EarsToHear.net
He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear
(Matthew 11:15-30)
What
defines a "liberal" Democrat?
"Today's "Democrat" is can
no longer be defined as "liberal," as their claim to be "progressives" is
actually Marxism.
Back to America's Moral Decline Index
Index (Below):
- Upfront - Defining "liberals" for what they truly are, "progressive" Marxists
- Following the lead of tyrants: George Soros and Saul Alinsky
- "Progressive" means undermining the Constitutional Republic
- The Marxist Media and Corporations
See also:
1. Democrat Socialism: A clear and present danger: Jesus did not promote socialism, and it is not Utopia.
2. The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
3. Mandating Charity - Government unconstitutional forced charity through taxation
4. Unions and Democrats (Funding your employer)
5. Democrat Racism (Which party truly advanced civil rights, and which party hindered civil rights.)
Upfront - Defining "liberals" for what they truly are, "progressive" Marxists
Biden-Sanders Manifesto the Most Radically Left in U.S. History
...Biden and Sanders want all of America to experience the same skyrocketing electricity prices and rolling blackouts California is currently suffering, which caused Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom to recently tell Californians it's time to "sober up" about the limitations of renewable energy. Keep in mind that the Bernie-Biden proposals are far more ambitious than California's current restrictions. As for the price tag, Biden says his plan is to spend $2 trillion over 10 years. But the price of the Green New Deal is a staggering $93 trillion for just the first decade, or roughly five times the size of the entire American economy.
...This leftist utopia also envisions not just "free" healthcare but "free college tuition," forgiveness of student loans, and schools that provide not just "free" lunches but breakfast and dinner as well. Of course, these "free" goodies must be paid for by someone, and that would be the working class on the backs of whom higher and higher taxes would be piled. And of course, all of these programs would need an even bigger army of government bureaucrats to manage, with exorbitant salaries and benefits paid by ... the taxpayers.
...Biden-Bernie also calls for an end to the "era of shareholder capitalism." Translated, that means private wealth would be subject to public demands, the accumulated wealth of American citizens handed over to "stakeholders" (i.e., government, environmentalists, unions, etc.). In practice, the 401(k) plans of tens of millions of Americans would be seized and liquidated to fund ecofascist agendas and union-pension bailouts, among other things.
...Other plans include the elimination of school choice, the end of cash bail, defunding the police, bailouts of Democrat cities and states, a $15/hour minimum wage, massive wealth redistribution, federal control of local zoning laws, and replacing police with social workers, just to name a few.
The Jezebellian Nature of Leftist politics
- By Gary DeMar ...Hillary Clinton is at it again. She claims to
be a Christian and often quotes from the Bible. In June of 2018,
she condemned "those who selectively use the Bible to justify"
their political decisions, something she and her
follow-Democrats do all the time.
... It was Ahab who followed the pagan religion of his wife
Jezebel.
...Democratic lawmakers in Massachusetts want to take "God" out
of the oath of office for every elected official in the Bay
State.
...The Democrats are today's Baalists. In addition, they are
also worshipers of Moloch. Abortion is their pagan blood
sacrament.
...Don Lemon asked Beto O'Rourke the following question at the
CNN town hall meeting on LGBTQRXTV issues: "Do you think
religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities,
should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex
marriage?"
...The Democrats have been working overtime to keep God out of
their policies while claiming God for support. But which God?
When Democrats use the word "god," they mean Baal and Moloch.
... While people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi claim to
be fans of the Bible, they deny its moral precepts on abortion,
theft, and same-sex sexuality. There are many in the Republican
who are equally godless while claiming to acknowledge God. In
both cases, they violate the Third Commandment, taking God's
name in vain. The party of Ahab and Jezebel is the party of
bloodshed and theft. When Naboth would not sell his vineyard to
Ahab, Ahab sulked but Jezebel took action. She brought in false
witnesses and confiscated his property and later killed him (1
Kings 21:1-16).
...Wealth redistribution is theft; it's Jezebellian.
Thomas Jefferson (1808) - "The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
Peter Kreeft - "...pretend you're God and try to create a better world in your imagination. Try to create utopia. But you have to think through the consequences of everything you try to improve. Every time you use force to prevent evil, you take away freedom. To prevent all evil, you must remove all freedom and reduce people to puppets, which means they would then lack the ability to freely choose love."
Imagine if you will a "progressive" Utopia where "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" do not exist whereby making it a tyrannical violation to offend snowflakes by simply questioning any sexual and gender deviant behavior as Satan continues to successfully impart all his counterfeit-to-God's-design delusions to the fools who willingly and happily consent as thieves to "steal, kill, and destroy" not only their own lives, but mandate abominations on everyone else. (John 10:10, 2 Corinthians 4:4) We have entered the Twilight Zone of the Democrat "social justice.
"Progressive" (no longer liberals) and Democrat Socialists, as well as 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 that is the premise for how "Rights" are to be "entitled."
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.
Video: How the New American Left Plans to Gain Power - There's an effort afoot to fundamentally change the way our government works.
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:
Tucker Carlson Predicts What America Will Look Like If Democrats Win (Video) ..."So with no more prisons, presumably that will mean no more prisoners, right? So with all of those felons back on the street and in your neighborhood, hey, felons, you may suddenly be a little bit concerned about protecting yourself and your family, but tough. In Democratic America, self-defense will be banned because they are taking your guns." ..."Lots of luck with that. Let's hope you don't get assaulted and need to go to a hospital, because in Democratic America you might find the hospitals a bit overcrowded. Why? Well, the left is giving free health care to the rest of the planet." ..."But don't even think about heading to a bar to drown your sorrows with a cocktail, and a steak. In the America of tomorrow, that will be banned too."
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}.
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.
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.
Thinking of joining the Democratic Party?
Watch this video.
Following
the lead of tyrants: George Soros and Saul Alinsky
George Soros - Enemy of the Free Market - Enemy of Sovereignty (any country), funding and working to fundamentally transform America's Republic into Marxism.
David Horowitz Explains How George Soros and the �Shadow Party� Rule Over Democrats - BY BOWEN XIAO - Horowitz said that funding from Soros's foundations shape much of the culture in today's American society, but the end goal behind it is much more sinister. "I'm a former radical so I know how sinister and evil and malevolent the left is," he said. The true agenda behind Soros and the "Shadow Party" Horowitz said, is to "make America a one-party state and to silence people like myself."
"[Soros] put together a coalition like the Working Party, and then he has things like the Democracy Alliance, which is a $50 million operation where he funnels money into Democratic candidates," Horowitz said. "He's very obsessed with Secretaries of State because they control the election process. He owns the Democratic Party, [through] his networks," Horowitz said, adding that "it really would be impossible for any democratic congressman or woman to run for office, even an incumbent, and get elected without the support of the Soros network."
Saul Alinsky and "Rules for Radicals" - Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals Against Liberals - By John Hawkins - ...don't lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.
"Progressive" means undermining the Constitutional Republic
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."
45 Communist Goals - Thursday, January 10, 1963 Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
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 advance Democratic
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 - https://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clintons-connection-to-the-shadow-party/,https://freedomoutpost.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-harold-ickes-and-the-shadow-party/
John Podesta and Hillary Rodham Clinton's friend George Soros -https://freedomoutpost.com/george-soros-nazi-sympathizer/
Huma Abedin - https://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-huma-abedin/
Hillary Rodham Clinton - https://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.
The Marxist Media & Corporations
Corporatocracy: Tucker unloads on MLB, Delta and Coca-Cola and links to "lying" Biden - By Vivek Saxena ..."In a democracy, the people rule. If voters want something done over time, it happens. That's what self-government is. But what do you call a system in which all the major, really important decisions are made by big companies without any reference at all to what voters want? Well, that is not democracy. It's corporatocracy, and it's starting to look a lot like what we have now," he said.
...The goal is to pressure Georgia's duly elected politicians to bow to their will, and of course their will is, in fact, nothing but the Democrat Party's wish list. "Why is Major League Baseball weighing in on this? Why is it doing it? Because voters in the state of Georgia made a decision that the Biden administration doesn't like. As with so many big corporations, Major League Baseball believes it now has veto power over the democratic process," Carlson noted. He added, "How did we get here? It's not at all complicated. We have a new president now, and that president is willing to destroy even something as wholesome as the country's traditional game purely to increase the power of his political party. Just the other day, Joe Biden went on ESPN to demand that professional sports franchises boycott any state whose voters step out of line."
...The clothing company Patagonia, one of the 100+ corporations that have condemned Georgia, claimed in its own statement that American "democracy is under attack by a new wave of Jim Crow bills that seek to restrict the right to vote." The statement was a complete lie. Yet as a "source" for its claim, the corporation cited none other than The New York Times...See how it all works? The narratives begin with the Democrat Party, travel to the media and then wind up with America's powerful corporations.
...Apparently, every major American corporation is OK with any law or proposal, no matter how immoral or unethical, so long as it buoys the Democrat Party's narratives.
Judge torches 'dangerous' media for 'shocking' bias; 'NY Times, WaPo virtually Dem Party broadsheets' - By Jon Dougherty - A federal appeals court judge ripped major media outlets for bias in an otherwise little-known case involving libel.
..."[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy," he writes. "It must go." ..."The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions," wrote Silberman, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.
..."Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction," the judge continued. "The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television, network and cable is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along," he added.
Silberman also ripped Big Tech, which he accused of skewing news coverage "in ways favorable to the Democratic Party" while also employing censorship of disparate viewpoints and information. He referenced social media platforms, ban of the New York Post's explosive pre-election reports providing sordid details of contents found on a laptop abandoned at a Delaware computer repair show by Hunter Biden.
"It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination "raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'" Silberman wrote. "But ideological homogeneity in the media, or in the channels of information distribution, risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government."
..."It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy," Silberman continued. "It may even give rise to countervailing extremism." He added: "The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness, if not eagerness, to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press, power."
Back to Wall of Separation? Index
Home - About - Faq's - Contact/Subscribe - Op-Ed's - Search - Donate