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

Back to Wall of Separation? Index


What defines a liberal?
Democrat or RINO = "Progressive" Marxist
 

Using Marxist/Socialistic tyranny in a foolish attempt to create a utopian society and trying to do so with any premise or solid  boundary for how "Rights" are to be "entitled." Progressive/liberal/Democrats/RINOs have yet to define a premise that supersedes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as purposely proclaimed in the opening paragraphs of America's Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence.

  "...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

“A liberal doesn't care what you do as long as it is mandatory.”  ~ Charles Krauthammer

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.

Thinking of joining the Democratic Party?

o American Minute  Alexis de Tocqueville compared Christianity vs. Islam, and predicted how America's freedoms would end! ...Alexis de Tocqueville continued:  "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other ... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion." 

...How will America's freedoms be lost? Alexis de Tocqueville predicted how Americans would lose their freedom a little at a time (Democracy in America, Vol. 2, 1840, The Second Part, Bk 4, Ch. VI): "I had noted in my stay in the United States that a democratic state of society similar to the American model could lay itself open to the establishment of despotism with unusual ease ... It would debase men without tormenting them ... Men, all alike and equal, turned in upon themselves in a restless search for those petty, vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls ... Above these men stands an immense and protective power ... It prefers its citizens to enjoy themselves provided they have only enjoyment in mind. It restricts the activity of free will within a narrower range and gradually removes autonomy itself from each citizen ..."

   Alexis de Tocqueville continued: "Thus, the ruling power, having taken each citizen one by one into its powerful grasp ... spreads its arms over the whole of society, covering the surface of social life with a network of petty, complicated, detailed, and uniform rules ... It does not break men's wills but it does soften, bend, and control them ... It constantly opposes what actions they perform ... It inhibits, represses, drains, snuffs out, dulls so much effort that finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherd... a single, protective, and all-powerful government ... Individual intervention ... is ... suppressed ..."

   Alexis de Tocqueville added: "It is ... in the details that we run the risk of enslaving men. For my part, I would be tempted to believe that freedom in the big things of life is less important than in the slightest ... Subjection in the minor things of life is obvious every day ... It constantly irks them until they give up the exercise of their will ... and enfeebles their spirit ... It will be useless to call upon those very citizens who have become so dependent upon central government to choose from time to time the representative of this government ..."

   Alexis de Tocqueville concluded: "Increasing despotism in the administrative sphere ... they reckon citizens are incompetent ... It is ... difficult to imagine how men who have completely given up the habit of self-government could successfully choose those who should do it for them ... The vices of those who govern and the ineptitude of those governed would soon bring it to ruin and ... revert to its abasement to one single master."  

o John Podesta's Collaboration with Hillary Clinton to Destroy the Constitution - by LEON PUISSEGUR - ...Now examine why Hillary Clinton wants John Podesta as not only her campaign manger, but also as her chief of staff, should she be elected. Take a look at John Podesta: he is President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, which is really a code name for extreme left wing, very close to being Communist in both action and ideology. In case you wonder just what the Center for American Progress is, you can read more about it here. “The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as “an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action” in such areas as “energy, national security, economic growth and opportunity, immigration, education, and health care.” CAP is a key member of the Shadow Party, a network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives -- to advanceDemocratic Party agendas.”
...“Podesta served on the staff of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) from 1981 to 1988. Leahy was an early advocate of circumventing the U.S. Constitution by gaining control over federal courts. Podesta assisted Leahy in pioneering the indiscriminate smearing and filibustering of any and all Republican judicial nominees -- a practice previously unknown in Washington.” ...Please take a very close look at the following sentence: “Podesta assisted Leahy in pioneering the indiscriminate smearing and filibustering of any and all Republican judicial nominees -- a practice previously unknown in Washington.”
...John Podesta developed the very thing Hillary Clinton does today. That is not a fake statement: it is in all sorts of records. Hillary wants to make John Podesta her Chief of Staff, and that would give Podesta what he wants: a clear sight to destroy the U.S. Constitution we all love so very dearly.
..."During his years in the Clinton White House, Podesta helped suppress numerous federal investigations into Clinton wrongdoing, and helped short-circuit the Clinton impeachment proceedings through backroom deals. The Clintons recognized Podesta's talent for scandal-suppression early. While still a mere staff secretary at the White House in 1993, Podesta found himself swamped with so many scandal clean-up assignments that he nicknamed himself, "Secretary of [Expletive]." "He's good at it," James Carville remarked to the Washington Post.”
...“Podesta's most lasting contribution to the leftist cause came through his promotion of a strategy that White House aides dubbed "Project Podesta." This was a system that enabled the Clintons to push through unpopular policies that neither Congress nor the American people wanted. Its implementation marked a dramatic tilt in the balance of power, giving the executive branch an unprecedented ability to force its will on the legislative branch. Project Podesta enabled the President to bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, presidential decision directives, White-House-sponsored lawsuits, vacancy appointments to high federal office, selective regulatory actions against targeted corporations, and a host of other extra-constitutional tactics.
In short, Podesta showed the Clintons that they could gain by force what they might fail to achieve through legislation. "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," quipped White House aide Paul Begala to The New York Times on July 5, 1998, in response to questions about the Clintons' growing disdain for the will of Congress.”
...“After Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, Podesta and at least ten additional CAP experts served as some of his most influential advisers. He was the head of the new President's transiton team. ...In 2010 Podesta authored a report outlining ways in which President Obama could use his executive authority as well as the Environmental Protection Agency to push a progressive agenda on climate policy. Specifically, Podesta wrote that: (a) the EPA could “spur the retirement of coal-fired power plants” -- and their replacement with natural gas plants -- by mandating stricter carbon dioxide emissions limits; and (b) President Obama should use his executive power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020. Before long, both of Podesta's recommendations were made manifest in actual policy: In 2013, the EPA announced that it was imposing emissions limits that would effectively ban coal-fired power plants unless they installed highly expensive carbon capture and storage technology. And in 2014, Obama said he planned to use executive orders to meet the 17% carbon-dioxide reduction goal.
...Here are some other articles associated with this information:
Shadow Party - http://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clintons-connection-to-the-shadow-party/,http://freedomoutpost.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-harold-ickes-and-the-shadow-party/
John Podesta and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s friend George Soros -http://freedomoutpost.com/george-soros-nazi-sympathizer/
Huma Abedin - http://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-huma-abedin/
Hillary Rodham Clinton - http://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-rodham-clinton-a-study-of-corruption-and-deceit/

5 Reasons Liberals Aren’t Patriotic - By John Hawkins John Hawkins - “While the rest of the country waves the flag of Americana, we understand we are not part of that. We don’t owe America anything – America owes us.” — Al Sharpton ...Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole. Like Andrea Yates loved her kids. Like the Manson family loved Sharon Tate. They cheer people who disrespect the flag, trash America at every opportunity and knowingly favor policies that hurt the country and make it weaker.
   ...1) Liberals Think Success Is De Facto Unjust: However, liberals also habitually assume that success is the result of unfairness and cheating the system while failure is evidence of unrewarded virtue. That’s why they incessantly rail against rich people not named Buffet, Soros, Clinton and Kennedy. It’s why they side with homicidal Palestinians over Israelis just trying to protect themselves.
   ...2) History Can Be Skewed: Extremely popular lefty authors like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn basically start with the presumption that the United States always does the wrong thing and is the cause of all evil in the world. Liberals who don’t know enough about history to realize that they’re reading a funhouse mirror version of events can get a very false picture of the United States that’s hard to correct with the truth.
   ...3) Conservatives Are Patriotic: Liberals can’t win a fight with logic; so they rely on controlling access to the mainstream media and convincing people that conservatives are so racist, so evil, so monstrous that people shouldn’t even listen to our arguments. One of the side effects of this is that liberals tend to have a knee jerk opposition to any and all things “conservative.”
   ...4) Liberals Draw Self-Esteem From Taking Positions That Make Them Appear More Sensitive Than other People: Inside every chest of every liberal is the heart of a Colin Kaepernick and if it weren’t for social pressure, few of them would ever rise for the national anthem. When you build an entire identity around falsely believing that you’re more sensitive, compassionate and wise than other people, you have to distinguish yourself from those you believe are your inferiors by virtue of not sharing your ideology.
   ...5) Liberals Are Utopians. Ironically, since so many liberals are hostile to Christianity, liberals are always trying to create a heaven on earth where everything is perfectly “fair,” nobody is “mean” and there are no more problems for anyone. The issue with this is that the only way liberals can create their utopia is with stifling control. If some people do better than others, that’s not “fair.” If people do and say what they want, that’s “mean.”

Why Liberals Are So Obsessed With Racism, Homosexuality and Transsexualism - By John Hawkins - Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe they’re best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions. Once you understand those basics, it’s very easy to see why both sides hold the positions they do on most issues and to comprehend why there’s so little middle ground. Once you get the mentalities, you can predict where each side will come down on issues.   
   ...They’re offering to take your money and give it to someone else. They’re offering to take rights away from other people that they don’t care about. They’re saying people are racist, bigoted, sexist or homophobic for disagreeing with them. ... If you’re not a Christian and have no moral qualms about gay marriage, it’s easy to call for the law to crack down on bakers or wedding photographers who refuse to participate because they find it morally repulsive. The problem with all this pointless virtue signaling is that because there is no real cost to it, there are no limits to it. As long as liberals lose nothing by advocating a position, but get credit for being compassionate for taking it, why not go for it? The problem with this is that compassion, real or fake, has little to do with what makes a society successful. Capitalism is not warm and fuzzy.   

Secular Progressivism - Video (3m9s) By: Tim Wildmon - What is the common thread between abortion, the gay agenda, and the recent furor over transgenderism and public restrooms?  AFA's Executive VP Ed Vitagliano, President Tim Wildmon, and Public Policy Analyst Abraham Hamilton III, have a brief but informative conversation about that thread...secular progressivism. (There is nothing unique about manhood, gender, etc. God's design is dishonored and replaced by secular humanism.)

Absolutely No Absolutes in the New America - By: Tim Wildmon - Progressivism is a worldview fundamentally based on the philosophy of humanism. Humanism is based on atheism or agnosticism. That is to say, there is no God to govern the individual or the community on planet Earth. Or, if there is a God, He has no concern for human affairs. Therefore, it is up to humans to make our own rules for life. And we make those rules up as we go along.
     ...President Obama, for example, says he is a Christian, but then says: “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that there is a higher power, that we are connected as a people.” So he is not, technically, an atheist. However, judging by his words and his presidential decrees, he is a universalist. And universalism is fundamentally incompatible with Christian doctrine. So Obama would describe himself as a Christian who does not believe in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way to know God or to reach heaven in the afterlife. This is like saying one plus one is two, but if someone wants to believe one and one equals three, that may also be true.  Of course, the president is not alone. There are millions of Americans who would describe themselves this way.
     ...Their words propose the theory that Christianity, Humanism, Buddhism, Islam, Voodoo, and Hinduism can all be true at the same time. That is completely and obviously illogical, but you will hear some otherwise really smart people insisting that all teachings of all faiths can be true. Well, every faith except Christianity – because Christianity is exclusive, so it must be relegated to the trash heap of contemporary religions.  The central teaching of Christianity is that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. God, the Bible says, requires that we believe in that sacrifice and submit our lives to following Christ. First Timothy 2:5-6 says: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. …” What Jesus came to save people from was sin, death, and hell. 

Bureaucracy - Ludwig von Mises - "The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" 

The Foolishness of Progressivism - By Ken Blackwell - Progressivism, unfortunately, is not very good at recognizing reality. That’s because progressivism focuses on vision and aspiration. Conservatism begins with the facts on the ground and seeks improvement through gradual reform, while progressivism begins with a utopian vision and tries to conform reality to it.

Why Do Liberals Hate America? - By Stephen Moore - The modern left in America really has come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism and totalitarianism -- or other terms for the monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite -- are superior to free-market capitalism. ...How far the Democratic Party has fallen. Can anyone imagine Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders having the gumption or wisdom to tell Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"? ...We have courts overturning the will of the people in state after state on issues such as gay marriage. We have speech police. We have illegal immigrants who work here and live here and then wave the Mexican flag at rallies, as if to be intentionally offensive. (And I'm in favor of immigration.) Then they wonder why Americans want a wall.

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.

Five Reasons Why It’s Easy Being a Democrat - by Gary DeMar - Democrats are unified around five basic governing principles:

1. Tax more.

2. Spend more.

3. Grow the government.

4. Make more people dependent on the government.

5. Support every liberal cause no matter how despicable (e.g., abortion).

‘I Am A Liberal’ and I vote - By Jerry McGlothlin - I support the right to kill you for the first 9 months of your life and even a little bit afterward, if no one is looking.
- I support gun free zones so you cannot defend yourself or anyone else if any of my disenfranchised brothers or sisters express their righteous rage.
- I am against Wall Street and small business–especially if it is located in Ferguson, Missouri, or any other city where I decide racial injustice has been perpetrated.
- I detest all you breeders who keep bringing in future generations who will be breathing my air.
- I support bigger government and unlimited taxpayer-funded spending on gender bender hormones and other new needs of the day.
- I say open the Southern gates and let future liberal voters in by the tens of millions to even the score, to have free and fair elections where anyone who arrives at a voting station can cast a private vote without identification. And while we’re at it, let’s make Election Day a national holiday with polls only open 9 to 5.
- I oppose all forms of private education and outlawing homeschooling. Let everyone get a public school education from pre-school to college graduation day, so we are all on the same page on the vital social issues of the day.
- I’m for banning all forms of Judeo-Christian religion but also allowing Islam and secular humanism.
- I’m for total 24/7 surveillance so that the business class pays their fair share.
- I’m for merging America with the world for governance since sovereignty is so last-millennium.
- I oppose Climate Change and am willing to sacrifice trillions of dollars of other people’s money to fight climate until it changes no more.
- I am a Liberal. And I vote.  

Dimensions Of Dysfunction Suffered By Secular Leftists By ALLAN ERICKSON - When people say Leftists suffer from mental illness, it is true, but only part of the story. ...Typical Leftists are compulsive about minding everyone else’s business. ...In short, they will do anything to justify using government power to force submission and compliance. ...Leftists assume they are morally and intellectually superior, without a shred of evidence (and frequently contradicting the best evidence). It is delusional, but necessary. After all, one must assume supremacy to justify tyranny. ...For a Leftist, this special PC knowledge requires no substantiation, because “it feels right.” Things should be the way Leftists perceive because they have the special knowledge, debate over. ...A snapshot to exemplify: poverty bad, redistribution good, expand government power to steal from one to give to another, (liberty lost), problem solved, case closed. ...Leftists tend to be very self-absorbed and paranoid, immune to all factual information contradicting the narrative.

 

Why aren't Liberals Proud to be Liberals? By Julie Love - Liberals are offended - oh, no! I understand that some liberals are offended by my use of the term "liberal." If you are so easily offended that the use of the word "liberal" offends you, it is pretty much a guarantee that you are a liberal. Liberals believe so much in an ideology, that the failure of the ideology doesn't deter them in any way.  Liberal policies have been tried in parts of this country, like Detroit.  Detroit is, basically, a liberal utopia.  Not one single Republican politician has been elected in Detroit for 50 years.  Detroit is bankrupt.  It is full of crime and corruption, all because of pure, liberal policies, without the intrusion of any Republicans at all. Now, liberal policies are being applied to the entire country.  As with all liberal policies, they are failing miserably.  Not only are Obamacare, high taxes and government over-regulation destroying my life personally, the policies are taking away the wealth of our family and destroying the free country that I love. If you are NOT a liberal, then quit identifying as one.

   Here is the litmus test:
   Do you believe that the military should be slashed?  Or do you believe in a strong military?  A weak military is an open invitation to our enemies to come on over here and kill us.  A strong military allows us to go about our lives, safe.
   Do you believe in open borders?  Or, do you believe that people who are here illegally should be sent home?  Liberals like to talk about about "sustainability."  You know what is unsustainable?  Giving welfare, food stamps, health care and an education to anyone who is here illegally.
   Do you believe in "taxing the rich?"  In liberal world, that means taxing anyone who has a job so that we can give more stuff to people who don't work, felons and people who are here illegally.
   Do you believe in government over-regulation?  You know, the kind of regulation that strangles businesses and kills jobs?
   Hey, if you don't believe in any of that stuff, great, you aren't a liberal. But, if you do, you are a liberal. Why aren't you proud of it? 

Liberalism: the religion of natural man - By A.J. Castellitto - "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blas- phemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." -2 Timothy 3:1–5
   We are all liberals by nature. We are "me-first" people and are most comfortable with others who also condone such a "me-first" perspective (as long as their "me-first" agenda doesn't interfere with our "me-first" agenda). Liberalism comes so easy to the average person. It's totally instinctive. It's not something that needs to be taught. It's our natural disposition. Liberals tend to think of themselves as more accepting and compassionate. There are even some who suggest that they are the most Christ-like in their ideology. This is incorrect, however.
   Jesus did not promote total acceptance. Jesus promoted radical change – a complete denial of self. His invitation was completely inclusive, but the final "condition" was one that was impossible to embrace. "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." – Luke 9:23 - There's the rub.
   The liberals will hear none of it. They'll accept Jesus but only on their terms. Jesus must be conformed to their image. They don't want to acknowledge that a complete self-denial is the most essential spiritual consequence of giving yourself over to the higher power. They insist Jesus be incorporated into their way of living.  Left to ourselves, we (natural man) would rather have our riches above Jesus, or maybe, we have some secret vice that prevents us from coming to a place of total submission. We eventually do the complete opposite. Our "needs" take precedent, and we reach a point of total rejection. We naturally place our own wants and desires before all else, even before a saving deity.
   Liberals tend to fancy themselves as the epitome of rational wisdom. They view themselves as "enlightened" people. They firmly believe that a complete submission to their methodology will enable a fairly distributed, person-centered, needs-driven standard of living to flourish. Underneath it all, however, is an elitist, radically-motivated, power-grab reflective of a greater global political-social agenda.
   {Note: Charity, not socialism, was endorsed in the Bible within the body of believers and was secondary to the gospel. The Marxist ideologue of our day is promoting tyranny under the guise of empathy. But what they really seek is totalitarianism}.

"One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one." --James Madison, Federalist No. 48

President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, their sycophants are destroying the Republic, while Democrats, RINOs, and "We the the sheeple" complacently think: "What difference does it make?"  

 

Capricious Children Are Leading America: Surprised? - By Jeremiah Johnson - As I have been meditating on Isaiah chapters 3 through 5 recently, it has become painfully apparent and obvious to me according to the Scriptures that when a nation begins calling, “good evil and evil good“, and embraces principles that are contrary to righteousness, one of the first CONSEQUENCES and JUDGMENTS released from the hand of God Himself is the setting up of IMMATURE LEADERSHIP TO GOVERN THE PEOPLE. 
   Isaiah 3:4-5 makes it loud, plain, and clear, “I will make immature lads their princes. And capricious children will rule over them. And the people WILL BE OPPRESSED.” 
   Who exactly are the capricious children that will rule over the people? They are leaders who are erratic and make unpredictable decisions. They thrive off of making people guess what is going to happen next. They themselves are subject to odd and often times sudden notions. The lack of consistency, steadfastness, trustworthiness, and reliability is what is so oppressive to the people and this is EXACTLY what is taking place in the United States of America right now.
   This is not only the truth, but after considering the Scriptures, WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AND CAUGHT OFF GUARD AS BELIEVERS IN AMERICA! It continues to amaze me personally how “blown away”, “alarmed”, and “caught off guard” followers of Jesus Christ in America are at the decisions coming out of Washington D.C. . Beloved, we are reaping what we have sown and many of the people complaining and full of fear are the very people who elected the current government leadership into office!
   Not only are capricious children running the United States of America, but because of our lack of righteousness and conviction in the body of Christ, we now have immature leadership being set up as we speak over the house of God! I believe that this in part, is the judging of the House of God that 1 Peter 4:17 speaks of. We desperately need leaders, capable and and intelligent men and women, individuals who are full of integrity and the wisdom of God, to rise up in this hour. So long as we continue to callhomosexual marriage good, so long as we consider the murder of innocent babies not a big deal, so long as we dare not touch the disgusting pornography industry in America, we will receive what we are sowing: immature and capricious children leading us into destruction and imminent turmoil. The judgment of God is upon us now and is coming. 
   But before you get on your knees with me in prayer, fasting, humility, and asking God to forgive our sins in America and in the body of Christ, let me share the GOOD NEWS! The good news is that the Father Himself has His “farm team” that He is training and is almost ready. He is currently raising up leaders full of Godly wisdom and counsel, but many of them do not have exposure yet. These prophetic voices are likened unto the prophets in Jeremiah 23 who “stood in the council of the Lord to receive His words. I want to encourage some today that are despairing over our nation to: Yes, realize we are suffering for our choices, but put your hope in the Father that He Himself is raising up shepherds according to His heart that will lead and guide this nation into repentance and a turning away from sin which will lead to revival and awakening.
   We must put our hope in Jesus Christ and that there will be coming revival, awakening, and reformation to our nation, but one word of wisdom is absolutely needed in this hour and it is this: God is awakening, sounding the alarm, and preparing the body of Christ with revival because of the judgment that is coming. America will not be the nation of “revival and happy ever after”. America will be the nation who saw revival sweep a great majority of the land to strengthen what remains so that when judgment comes upon the land because of what we have sown, the body of Christ will NOT  fall away and their faith will not grow weak. 
   I say, “Maranatha”, come Lord Jesus! Come rescue your people from the capricious leadership that we have set over ourselves by calling evil good and good evil. Forgive us for our blatant and unrepentant sin in America. Revive your church and fill their lamps with oil so that we might be ready and prepared for the coming and righteous judgment upon America. I celebrate that your love demands justice and you will have your justice Father! I am beyond satisfied that you will right every wrong and hold every man accountable for their actions. Release a spirit of conviction and the fear of your Son Jesus upon Washington D.C. and church leadership in America.  In Jesus Name I pray. Amen

Liberals LOVE the police state - By Tim Dunkin - Liberals LOVE big government. We all know this. The problem with this, asScott Rasmussen pointed out a few days ago, is that this also means that liberals love the police state. After all, when you've made all of these petty, piddling little laws about everything from trans-fats to Big Gulps to untaxed cigarettes, somebody has to enforce all of those. The more laws, the more enforcement, the more extent and reach of the police state. If you build the sort of nanny-state that the far Left envisions, you must guarantee that you will have a police state to back it up.
   Let's think about this for a minute. Which side of the ideological divide is it that put the laws into place that allowed Homeland Security SWAT teams to invade the private properties of innocent citizens and confiscate their Land Rovers, all because the vehicles didn't meet stringent EPA guidelines? Which side makes it possible for government agents to steal your land if an endangered species is found on it? Which side will close down your restaurant if you accidentally use cooking grease that contains trans-fats? Which side will fine and imprison you if you refuse to bake a cake for a gay "wedding" that you oppose on personal moral grounds? Which side will sick the IRS on you if you don't make the personal choice to buy health insurance, or if you donate money to the "wrong" organization or say the "wrong" thing in a church sermon? Which side will fine you and throw you in prison for the mere act of saying something against abortion on a public sidewalk? Which side will fine and imprison you for owning a rifle magazine with one too many bullets in it?

How Obama is Turning Liberalism Into an Instrument of Coercion - Posted by NFRA Staff - Liberals just aren't very liberal these days. The word “liberal” comes from the Latin word meaning freedom, and in the 19th century liberals in this country and abroad stood for free speech, free exercise of religion, free markets, free trade -- for minimal state interference in people's lives. In the 20th century New Dealers revised this definition, by arguing that people had a right not only to free speech and freedom of religion, but also, as Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1941 Four Freedoms speech, freedom from fear and from want. Freedom from want meant, for Roosevelt, government provision of jobs, housing, health care and food. And so government would have to be much larger, more expensive and more intrusive than ever before.
   That's what liberalism has come to mean in America (in Europe it still has the old meaning), and much of the Obama Democrats' agenda are logical outgrowths -- Obamacare, the vast expansion of food stamps, attempted assistance to underwater homeowners. But in some respects the Obama Democrats want to go farther -- and are complaining that they're having a hard time getting there. Their form of liberalism is in danger of standing for something like the very opposite of freedom, for government coercion of those who refuse to behave the way they'd like. Example one is the constitutional amendment, sponsored by 43 of the 55 Democratic U.S. senators, which would cut back on the First Amendment and authorize Congress and state legislatures to restrict political speech.

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism By Emma Roller - In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008. "What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?" She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:
SHARE THIS STORY
- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."
- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."
- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."
- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."
- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."
- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."
- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."
- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."
- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"
And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own."

My Response to ‘Native American’ Elizabeth Warren and her '11 Commandments of Progressivism’ - by Gary DeMar - Speaking at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Elizabeth Warren outlined her “11 Commandments of Progressivism.” My brief commentary follows:
   1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.
   There is no single entity called Wall Street. What we really need are stronger rules and tougher enforcement on Washington that bails out faltering companies and banks. Washington spends money it does not have. Elected officials like Warren steal from the working class so they can give it to non-workers who will continue to vote to keep politicians like Warren power. There is an unhealthy relationship between government and business that only the free market can fix.
   2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.
   Actually, Progressives don’t believe in science or they wouldn’t support same-sex sexuality (the biology and anatomy are all wrong), evolution (something from nothing), and the skewed and manipulated numbers that go into fabricating the crisis of Global Warming, Climate Change, and now Climate Chaos. Furthermore, if Progressives truly believed in science, they would engage critics of Global Warming in debate. Instead, the claim is made that “the debate is over.” Progressives don’t want debate because there’s too much money in a global “crisis” like global warming.
   3. We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.
   Governments should keep their hands off the internet. Once any type of control is given, there is no end to it. Progressives will end up controlling the oversight committees that make the laws and turn the internet into a State-run media congolmerate. Those supporting net neutrality tell us that it would not be directed by the government; that it would make the internet more free and open. Don’t you believe it. If a liberal like Elizabeth Warren is behind it, it must be a bad idea for freedom. The internet is doing just fine. Businesses are created every day. The little guy can be up and running in a day. See “Killing Net Neutrality Helps Underdogs Succeed.”
   4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.
   Calls for raising the minimum wage are ongoing. Once again, the government should get out of telling companies what they should pay. They are already burdened with paying the employer’s side of Social Security and Medicare and unemployment compensation tax. This says nothing about insurance, rent, upkeep, training, inventory costs, etc. Raising the minimum wage will force some employers to let employees go because of increased costs. The extra work will be passed on to the more experienced retained employees.
   5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.
   Liberal policies already control the marketplace. Who will define a “livable wage”? The government will. There will be no end to what a livable wage might include: a certain size house; so much for food each month; a clothing allowance; paid vacations; transportation; education, birth control, etc. The most inexperienced workers will be shut out because of hiring expenses. The less qualified will find it harder to get a job. Teen unemployment will rise. “[M]inimum-wage legislation discriminates against teenage black males. This has been known by economists since at least the mid-1950s. The statistical evidence on this was overwhelming.” Walter Williams argues: “‘How does someone who is part of a group that is discriminated against find a way to prove to somebody doing the discriminating that his assessment is incorrect?’ It was really this question: ‘How do undesirables break through the discrimination against them?’”
   6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.
   Entitled? Should I be forced to pay for the education of other people? No one forced these people to go into debt. No one has to go to college. There is no requirement that a college education has to be completed in four years. No one is forcing anybody to go to expensive schools. The case could be made that government money and cheap educational loans increases the cost of college.
   7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.
   Who will be made to pay for bankrupt pension programs? Should I be forced to pay? Our government enacted legislation that gave us Social Security and Medicare. They have grown in scope far beyond their initial implementation. Medicare is bankrupt. Warren’s solution is more taxes.
   8. We believe — I can't believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.
   There’s no such thing as “equal work.” All types of factors go into hiring and paying. If employees are not happy with what they are paid, they can (1) start their own business or (2) look for another job. I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014, but it’s no business of the government what an employee is paid.
   9. We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.
   Warren wants “equality” in everything. Forced equality leads to poverty. Equality before the law is the goal, but not equality in everything. There is no such attainable ideal unless we’re talking about Communism. But even with Communism, some people are more equal than others. There already equality in marriage. No one is stopping two people from getting married as long as they are of different sexes. The law has been equally applied. Changing the definition of marriage by claiming that people of the same sex can marry is not equality; it’s insanity.
   10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.
   This is one of her “commandments” that I and millions of others can agree with. The question is, however, what types of “reforms” do Progressives want?
   11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
   Try owning and running a corporation without people. Corporations are owned by people, whether it’s one person or a group of people. Corporations are people. When Warren and her liberal thugs want to force their economic agenda on a corporation, who pays? People! Did people from Enron and WorldCom go to jail? Berrnie Ebbers of Worldcom was sentenced to twenty-five years in a federal prison. If corporations aren’t people, then why do they pay taxes, and why is Ebbers in prison?
   One of the reasons the “corporations aren’t people” argument keeps coming up is because of the intrusive nature of government. Congress passed and the Supreme Court upheld the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now the government has direct control over healthcare. As a result, for every question about the Act’s applicability and enforcement, the government must decide.
Warren and her ilk want to control every area of life, even unborn children by allowing women to kill them. They want to empower the State to force companies to pay for abortifacients that kill unborn babies. Women have a right to control their bodies, but they should not have the right to kill an unborn body that is not their body. As has been reported over and over again, Hobby Lobby did not deny any woman anything. Warren wants power to force companies to pay for healthcare that she wants to define.
   More could be said on all these topics. Elizabeth Warren is the new face of the Democrat Party.

Liberals are Not Pro-Choice- They are No Choice - By David L. Goetsch - ...If liberals really believed in choice, they would not oppose giving parents the choice to place their children in charter schools; something they do vociferously.  ...If liberals really believed in choice, they would not attack black Americans who choose independence over government assistance, nor would they attack black Americans who choose conservatism over liberalism. ...If liberals really believed in choice, they would not put so much effort into taking away the choice Americans are given by the Second Amendment.  ...If liberals believed in choice, they would not have passed and enacted healthcare legislation that gives Americans no choice concerning health insurance. ...If liberals really believed in choice, they would not have passed regulations that require gasoline to contain ethanol.  ...If liberals really believed in choice, they would not tell Americans what size soft drinks they are allowed to purchase, what type of toilet they have to buy, or what type of light bulbs they must use.
   This article has touched on only a few choices liberals have taken away from Americans; there are many, many more. Not only that, every day bureaucrats in the federal government are creating new and more burdensome regulations that will rob us of additional choices. Liberals make a lot of noise about being pro-choice but the facts belie their hypocritical claim. The truth is, liberals want you to be able to murder an innocent unborn baby and that is about it. As to other choices in your life, they will make them for you. So much for choice.

A lesson in liberal/Democratic Party hypocrisy - By Lloyd Marcus What do Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Michele Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson and TW Shannon all have in common? ...They are hated by liberals and Democrats. Tell us why? Correct again Joseph. They are women and minorities who honor God, family and country. They are self-reliant, extremely successful and do not view themselves as victims. Liberals and Democrats will not tolerate such liberated independent thinking by women and minorities. It threatens the foundation of the Democratic Party which is built on insidious evil lies, class envy and victim-hood-ism.

  

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." 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" 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." (Hat tip: Don Surber) Today, however, Common Cause is actively supporting filibuster reform." It's one of the campaigns highlighted on Common Cause's website. Now Common Cause argues that the filibuster is "an historical accident" 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.

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism By Kurt Schlichter - Recent events once again demonstrate that there is no point arguing with liberals. Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him. Progressivism is not a coherent ideology so much as a purpose – to control every aspect of our lives. It is about consolidating progressive power. Nothing else matters. That includes the truth. This is why we see YouTube videos of Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama waxing eloquently, while in the minority, about the moral necessity of the preserving the filibuster that they just shot through the forehead when in the majority.
   ...Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes. ...Progressives needed to provide cover to their legislators to socialize the health care system, so they simply lied. The only fault the progressive-owned mainstream media can find with that is with us for being stupid enough to believe what the liberals told us. I agree. If you believe anything a liberal tells you, if you imagine you can count on a liberal to hold to any particular principle when that principle stops being useful as a means to accumulate power, you are a fool.
   ...Expect hypocrisy. Expect lies. Highlight them certainly, but not for ourselves. We know that hypocrisy and lies are essential components of progressivism. Do it instead for those who don’t yet understand. Do it for the undecided in the battle for the soul of America. It’s that mass of people who are not aware of just what a sick power grab progressivism really is behind its false front of “caring” and “social justice” that we need to reach. If their hearts and minds weren’t in play, the progressives wouldn’t bother lying to them. They would enforce their will with storm troopers. ...Arguing with progressives is a waste of time because they believe in nothing except that they should rule over us. Progressives don’t seek justice. They seek power. Treat them accordingly.   

Liberal Ineptitude: Why they Never Get it Right by David L. Goetsch - Liberals in America have made a complete mess of education, culture, the military, the economy, and religion. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that when liberals are in power—Congress, the presidency, and the courts—they invariably use their power in ways that are misguided in the short term and destructive in the long term. What is ironic about the mess liberals have made of America’s most important institutions is that they actually think they are making improvements.  However, even a cursory look at the supposed improvements liberals have made to just one of America’s foundational institutions—public education—shows that their definition of “improvements” is distorted at best. Liberals have transformed America’s public schools and colleges from institutions that one time prepared people to be self-sufficient, contributing citizens in a diverse society into leftwing indoctrination centers that see multiculturalism and sheep-like compliance as their goals. Thanks to liberals it is now perfectly acceptable for a student to graduate from high school unable to speak, read, write, compute, or think at a functional level, provided, of course, he is willing to toe the line of liberal orthodoxy on a laundry list of leftwing causes (e.g. abortion, homosexual marriage, the redistribution of wealth, etc.).   
   To a liberal, having a dependable constituency of mushy-headed, easily influenced sheep is the goal of public education, not intellectual, civic, and personal development.  In fact, a critical thinking high school or college graduate represents a serious threat to liberals. It is not just public education where liberals have undermined America’s institutions. The left has had the same kind of destructive influence on America’s culture, military, economy, and religion—or more accurately said—Christianity. Liberals are convinced they can transform America into a utopian society by simply passing laws and enacting regulations that Americans are forced to comply with by a coercive government—a government controlled by liberals, of course. 
   ...Here is why liberals never seem to get it right: 1) they refuse to acknowledge that there is no utopia this side of heaven, and 2) the utopian society they envision is a hoax—it is a fantasyland that would not be a utopia in the first place.  Americans of all stripes are smarter than liberals think.  They don’t need presumptuous liberal elites to tell them what they should want or how they should live.  Further, Americans know when they are being asked to pay the bill for leftwing programs they don’t want and that don’t work.  Perhaps in 2014 and 2016 American citizens will send a powerful message to those who think they know better than the rest of us.

12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal By John Hawkins - These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.
   1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else. (Click article link for details on 2-12.)
   ...2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America:
   ...3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned:
   ...4) The past is always inferior to the present:
   ...5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it:
   ...6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought:
   ...7) Intentions are much more important than results:
   ...8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism:
   ...9) All solutions must be government-oriented:
   ...10) You must be absolutely close minded:
   ...11) Feelings are more important than logic:
   ...12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action:   

Triplegate: It's Like Saul Alinsky is Running the Country By Rachel Alexander- Alinsky, the radical activist who wrote Rules for Radicals, which he  dedicated to Satan, taught the radical left to use dishonest tactics in order to achieve their agenda – “by any means necessary.” He advocated lying and harassing those with opposing viewpoints. Both  Obama and Hillary Clinton were deeply influenced by Alinsky. Alinsky biographer Sanford Howitt has  said Obama's 2008 election campaign was influenced by Alinsky, and that Obama followed in his footsteps as a community organizer. Alinsky's son David  wrote  in an article that appeared in the Boston Globe, “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach his 100th birthday.” Obama  revealed  a few years ago that his years training as a community organizer at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, “gave him the best education of his life.” He has quoted Alinsky in speeches. 

 

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.

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.

"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?
Is Government daddy?

"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." 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." 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.
- 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.

...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.


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."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Ronald ReaganUpside 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." 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." 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.

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.

Much more here.

Related: America's Founders and slavery - Did you know?


A challenge for liberals

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


More Challenges

"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." 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?" 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

Stop her now!

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." 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.

  1. Approval of homosexual marriage and teaching our children that it is "normal," while not informing parents about these "lessons," defending NAMBLA's rights to teach how to abduct and sodomize,
  2. Legalizing euthanasia
  3. Banning prayer in school
  4. Banning the public display of the Ten Commandments
  5. Banning the Pledge of Allegiance
  6. Basing our laws on the laws of other nations
  7. Maintaining abortion on demand
  8. Forcing the Boy Scouts and similar organizations (including churches) to place homosexuals in positions of leadership
  9. Complete protection for all kinds of pornography
  10. Creating hate crimes laws to punish those who believe homosexuality is wrong
  11. Denigrating Christianity to a secondary status
  12. Making secularism the only legitimate religion

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." 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." Sir Walter Raleigh

"A government that does not trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust." James Madison, Federalist Papers

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...such laws serve rather to encourage than to prev homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson 'Commonplace Book' 1775  

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." 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."

Note to gun owners: You can support your chosen pro-freedom organization with every ammo purchase.
                               


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