half of all Americans bring home a paycheck that results from working at a small business. ...In February 2008, then-candidate Obama released a statement saying: "Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."Â As the saying goes, that was then, this is now. The Obama administration is allowing legislation to languish that, if passed, could prevent federal contracts that are designated to keep America's nearly 27 million small businesses from being hijacked. It could be that somebody in the White House is trying to cover up the president's broken promise, because the BarackObama.com Web site has been altered and the phrase, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants" has been vaporized.
The Irony of President Obama's "Sunlight Before Signing" - During the campaign, Obama promised: "No more secrecy. When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you, the American voter, will have five days to look online and find out what it is before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing."Â That commitment has since been massaged into applying only to non-emergency legislation. However, the president hasn't even kept that commitment, signing both the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" and the "S-CHIP reauthorization/expansion bill (which by the way broke another one of his campaign promises - the promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000) shortly after they reached his desk, without allowing for public scrutiny. The Administration stressed during the "stimulus" negotiations that this package would certainly meet the "emergency legislation" exemption, and proceeded to push for rapid passage of the package, only to then let it sit for a few days (although not the full five days) before signing it today.
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party (click link for entire letter) By Lt. Colonel Frances Rice,U.S. Army Retired Chairman of the National Black Republican Association: - ...Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans, ...
...Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War, Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill, Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans, ...
...Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs, Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans, ...
Democrat Racism (Which party truly advanced civil rights, and which party hindered civil rights.)
The
Unknown History of Civil Rights By
Wynton Hall -
How interesting that so many race-related political myths
continue to be perpetuated by Democrats who know better. ...And even as LBJ was
being praised by liberals for his appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the
Supreme Court, behind closed doors LBJ's cynical brand of "identity politics"
became clear. As presidential historian Robert Dallek recounts, LBJ
explained his decision to a staff member by saying, "Son, when I appoint a
niger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigerr." Still, despite his
record and rhetoric, LBJ fought hard to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But
those he had to fight against were Democrats, not Republicans. Democrats like
former Klansman Senator Robert C. Byrd and others launched a filibuster to kill
the Civil Rights bill. The chances of stopping them seemed bleak. Never in the
history of the United States Senate had members mustered enough votes to stop a
filibuster (a procedure known as "cloture" that requires 67 votes to invoke) on
a civil rights bill. So the Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen set out
to get the votes necessary to defeat the filibuster. On June 9, 1964, the night
before the historic cloture vote, the 68 year old Republican
stayed up late into the night typing a speech on twelve sheets of Senate
stationery that every American should know but that few do. The next day,
Senator Everett Dirksen delivered his oration on the floor of the U.S. Senate
just minutes before the final vote. The final tally: 71 to 29, with 27 of the 33
Republicans voting to defeat the Democrat-led filibuster.
Did you know...American Minute for July 6th: A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States: Democrats, favoring freedom of choice to own slaves; and Whigs, wanting a big tent party. In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854. They named their party Republican, with the chief plank being "to prohibit...those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery." Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, appointed Justice Stephen Field, who wrote in the Supreme Court decision Davis v. Beason, 1890: "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries...They...destroy the purity of the marriage relation...degrade woman and debase man...There have been sects which denied...there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members...Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow." Justice Stephen Field continued: "The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness."
Why Only Democrats and Liberals Should Feel White Guilt It baffles me that we're taught that Democrats are the civil rights champions. They are absolutely the opposite. First of all, the Republican party was created to be the party against slavery because the Democrats were pro-slavery, and good people knew it was un-Christian and morally wrong. Lincoln was a Republican, and not in "name only" as so-called scholars are teaching on campuses across the country. You'd never know it by how Republicans are portrayed now, but we were THE anti-slavery party, and we still are. The very first Republican president freed the slaves and was hated for it. He was consequentially murdered by a Democrat. (See ASTONISHING HISTORY OF DEMOCRAT RACISM Democrats have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism & The Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats and the history of Republicans doing everything they could to block Democratic racism.)
THE RACIST, BLOODY TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRATS By Joseph Farah covering Democratic party's history of murdering Republicans, blacks. ...let me give you a brief history of the Democratic Party, not according to me, but according to one of the most distinguished liberal American historians, Eric Foner, author of “A Short History of Reconstruction.” I encourage you to read the whole book as you listen this week to the smug and self-righteous speeches in Charlotte. This is the history they don’t want you to know. - KKK’s first targets were Republicans – read how Democrats started the group in “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White” -
Take note of this summation of Foner’s book: “In effect, the [Ku Klux] Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to destroy the Republican Party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, re-establish control of the black labor force and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern Life.”
What occurs to me as I read these stunning words is how successful the Democratic Party has actually been in achieving those goals over the last 130 years. Today, it not only has “control of the black labor force,” it has control over the black vote – the very vote it sought to deny for most of those 130 years after the War Between the States. This is why the late Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. He understood the history. He recognized who represented political allies and political foes. Here’s some more from Foner, who tells the story most Americans have never heard – that the Klan’s war was not just against blacks, it was against Republicans: ...
Why
Martin Luther King Was Republican by Frances
Rice - It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a
Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From
its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party
has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so
succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the
four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. It was the
Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory
Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch
and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil
rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing
with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.
o Lincoln and the 13th Amendment - The Senate passed the 13th Amendment, April 8, 1864, with all 30 Republicans voting in favor, together with 4 Democrats. The House passed the 13th Amendment, January 31, 1865, with all 86 Republicans voting in favor, together with 15 Democrats, 14 Unconditional Unionists, and 4 Union men. Voting against were 50 Democrats and 6 Union men. Though not required, Lincoln, the first Republican President, added his signature to the 13th Amendment after the words "Approved February 1, 1865." Though slavery was abolished, Democrats in the South passed Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws, and created racial vigilante organizations. Republicans responded by pushing to enlarge the Federal Government's power with the 14th Amendment in 1868, ensuring civil rights for freed slaves; and the 15th Amendment in 1870, banning racial voting restrictions.
The 14th Amendment had been introduced into Congress by Republican Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. The 14th Amendment was adopted JULY 28, 1868, because Southern States, though forced to end slavery, did not grant State citizenship to freed slaves. The 14th Amendment reversed the Dred Scott decision of 1857, where the Supreme Court, with 7 of the 9 Justices being Democrat, decided that Dred Scott was not a citizen, but property belonging to his owner. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, appointed by Democrat President Andrew Jackson, wrote that slaves were “so far inferior...that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for their own benefit.” Southern Democrat Legislatures passed Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws, requiring freed slaves to be "apprenticed" to "employers" and punished any who left.
- November 22, 1865, Republicans denounced Mississippi's Democrat legislature for enacting “black codes” institutionalizing racial discrimination.
- February 5, 1866, Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation to give former slaves “40 acres and a mule,” but Democrats opposed it, led by President Andrew Johnson.
- April 9, 1866, Republicans in Congress overrode Democrat President Johnson’s veto and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans.
- On May 10, 1866, in the House, and June 8, 1866, in the Senate, Republicans passed the 14th Amendment, despite 100 percent of Democrats voting against it. Due process and equal protection of the laws was now guaranteed to all citizens.
- January 8, 1867, Republicans granted voting rights to African-Americans in the District of Columbia, after overriding Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto.
- July 19, 1867, Republican passed legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans, after overriding Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto.
- March 30, 1868, Republicans began impeachment of Democrat President Andrew Johnson.
- September 12, 1868, Democrats in Georgia's Senate expelled Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other Republican African-Americans, who would later be reinstated by a Republican Congress.
- October 22, 1868, while campaigning for re-election, Republican Congressman James Hinds was assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
- February 3, 1870, overcoming 97 percent Democrat opposition, the 15th Amendment was passed with 98 percent Republican support, granting the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race. -
ay 31, 1870, Republican President U.S. Grant signed the Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American of their civil rights.
- June 22, 1870, Republican Congress created the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
- February 28, 1871, Republican Congress passed the Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
- April 20, 1871, Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
- October 10, 1871, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, after repeated threats by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting.
- October 18, 1871, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deployed U.S. troops to combat violence committed by Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
- Explaining the reason for the 14th Amendment, Republican Congressman John Farnsworth of Illinois stated, March 31, 1871: "The reason for the adoption (of the 14th Amendment)...was because of...discriminating...legislation of those States...by which they were punishing one class of men under different laws from another class."
Interested in how the 14th Amendment influenced "Separation of Church and State"? Click here.
Related: America's Founders and slavery - Did you know?
In "A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly," 1791, Edmund Burke wrote: "What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves. ...Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Liberals, Democrats, and those who vote for Democrats, and those who promote rewriting history to obliterate America's Judeo-Christian heritage from public schools, "higher" education, and the very fabric of society, instead promote a new American way of life based upon an unnatural family structure that violates "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It is apparent that these in the anti-virtue and "anti-war" crowd not only ignore history to their doom, but it also reveals a seemingly lack of intelligence as though they have blinders on when confronted with opposing views. When asked a specific question or when provided with facts highlighting the consequences of their words and action, the response almost always avoids the question and instead, in generalities and sound bites attempt to refocus the blame onto conservatives. Try it. Ask a liberal to answer a specific question, like: What is the foundation for "unalienable Rights" being "entitled," or what is their basis for how "civil" rights are defined? If they happen to mention values and morals, have them also provide how they derive at their definition of morals and values? What is their source of reasoning?
"Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect." James Madison (letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820) Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett, pg. 333
"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." From: "Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States" (1840) by Joseph Story, Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, A founder of the Harvard Law School.
Called the "Chief Architect of the Constitution," he wrote many of the Federalist Papers, which helped convince States to ratify the Constitution. He introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress. This was James Madison, born MARCH 16, 1751. During the War of 1812, he proclaimed two National Days of Prayer, 1812 and 1813. When the British marched on Washington, D.C., citizens evacuated, along with President and Dolly Madison. As the British burned the Capitol, White House, and public buildings, August 25, 1814, dark clouds rolled in and a tornado sent debris flying, blew off roofs and knocked over chimneys on the British. Two cannons lifted off the ground and dropped yards away. A British historian wrote "More British soldiers were killed by this stroke of nature than from all the firearms the American troops had mustered." British fled the city and rains extinguished the fires. Madison then proclaimed a National Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting & Prayer to Almighty God, November 16, 1814. Two weeks after the War ended, Madison proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving & Devout Acknowledgement to Almighty God, March 4, 1815. American Minute for March 16th
"It is the manners and spirit of
a people which preserve a republic in vigor.
A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and
constitution." Thomas Jefferson
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." U.S. Senator Charles Carroll 1800. He was the only Roman Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence
Yet, socialists, masked as liberal Democrats, are undermining "endowed by their Creator" with a Big Lie and replacing liberty from the Creator with "liberty" from Big Government, or worse, the United Nations.
Listen
carefully to the "morals and values"
of the Democratic candidates, and who is
supporting them.
The more liberals speak, the more votes they loose. See The Pew study, "Religion & Public Life: A Faith-Based Partisan Divide," Polling data continues to show that people committed to their faith are abandoning the Democratic Party in historic numbers.
Example: DNC Chairman
Howard Dean said: "Some of the leadership of that community may be
obsessed
by gay rights and abortion, but most evangelicals -- just like every other
American -- want to do the right thing for our children."
Does this mean it should be ok to force a curriculum depicting the sin of homosexuality as natural and normal, and which does not violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and imposes this immorality on children of faith-based parents? What liberals hope, is that Americans will be complacent, silent, obedient, subservient, and dependent on government from cradle to grave. Liberals do not appreciate Americans acting on, and defending their individual freedom and liberty.
"There are only two places where socialism can work; Heaven, where it is not needed, and Hell, where they already have it."Â Winston Churchill
"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?"Â Thomas Jefferson
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery ... Jonathan Swift
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." James Madison (Federalist No. 51, 8 February 1788) Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 51.
See these archived pages also: Senator John Kerry - Senator Edward Kennedy - Senator Patrick Leahy - Nancy Pelosi - Barry Lynn - Kevin Jennings - George Soros
Concerning Hillary Clinton see: www.hillcap.org and www.peterfpaul.com for an update on Peter Pauls's progress with US Justice Fdn to expose and stop Hillary before its too late and StopHerNow.com
Questions
for Democrats: Are Judeo-Christian parents bigots when they take a stand
against teaching our children that homosexuality is "normal," when the
Scriptures those parents believe in tell us it is an abomination to God and
"goes against nature?" Are "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," the basis
for "unalienable Rights" being "entitled?"
Will liberals continue to attempt to compromise the ballot box and voting
privileges, and use judges willing to be part of a
despotic branch
in their effort to transform America from
One Nation Under God,
into a "progressive" One More Nation Under the United Nations? Do
liberals want to change a government
of the people, by the people, for the people, to a government of an unelected
Security Council, by the Security Council, for the Security Council?
Pelosi
Reveals Dem Takeover Agenda
(NewsMax.com June 19, 2006 - If they retake control of Congress,
Democrats will act quickly to increase the minimum wage, lower prescription drug
costs and slash interest rates on student loans, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said Saturday. The ideas are part
of the Democrats' new domestic agenda, named "New Direction for America," which
the party rolled out during the past week. Pelosi, D-Calif., used the party's
Saturday radio address to promote the plan. "A new direction means expanding
access to affordable health care for Americans. We will begin by lowering the
cost of prescription drugs by putting seniors ahead of pharmaceutical companies
and HMOs," Pelosi said.
Democrats' new direction: Same as the old direction - Jun 21, 2006 by Herman Cain - The Democrats' vision of a New Direction is nothing more than new rhetoric for the same old plan of raise taxes, increase spending and heap the burden on taxpayers and businesses. We don't need another bumper sticker slogan from Congress. We need Congress to enact the solutions we already know will work to slow rising energy prices, fix the dysfunctional Social Security and Medicare programs and replace the out-of-date income tax code.
"One of the greatest delusions in the
world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
Thomas Reed 1886
Are liberals trying to hijack Christianity?
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Titus 1:15-16
Click here to determine if are you a Ted Kennedy "mainstream" American?
Click here for how the Republican Unity
Coalition (RUC) and Grover Norquist have "united" not with Republicans, but with
liberal Democrats.
Still more challenges for liberals
Those that support and vote for Democrats are
those that have drastically distorted two phrases from two different American
leaders: 1. Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church and state" in
which he was expressing to the Baptists that the government would not breach the
free exercise thereof. Yet those on the left spins this fact on its head and
attributes it only to theocracy, which was obviously protected as well. 2.
John F. Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you." Here, those on the
left, today want exactly the opposite, a socialist tax payer funded
cradle-to-grave-nanny-state.
Liberals, Democrats, and those who vote for Democrats, and those who promote rewriting history to obliterate America's Judeo-Christian heritage from public schools, "higher" education, and the very fabric of society, instead promote a new American way of life based upon an unnatural family structure that violates "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It is apparent that these in the anti-virtue and "anti-war" crowd not only ignore history to their doom, but it also reveals a seemingly lack of intelligence as though they have blinders on when confronted with opposing views. When asked a specific question or when provided with facts highlighting the consequences of their words and action, the response almost always avoids the question and instead, in generalities and sound bites attempt to refocus the blame onto conservatives. Try it. Ask a liberal to answer a specific question, like: What is the foundation for "unalienable Rights" being "entitled," or what is their basis for how "civil" rights are defined? If they happen to mention values and morals, have them also provide how they derive at their definition of morals and values? What is their source of reasoning?
See for yourself if Catholics Democrats address these virtues and define "values and morality?"
President Truman told the Attorney General's Conference, 1950: "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings...of Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." (Endnotes at www.AmericanMinute.com)
"By their fruits ye shall know them" Matthew 7:15-27
Michelle Obama on Deciding What Kids Eat: "We Can't Just Leave it Up to The Parents" By Penny Starr - President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrive at Sidwell Friends School in Bethesda, Md., Friday, Dec. 10, 2010. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) (CNSNews.com) - Speaking at Monday's signing ceremony for the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" -- a law that will subsidize and regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs -- First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: "We can't just leave it up to the parents."
Liberals? Progressives? Just Call Them Control Freaks by Terry Jeffrey - ...some advocates of big government now call themselves progressives -- without specifying exactly where it is they want America to progress. When that question is answered accurately, a better new name for liberals suggests itself: Control Freaks. My new book, "Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life," looks at various aspects of American life and asks a simple question: Who is in control? The individual or the government? Where liberals have already had their way, government is in control. Where liberals are still moving to advance their agenda, their success would mean an increase in government intrusion into the lives of individuals.
Blatant hypocrisy on the Iraq war. Video of liberals on Iraq before the war. (See also the archived page on WMDs. for more on the liberal hypocrisy.)
Proclamation by the Continental Congress, 16 March 1776: "In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by secret machinations and open assaults...it becomes the indispensable duty of [Patriots], with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publicly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God...that we may...through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies...that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle...."
Do Democrats believe liberty comes from God or Government? Listen carefully as Democrats try to persuade voters they have values and morals in their attempt to regain control of the White House and Congress. Liberals refer to morals and values when discussing taxes, economy, Social Security, but not abortion or same-sex unions. And, where is their morality and their values as children of faith-based parents are subjected and indoctrinated by a curriculum teaching what goes against nature is "normal?"
Liberals continue to distort the biblical view, and redefine "morality, values, diversity, tolerance, discrimination, and hate crimes" because they are getting away with it. They call faith-based parents bigots, because the morals and values of faith-based parents are Biblically founded. It is as Jesus stated: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather that light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved." John 3:19-20
Some secularists and even faith-based liberals, have been quick to accuse faith-based conservatives of judging others when facts, agendas, legislation, and court decisions are being made which support immorality and are less than virtuous. EarsToHear.net knows "no man after the flesh" (2 Corinthians 5:16), not even Christians, and appeals directly to each person's spirit, regardless that the visitor may be unaware that man is primarily a spirit, who has a soul, and lives in a temporary body. (See "Trinity" for more on this.) Liberals who consider this to be judging one another, confuse judgment with observation and Christians called to be the "salt of the earth" and the "Light of the World." Matthew 5:13-16 (See Judging vs. Reproving)
"...where there is no religion, there will be no morals." Benjamin Rush, speech in Pennsylvania ratifying convention, December 12, 1787, Merrill Jensen, ed., Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, vol. 2: Ratification of the Constitution by States: Pennsylvania (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976), p. 595.
Referring to the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court which expanded the government's power, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said, "This is almost as if God has spoken. They have made the decision."
"Democrats have not had a very good run recently in the popularly elected branches. Since choosing the wrong side of the counterculture wars of the 1960s, they have won only three of the last 10 presidential elections. A decade ago they lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and now have lost all the elected branches. They are in a panic that they will lose their one remaining ability to legislate -- through the courts." Charles Krauthammer
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-PRSF, offered a peek at the Democrat Party's election-year agenda at a gathering this past week. While their actual goal appears to be the censure or impeachment of President Bush, the Democrats still maintain they have a concrete plan for leading the nation. It reads like a socialist manifesto. Among other things, all employees in America would be given the option to unionize, the minimum wage would be increased while simultaneously raising taxes on upper-income Americans, and there would be a coordinated attack on the salaries of executive-suite personnel. Pelosi also guaranteed universal broadband deployment in five years, "energy independence" in ten years, health care for all Americans in five years, and "100 percent screening of our containers that come into our ports." Mind you, there is no explanation for how all this might be accomplished, but if this agenda were ever to come to pass, it would surely cripple our economy and drive our deficits into the stratosphere. PatriotPost.us 06-11 Digest
"History, by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."Â Thomas Jefferson
Is this not the agenda the liberals want to achieve?
Yet still claim to be Scriptural with "morals and values?" And, they want liberal Senators to filibuster any judicial nominee who will not support this agenda.
Consider the organizations and people which support liberal Democrats:
Labor Union Bosses who collect forced union dues to fund Democratic campaigns
National Education Association and liberal professors which have already changed public and higher education into indoctrination, removing the true America's Christian Heritage from the classroom and allowing GLSEN to spew forth its distorted unbiblical view of "morality, values, diversity, tolerance," and thus "discrimination."
Pro-death abortion industry which has successfully been a part of killing over 45 million babies since 1973.
Anti-Christian Organizations such as the ACLU, American United for Separation of Church and State, NOW, etc.
Hollywood liberal elites
Liberally biased "mainstream News Media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, NY/LA Times, Boston Globe, etc.)
Michael Moore
Michael Newdow
Memo to thoughtful black Americans: The Republican Party is the party of Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Rod Paige; the Democrat Party is the party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters.) The Federalist Brief 04-05
"Special interest groups today have a virtual stranglehold on the Democrat Party. The party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy has strayed so far from its roots, that in order to win the party's presidential nomination in the 21st century, a Democrat candidate must sell his soul to the labor unions, the abortionists, the trial lawyers, the radical environmentalists, and the gay rights activists. Together, these groups provide the money and the foot soldiers for every major candidate running under the Democrat banner. Buck any one of them, and the sledding gets extremely rough. Buck any two of them and you are dead meat. If John F. Kennedy... was alive today and held to the positions he had when he was that party's presidential candidate in the 1960s, he would not stand a snowball's chance of winning the Democrat nomination. He would have to run as a Republican. That's how far left the Democrat Party has shifted over the past 40 years... Democrats have sold their souls for campaign money." --Bill Sizemore -- The Federalist Brief 04-21
The liberal
definition of values as Robert Reich declared on The O'Reilly Factor
(11/08/2004), is "doing what is right" for the economy, jobs, health care, etc.
But isn't their foundation based upon their own reasoning and the progress
socialism they embrace? This opposed to Christians who base all decisions,
including Reich's "core values," on the moral foundations based on Scripture -
as did our Founding Fathers.
Howard Dean: "Our moral values, in
contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed
hungry at night. Our moral values say that people who work hard all their lives
ought to be able to retire with dignity. Our moral values say that we ought to
have a strong, free public education system so that we can level the playing
field. Our moral values say that what's going on in Indian country in this
country right now in terms of health care and education is a disgrace, and for
the president of the United States to cut back on health-care services all over
America is wrong. Democrats have strong moral values."
Bill Maher
captured the basic tenants of liberals when he said: "I think so much that's
wrong with our society stems from religion." And: "If we didn't have religion,
there wouldn't be this massive problem with gay people." And: "Jesus is one of
the greatest role models I can think of. Its a shame that Christianity has gone
so far from the teachings of Jesus. I don't know anyone less Jesus-like than
most Christians...And, by the way, the Bible does have wisdom in it, but it is
written in parables. It's the idiots today who take it literally."
This opposed to what Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence
concerning "unalienable Rights" being "entitled" if they DO NOT violate "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." And more pointedly, Jefferson said: "A free
people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the
gift of their chief magistrate."
AND "[It is] God who gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the
minds of the people that these liberties are a Gift of God?"
For the mystery of the one without Torah is already at work: while only He (God) is restraining him at the present time until he would come out from among you. And then the one without Torah will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of His mouth and will abolish by the appearance of His coming, whose coming is through the efficiency of the woks of Satan with great power and false signs and wonders and in every unrighteous deception for those who are being destroyed, because they did not accept the love of the truth for them to be saved. And because of this God sends them a working of deception so they would believe a lie, so that all those would be judged who did not believe in the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 (Power New Testament)
The False Claim Concerning a Right-wing Theocracy
Don Feder, a Boston Herald writer and syndicated columnist for 19 years, is president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, or JAACD. He ridiculed the notion that religious Americans want the nation ruled by a theocracy. "It's just absurd," Feder said. "If what the left is talking about constitutes a theocracy, then America was a theocracy in 1961. "American had school prayer, in many states there was Bible reading in the schools, public display of religious symbols, abortion was outlawed except in rare instances, if anyone talked about same-sex marriage they would have been met with derisive laughter," he noted. "I was alive in 1961; if we were a theocracy then, somehow I missed it."
Me, promote theocracy? Hardly! By Steve Voigt - How natural law scholars influenced the Founding Period and why there is a knee-jerk reaction among elites to this simple fact
If liberals are afraid of a Judeo-Christian "theocracy," then why didn't our Christian Founders establish a theocracy? The theocracy they should fear, is that of Islam. However, the "theocracy" fear, is just a front, a deception. What they really fear is liberty defined within the boundaries of morality as "endowed by the Creator," and not by Big Government.
This and more at "Theocracy?"
"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." 1 John 3:17
"If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love his own: but because you are not of the worled, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." John 15:18-19
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God: he that knows God hears us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John 4:5-6
What was the basis for the liberty Jefferson proclaimed? John
8:23-36 And he (Jesus) said unto them, You are from
beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world. I said
therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that
I Am He, you shall die in your sins. Then they (Pharisees) said unto him,
Who are you? And Jesus said, What I have said to you from
the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but He that sent
me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
They didn't understand that he was speaking of the Father. Then Jesus
said unto them, When you have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall you know that I Am He, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my
Father has taught me, I speak. And He that sent me is with me: the Father has
not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. As he
spoke these words, many believed on him. Then Jesus said to those Jews which
believed on him, If you continue in my word, then you
are my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
you free. They (Pharisees) answered him, We are Abraham's seed, and
were never in bondage to any man: how can you say, You shall be made free? Jesus
answered them, Truly, I say unto you, Whosoever commits
sin is the servant of sin. And the servant does not abide in the house for ever:
but the Son abides ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be
free indeed. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
Liberals prefer to quote and misconstrue a letter
from Jefferson, than refer to what he penned in the opening paragraph of the
Declaration of Independence, or even Jefferson's own
"free exercise thereof."
Liberals have chosen to disregard what
George Washington
warned in his Farewell Address delivered this day, September 19, 1796: "Of all
the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and
Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."
Or what Woodrow Wilson stated: "Liberty has never come from the
government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of the government.
The history of government is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is
the history of the limitation of government, not the increase of it."
However Liberals do not see it this way, even a misguided Rev. Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Veazey said Democrats, by filibustering ten of Bush's judicial nominees, are defending the established rights and freedoms important to all Americans, and he lists those established rights as civil rights, reproductive rights, workers' and environment protections, and the right to practice one's religion without government interference. "In charging the Democrats with persecution of Christians, the Republicans risk fomenting religious and ethnic hatred such as this nation has never seen," Veazey said. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), appearing on ABC's "This Week," called the "Justice Sunday" (April 24, 2005) telecast event "deeply un-American," and he objected to the notion that the filibuster of judicial nominees is "people of faith versus the Democrats." Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said Democrats are blocking nominees with "radical" views. "It has nothing to do with the Bible," he told Fox News Sunday.
What Would Jesus Say? By Justin Darr April 19, 2005 "Slippery Slope" reasoning is the belief that small, seemingly harmless, decisions can set precedents for much larger, radical, and unpopular decisions to come. Liberals hate "slippery slope" debates, largely because they have to acknowledge that leveraging small "slippery slope" issues through the activist judiciary system is their only real hope of cramming the radical heart of their agenda down America's throat. For example, what started as not having children pray in public schools has now led to the systematic banning of all Christian values from the public education system. Like building a wall of intolerance and oppression toward traditional values, liberals have over the years added one brick upon another, one small decision upon another with which we might not agree but seems fair at the time, until today where our traditional faith and values are truly at risk. Christianity has been the main stumbling block to the complete success of the liberal agenda. Christians, and their nasty habit of voting all the time, has put the left on notice that unless they so something their ideal of creating a Godless, Socialist Utopia is doomed to failure. (Read complete article.)
We all have faith in something by Star Parker (11/16) The 2004 presidential election has been depicted as pitting those of faith against secularists. But this is really inaccurate. ...Many Democratic leaders and pundits are expressing consternation at Republican Party claims that it is the party of values. They claim that Democrats have the moral high ground and that their problem is communication. But check out what they call values: Government-run health care, government-run schools, government-run personal retirement and a politically defined and managed overall sense of social justice. This stuff simply doesn't work, and more and more Americans understand this. The Democratic Party is now perceived, for good reason, like a late-night infomercial selling products that will make you instantaneously rich, thin and beautiful. All that you need is faith that the salesman is telling the truth and a credit card.
House Demo Leader Nancy Pelosi said: "It's not about soul-searching. It may be about how we can educate the American people more clearly on the difference between Democrats and Republicans." --House Demo Leader Nancy Pelosi, sometimes called "San Fran Nan," suggesting the Demo losses are really the people's fault -- for not understanding the marvelous "progressive" utopia Demos are plotting for them. The Federalist Brief 04-44/45
Will Democrats refuse instead to be "educated by the American people" and distance themselves from the likes of the immoral and socialistic ACLU, AU, Michael Moore, George Soros, Move-On.org, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Hollywood elites, and Labor Union Bosses? Will Christians begin to contact and "educate" their legislators, Democrats and Republicans, on these "foundations" or will Hillary Clinton deceptively run for President in 2008 as a "moderate" and reign as a socialist, if she wins? Will America continue to be a "government by the people, for the people, and of the people," or a government by the "despotic branch," for the liberals, and of the lawyers?
Family Research Council -
Washington Update August 31, 2005 - A recent Pew Research Center for the People
& the Press poll shows that people are seeing the Democrats as more hostile to
religion then ever before. Only three-in-ten of the people polled believe that
the Democrats are friendly to religion, down over 10 points from last year. The
Democratic National Committee is dismissing the recent Pew poll saying that they
have already taken steps in hiring religious outreach consultants. While
outreach to disaffected communities is important for any political party, the
issues that keep voters tied to one party or the other are not so easily
answered. People of religious faith tend to follow principle over party and look
for shared values in their votes.
A study by Democratic adviser James Carville's consulting group shows that it is
"the values, stupid." The Democrats have tied themselves to issues, such as
unrestricted abortion or "gay marriage," that are anathema to those of religious
faith. Combined with the apparent hostility against judicial nominees who hold
"deeply held personal beliefs," the Democratic Party sends a message that those
of faith need not apply. No party holds sway over values voters. All the
consultants in the world will not help either party unless it takes strong moral
stands and holds to them.
Additional Resources
Pew report
Carville study
Poll: Fewer See Dems As Religion- Friendly
Liberals' Use of Words Effective Tool in Promoting Radical Ideologies It's clear that liberals' use of philosophically friendly words has gone a long way in winning over people who may never have entertained liberal ideology in the first place. (Choice, Gay, Fundamentalists, Intolerant, Homophobic, Diversity)
AgapePress News Briefs August 31, 2005 A new poll shows that efforts by the Democratic Party to attract more of America's religious voters is so far proving to be a failure. In the aftermath of the Democrats' 2004 election loss, party officials have been working to try to find some way to attract the bloc that has become known as the "values voters." But the new poll from the Pew Research Center finds that the campaign is not only not succeeding -- but it may even be backfiring. John Green is a senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Center. He notes that, according to the Center's research, "Last summer, about 40 percent of Americans said that they thought the Democratic Party was friendly towards religion, and in our most recent survey it had fallen to 29 percent." And Green says the recent poll also asked people how they felt about creationism being taught in public schools, and once again, the results were unexpected. "Much to our surprise," Green tells Associated Press, "a very large proportion of the population, about two thirds, said, 'Gee, let's teach both. Let's teach something of the creationist perspective but also something from the evolution perspective.'" The poll of 2,000 adults was carried out in the first few weeks of July. [Fred Jackson]
Congressmen Hate Christmas Reprinted from NewsMax.com Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 5:21 p.m. EST 22
This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well. On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote. Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok." "No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas." Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed. Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs. Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution. "Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."
The text of the resolution read as follows:
Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –
(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.
As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:
Congressman Party-State District
---------------------------------------
Gary Ackerman D-NY 5th
Earl Blumenauer D-OR 3rd
Lois Capps D-CA 23rd
Emanuel Cleaver D-MO 5th
Diana DeGette D-CO 1st
Jane Harman D-CA 36th
Alcee Hastings D-FL 23rd
Michael Honda D-CA 15th
Barbara Lee D-CA 9th
John Lewis D-GA 5th
Jim McDermott D-WA 7th
George Miller, George D-CA 7th
Gwen Moore D-WI 4th
James Moran D-VA 8th
Donald Payne D-NJ 10th
Bobby Rush D-IL 1st
Janice Schakowsky D-IL 9th
Bobby Scott D-VA 3rd
Fortney Scott D-CA 13th
Debbie Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th
Robert Wexler D-FL 19th
Lynn Woolsey D-CA 6th
Sean Rushton, Executive Director of the Committee for Justice
When liberals say . . .
--civil rights, they mean racial quotas and forced busing.
--reproductive rights, they mean underage girls should get abortions without
notifying their parents.
--equal pay for women, they mean government bureaucrats determining your pay.
--environmental protection and worker rights, they mean the government has
unlimited power to regulate private property and business.
--church-state separation, they mean your town can't display a Menorah or
Christmas crèche during the holidays.
“Society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." --John Adams
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king." --John Milton
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in
a
State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust
must be men of unexceptionable characters." --Samuel Adams
Liberals & The Second Amendment:
Also see: Gun Rights Resources
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Â Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Liberals like Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and Schumer want to revoke the Second Amendment which would reduce emboldened criminals from being harmed by law abiding gun owning victims. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." --Senator Dianne Feinstein on banning guns. "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- Senator Charles Schumer, NY
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them," warned George Mason.
If criminals are law breakers, why would they obey gun control laws?
"[R]especting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized! Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. ... I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung." Rep. Ron Paul
"It is a basic principle of a tyrant to unarm his people of weapons, money and all means whereby they resist his power."
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."Â Samuel Adams
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution's principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Communism Morphed to Socialism and Still Targets America By Jan Ireland July 16, 2004 - (Excerpt) It is time to look again at some of the communist goals: - Capture one or both of the political parties in the US. - Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights. - Infiltrate the press. - Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures. - Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch." - Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." - Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." - Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." - Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government, with its own independent armed forces. - Those are 9 of the 45. Americans must realize that communism has morphed to socialism, and it still is targeting America. Subsequent articles will address the progress of additional goals.
Special series on the RELIGIOUS LEFT in AMERICA
MissionAmerica.com
Part 1: George
Soros, Jim Wallis and the Big Funders of Left-Wing "Evangelicals"
Part 2: More
on Wallis and other community organizing "faith" groups
Part 3: Liberation
Theology with guest Dr. Gloria Wiese
Part 4: Strange
bedfellows among the "faith" lefties in Ohio
Part 5: Homosexual
"Faith" Groups
Listen to Linda Harvey and Mission America Radio Every Weekday!!
LISTEN to Linda Harvey and Mission America each weekday 2:00 to
2:30 p.m. ET on WRFD am 880 in Columbus, OH. This station can be
heard all over Ohio, in eastern Indiana, northern Kentucky and
southern Michigan. Or, listen live on the web on
WRFD.
Back to Wall of Separation? Index
Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats