IF GOD DIDN’T CREATE EVIL, THEN WHO OR WHAT DID?

If God Didn’t Create Evil, Then Who or What Did?

By Jerry A. Kane

Occasionally I’ll respond to a comment on one of my news stories or commentaries, but rarely will I take the time to write a lengthy reply to a commenter. However, there are always exceptions to any rule.

Below is an exchange of comments between me and a responder to my latest commentary, “Whom God Means to Destroy, He First Makes Undiscerning” published at Canada Free Press:

He wrote:

“Wrong!!!!

He [God] does not make them so [undiscerning], but allows them to make themselves so.

God does NOT create evil, but allows it so they can damn themselves – then He destroys them, more often by other evil entities”

To which I responded:

“First off, I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong. Secondly, your theology appears to be Arminian, mine isn’t. I believe God is sovereign, not man. Finally, as to whether or not God creates evil, the prophet Isaiah clearly says He does:

‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.’ Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)”

Then he responded:

It appears we agree on most of this – we are using different terms to say the same thing except for one item.

“Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?’ He knows of the evil, he does NOT create it. If that were so, He would no longer be God.

‘God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.’ (James 1:13) and ‘God is light, and in Him there is NO darkness at all’ (emphasis mine) (1 John 1:15) As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.

Arnminian? No, but many of his [I think he’s referring to the author of the piece, which of course is me, but he doesn’t realize it] thought processes are in the correct realm, but your [I think he’s addressing the commenter, not the author of the piece] assessment of that group is just opposite of what they say. It is their claim that God is Soverign, and that is the reality of our creation.”

And I wrote:

“How can I discuss the never-ending debate over biblical manuscripts and the central issue of Christianity with someone who knows so little, but thinks he knows so much? The short answer is I can’t. Yet, I won’t let your unsupported assertions go unchallenged.

You say, “Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox [sic] 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?'” The word “ra” translated evil in Isaiah 45:7 (the same word used in Amos 3:6) is never translated as sin in the Hebrew text.

In the context of Amos 3:6, ra can be correctly translated to mean “sorrow, afflictions, adversity, wretchedness, or calamities,” but in Gen. 5:6, 8:21, 13:13, 38:7 and fifty other verses in the OT, ra can be translated “wickedness,” which clearly implies sin.

In the context and plain meaning of Isaiah 45:7, ra means wickedness and not calamities and afflictions as the fruits of sin. In context, if ra means external calamities in the verse “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil,” then the word “peace” must mean a military peace, i.e., a political matter, because the phrases are parallel.

However, the verses preceding and following verse 7 are not restricted to trivial political matters, verse 3 speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God; verse 6 speaks of God’s knowledge extended throughout the world; and verse 8 speaks of righteousness falling down from heaven like a pouring rain.

The following chapter in Isaiah makes it clear that God just doesn’t know things, as you put it, but He actually brings about what He has purposed:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: … yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. Isaiah 46:10-11 (KJV)

You write that God “knows of the evil, he does NOT [please, let’s not be sophomoric] create it.” By “know” I assume you mean that God knows or permits evil to happen. What you fail to understand is that “permitting” man to sin does not absolve God from the charge of being the “author” of sin, as you seemed to suggest in writing “If that [God created evil] were so, He would no longer be God.”

God “permitted” Satan to afflict Job; but Satan could not have afflicted him without God’s approval. Permission does not exonerate God. If God could have prevented, not only Job’s trials, but all of mankind’s sins and temptations, if He foresaw them and decided to let them occur, how can He be less reprehensible than if He had decreed them?

Put another way, if a bystander could rescue a baby from a burning building, but decided to “permit” the baby to die in the flames, would you say that the bystander’s decision to watch the baby burn was morally acceptable because he wasn’t the one who lit the building on fire? Your position puts you on the horns of a dilemma whether you realize it or not.

You also write that my “assessment of that group [Arminian] is just opposite of what they say.” By sovereignty I mean that God has eternally decreed all that ever comes to pass, and providentially controls all things in his created universe, including the “free will” of man.

The Arminian notion of man’s free will cannot coexist with God’s omnipotence. If man’s free will to fulfill his sinful desires and purposes can resist and thwart God’s perfect will and purpose, then God is not all powerful, man’s free will is.

Neither is the Arminian view of free will compatible with God’s omniscience, because knowing all things renders the future certain. If God foreknows all things, then of necessity those things will come to pass; otherwise, they could not be “foreknown.”

Acts 2:22, 23 and 4:27, 28 teach that God foreknew, even foreordained Jesus’ crucifixion by the hands of sinful men, yet the men who carried out his execution are responsible for murder. If God ordained it, could the high priest and Sanhedrin have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? Scripture plainly teaches that God determined or decreed their actions.

I’m not saying that men are robots and don’t make choices. They do have “free will” in the sense of “free moral agency.”

All men have freedom of choice in that they choose to do what they want to do and can’t do otherwise. But man is not free to be indifferent, i.e. his freedom to choose is always governed by the fears, desires, and habits of his sinful nature. Yet, all his choices are subject to the eternal decrees of God.

Romans 3:9-18; 8:7, 8 and Ephesians 4:17-19 teach that man cannot choose what God requires. Man will always choose the evil desires of his flesh, which are dictated by his sinful nature. Man is never indifferent in his willingness to do anything. Even though God has determined all things that will ever come to pass, man is held responsible and accountable for his sinful actions.

As the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (3:1; 5:2, 4) put it:

“God … did … ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established…. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently…. as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”

You’re right that “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13).” Nowhere does the Scripture teach that God is evil; however, it does teach that God is both the cause of sin and the cause of salvation. Scripture also teaches that God is not responsible or accountable to anyone or anything for what He does; yet His creatures are accountable and responsible to Him for what they do.

God is holy and righteous, but our sinful nature taints and limits our understanding of His holiness and righteousness. As Paul writes, “For now we see through a glass, darkly… but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).

You write, “As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.” I am always willing to teach those whom God has made willing to learn, but I will not waste my time and energy on people who dogmatically hold to their erroneous preconceptions of Christianity and what Scripture teaches.

So you know, I spent hours researching and writing this response, and you have taken enough of my precious time. Thank you for your response to my piece and please accept this as a final response to any further discussion.”

NOTE:  The hot links were added for this post at The Millstone Diaries. There were no hot links in my responses to in the comment section at Canada Free Press.

Read Full Post »

AMERICA’S COURTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE FOR THREE DECADES

America’s Courts Have Been Violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause for Three Decades

By Jerry A. Kane

For thirty years the ACLU and its atheist hordes have been in state and federal courts vigorously marginalizing Christians and uprooting public memorials and symbols of the nation’s Christian heritage. Any cross, crucifix, sculpture, statue, figurine, or carving that could trigger memories of America’s Christian founding has been targeted for eradication from the public sphere.

Even though over two-thirds of the American public believes the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation between church and state,” the truth is the Framers of the Constitution never entertained such a notion. For three decades now, rulings by the courts ordering the removal of Christian symbols from public property have violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Framers wrote the Bill of Rights to restrict the powers of the federal government, which means the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from an intrusive government, and not the government from religion.

The First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress [i.e. the federal government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Framers didn’t want the federal government establishing a “state church” (as England and some European Countries had at the time) or interfering with the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with the people’s right to establish their own churches and denominations and worship freely. 

The suggestion that Christian symbols displayed on public property could amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause would be laughable to the Framers.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”—Thomas Jefferson

The concept of a Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God was embraced by the Founders:

Fifty-two of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were members of established orthodox churches in the colonies:

Congregationalist-7

Deist-1

Dutch Reformed-2

Episcopalian-26

Lutheran-1

Methodist-2

Presbyterian-11

Quaker-3

Roman Catholic-2

In fact, the Framers enshrined the concept of the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence:

When …it becomes necessary for one people to …assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them …

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights …

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies …

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

At the time the First Amendment was written, several states were dominated by churches, e.g., Connecticut was Congregationalist, Massachusetts was Puritan, Virginia was Baptist, and Pennsylvania was Quaker. The people in those states chose the religion they preferred, and they didn’t want the federal government imposing any particular sect or denomination on their states.

It’s safe to assume that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they understood that:

1. God establishes the place of nations in the world.

2. God created man.

3. God endowed man with certain unalienable rights.

4. God is the supreme judge of human conduct.

As Mark Levin writes in Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, “the Declaration of Independence … is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. … Religion and God are not alien to our system of government, [sic] they’re integral to it.”

If the Framers intended the Establishment Clause to erect a “wall of separation” between the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God and government, they would have included the “separation of church and state” notion in the First Amendment or would have at least introduced and discussed it at the first Constitutional Convention. But not one of the Framers ever mentioned it. None of the Congressional Records of the discussions and debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment contains the phrase “separation of church and state.” The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the First Amendment, or in any of the notes from the Convention.

The idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state surfaced in 1947 when the Warren Court lifted the “wall of separation” phrase from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson used “wall” as a metaphor to address the Baptists’ concerns about religious freedom, and to clarify for them that the federal government was restricted from interfering with religious practices. Jefferson’s letter explained that the First Amendment put restrictions only on the government, not on the people.

The truth is the current “separation” doctrine is a relatively recent concept and not a long-held constitutional principle. The Warren Court took Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase out of context and reinterpreted the First Amendment to restrict people instead of government. And now some 65 years later, 69 percent of the American people believe the First Amendment actually contains the “separation of church and state” phrase.

In his dissenting opinion in the 1985 ruling against silent prayer in public schools, Chief Justice William Rehnquist decried how the Warren Court’s “wall” notion undermined the Framers’ original intent of the First Amendment: 

“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

The Warren Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision has made the First Amendment internally inconsistent in that the “free exercise” of religion now collides with the prohibited “establishment” of a religion. Today federal courts not only use the Warren Court’s baseless “separation of church and state” argument to justify removing religious symbols from public places, but they also use it to keep people from expressing their Judeo/Christian beliefs in the public square. The federal courts no longer look upon the “free exercise” of religion as an unalienable right endowed by the Creator; they implicitly assume it’s a fundamental right granted by the government and the judiciary.

The intensive and concerted effort to exclude references to religion or God from public places is an attack on our founding principles. It’s an attempt to bolster a growing reliance on the government—especially the judiciary—as the source of our rights. But if our rights are not unalienable, if they don’t come from a source higher than ourselves, then they’re malleable at the will of the state. This is a prescription for tyranny.—Mark R. Levin, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

Only nine days before the First Amendment was passed by Congress in 1789, the nation’s first President George Washington accepted a request from both Houses to proclaim a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God.” In his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Since 1789, every session of Congress has begun with a prayer given by a clergy member whose salary is paid by taxpayers. The National Day of Prayer as well as the nation’s motto “In God We Trust” attests to the fact that the acknowledgement of the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God in the public square is a tradition in this country. Many federal buildings and monuments in Washington, DC, display Bible verses etched in stone. The United States Supreme Court building houses a statue of Moses holding the 10 Commandments.

The First Amendment does not restrict religious practice to church or home; it actually permits and protects the practice of religion in the public square. Suppression of religion is the hallmark of atheist-communist societies, which have routinely restricted the practice of religion to church or home.

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being … When the state encourages religious instruction … it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.

To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”—William Orville Douglas, majority opinion Zorach v. Clauson

Now that the Supreme Court no longer views religious rights as “unalienable,” it regulates and abridges them with impunity. The Court rejects natural law and the doctrine of original intent and guarantees freedom from religion and not freedom of religion. In protecting the rights of atheists and agnostics over those who believe in the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God and in cleansing institutions and communities of Judeo/Christian symbols and practices, the Court has become a “despotic branch” of government.

Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes—contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And with each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage, knowing full well they will disappoint. Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.— Mark R. Levin, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

The Framers understood that government encouragement of religion did not violate the First Amendment and establish a state religion. Today, however, federal courts not only restrict the religious activities of government, but they also restrict the religious expressions of the people.

“We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.”—James Madison

To control the masses, despots must always divert the people’s attention away from the plot against them. Over the last 60 years, federal courts have gradually supplanted faith in the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God with secular beliefs and established an atheistic Secular Humanist religion; yet their work has gone largely unnoticed because Americans have been too preoccupied with reports of Christian memorials and symbols in the public square that supposedly breach the imaginary wall separating church and state.

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

 To Hell with Ted Kennedy

By Jerry A. Kane

 

If Dante Alighieri were alive today, to which of the four regions of Circle 9—the circle of treachery—would the thirteenth-century poet assign Ted Kennedy?  

 

In Dante’s Inferno the regions of Caina, Antenora, Ptolomea, and Judecca are distinguished from one another by the particular offenses committed by the souls who inhabit them. The designated region for politicians who betray their country is Antenora, tailored to suit the offenses committed by the departed leftist lion Democrat.

 

Although it has become commonplace for Massachusetts’ senior senator to provide aid and comfort to America’s enemies and to accuse her President of secretly plotting and then deliberately starting an unnecessary war in Iraq, the earl of the waitress sandwich went a wee bit over the top when he collaborated with the Soviet KGB at the height of the Cold War to undermine a sitting President.

 

“In May 1983, the KGB … reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy’s concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan.

 

The KGB reported ‘in Kennedy’s opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the President’s opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda.’

 

Kennedy offered to ‘undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population.’

 

Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of ‘arming himself with the Soviet leader’s explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S.’

 

He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting ‘Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow.’”

 

Reporter Tim Sebastian discovered the Viktor Chebrikov [KGB] memo to Andropov in the Soviet archives and wrote about his discovery in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file” in the London Times February 2, 1992.

 

In the book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Paul Kengor also refers to the KGB memo and Kennedy’s proposed partnership to undermine President Reagan’s foreign policy and re-election efforts.

 

According to Kengor, Kennedy proposed a public relations plan that would cut through Reagan’s propaganda and connect Andropov and other senior Soviet officials with the mainstream media to help the Soviets present their peaceful intentions to the American people. Andropov died suddenly, and with his death Kennedy’s plan to undermine Reagan.

 

Clearly, Kennedy was not a double agent, nor was he a KGB pawn who did not understand what he was doing. He collaborated with the KGB solely to advance his own political aspirations and agenda. Kengor thinks that Kennedy wanted to stop Reagan’s “aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid.” Kennedy saw Reagan, not Andropov, as the hindrance to peace.

 

Mary Jo’s Teddy was also a major contributor in creating and passing the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that imposed surveillance restrictions on the FBI and CIA, which “were so tight that when the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th highjacker) in August 2001, they could not get permission to download his computer since FBI headquarters understood that they did not have enough evidence to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

 

Kennedy’s traitorous collaboration with the Soviet KGB and his deliberate disregard for the dangers of hostile foreign powers personify a progressive ideologue with a political agenda that supersedes the good of the country and the safety of its people. 

 

The Inferno is a deep place where the sun is silent. Dante assigns the treacherous to Circle 9—the lowest of the 9 concentric circles of hell—and the treasonous to its second region.  To hell with Ted Kennedy, a more deserving patron Antenora would be hard pressed to find.

 

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Yes, Grandma, There is a Death Panel

By Jerry A. Kane

Brother O and the Democrat Party’s media propagandists and Internet lackeys are promoting disinformation and parroting half-truths concerning the Obamacare “death panel”—an overseers’ board of bureaucrats that determines the value of a person’s continued existence and whether treatment will be cost-effective.

 

Brother O and the New York Times accuse Republicans and conservatives of spreading “false rumors;” and AP Fact Check,Politifact.org and FactCheck.org reject “death panel” claims as “twisted,” “ridiculous,” “lies.”

 

Obfuscation is a hallmark of Democrat disinformation; therefore, when Brother O and his kindred spirits in the mainstream media and on the Internet insist with dogmatic certainty that the health care bill passed by the House does not include a literal provision to establish a “death panel,” they know they’re right; however, they’re right only in the limited sense of the health care bill itself.

 

If the “death panel” specter were raised above the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a., the Stimulus Bill, which was signed into law February 17, their dogmatic assertions would disappear. In other words, the panel of overseers does not appear in the healthcare bill because it was created in that monstrous $1.1 billion, portentous piece of porkulus spending that lawmakers passed without reading,

 

Had America’s lawmakers demanded the time necessary to read the Stimulus Bill, they could have uncovered the slipped-in healthcare provisions and the appropriations for the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, known by the Sarah Palin catchphrase “death panel.”

 

The Council is the handiwork of Tom Daschle, who had been Brother O’s first choice to head the Health and Human Services Department. Daschle’s Council, which is modeled after a board in the United Kingdom and discussed in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, would make the “tough” decisions regarding medical treatments and monitor doctors to make sure they are following government dictates for appropriate and cost-effective treatments. Doctors who are not “meaningful users” of Obamacare would be penalized. What defines a “meaningful user” is left to the private interpretation of the Health and Human Services secretary.

 

According to Daschle’s book, the Council’s goal is to reduce healthcare costs by slowing the advancement in medical technologies and the development of pharmaceuticals. Daschle lauds European systems for their willingness to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.”

 

Daschle’s Council would approve or reject treatments based on a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is expected to benefit. Treatments for younger patients would be approved more often than those for the elderly; consequently, Daschle advises the elderly to be more like the Europeans who passively accept their conditions and don’t treat them.

 

Daschle’s prescient comment that Brother O’s health-care reform “will not be pain free” also serves as a dire warning regarding the medical ethics of the members appointed to the Council. One prominent member of the Council is Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Special Advisor on Health Policy to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and brother of Raum Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff.

 

To suggest that Dr. Emanuel’s views on withholding healthcare from the elderly and disabled are alarming is an understatement. In a 1996 journal article, Emanuel explores whether medical services should be guaranteed to all Americans and provides an example of an approach that favors active people and “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

 

In a January 2009 article, Emanuel looks at who should receive organs or vaccines and suggests that age could be considered as one of the factors. He writes, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different life stages.”

 

The vague language used to outline the healthcare provisions in the Stimulus Bill gives the Council the power to implement Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” principles to reduce healthcare costs by simply refusing to pay for the services. Palin’s “death panel” catchphrase is a dead-on accurate description of Daschle’s monstrous creation. She was also right to label any system as evil that bases its medical decisions on the perceived societal worth of the person.

 

Without question, Brother O wants appointed bureaucrats to decide who does and does not get medical care. In legislation currently before Congress, he proposes an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) that would have the power to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on the decisions of five bureaucrats appointed by the Executive Branch.

 

At the end of June, ABC ran Brother O’s healthcare infomercial, and a member of the audience asked him whether end-of-life decisions would be made by the quality of the patient’s life or by some arbitrary medical cut-off. Brother O responded:

 

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules…”

 

Based on the existence of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and the proposed creation of the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, it is obvious Brother O intends to appoint ruling bureaucrats to guide subjective decisions.

 

Palin entered the healthcare fracas once she realized what was about to happen to personal freedom in matters involving life and death decisions. She felt obligated by her oath to the Constitution and compelled by her humanity to sound the alarm so Americans would know what was happening. And for her warning, Americans who love liberty and cherish freedom owe her a debt of thanks.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Tyranny Follows Absolute Power, Absolutely

By Jerry A. Kane

 

Given that the propagandists in the mainstream media have beguiled enough Americans to entrench the Progressives in power, they will not relinquish that power without a fight. They do not follow rules and laws because they don’t have to; after all, they are the privileged elite who tells everybody else what to do, therefore, the laws and rules don’t really apply to them, which of course makes them lawless.

 

The population today is divided into three political groups: those who support individual freedom and liberty; those who oppose it; and the great uncommitted who go whichever way the wind blows. The population in the American colonies during the Revolutionary period was also divided politically into three groups: Whigs or rebel patriots (about 20 percent), Tories loyal to England and King George (20 percent), and neutral fence-sitters (over half the population).

 

The American Revolution was as much a civil war as it was a quest for independence. It not only separated neighbors and friends, but it ripped apart many families and communities. The patriots succeeded in gaining the support of the neutral fence-sitters through controlling the debate and subjecting loyalist Tories to public humiliation and violence. “Woe to the citizen who publicly proclaims sympathy to King George and England.”

 

Today the Progressives are in power because they control the propaganda war through their allies in the mainstream media. Their media allies control the debate through fear and intimidation. The vitriol and personal attacks levied by political pundits and personalities of major media outlets against Sarah Palin or the people in the vanguard of the birth certificate squabble typify attempts to control discourse through public humiliation. The use of strong arm tactics by union and ACORN thugs against Americans voicing concern over Obamacare exemplify attempts to control discourse through violence.

 

“Woe to the citizen who publicly agrees with Sarah Palin or makes inquiries about Brother O’s official birth certificate or his 1981 trip to Pakistan while it was a country on the banned travel list for US Citizens at a time when all non-Muslim visitors were unwelcome unless their embassy sponsored them for official business.”

 

The following exchange between Treasury officer Eliot Ness and beat cop Jim Malone, from The Untouchables movie provides important guidelines for dealing with Chicago-style thuggery:

 

Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?

 

Ness: Anything within the law.

Malone: And THEN what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.

Ness: I want to get Capone! I don’t know how to do it.

 

Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT’S the “Chicago” way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?

 

During his campaign for the presidency, Brother O designated his minions as “ambassadors” and charged them to argue and “get in the face” of the opposition, and just recently spokesmen from the Bread and Circuses Administration told Democrats to “punch back twice as hard” when confronting those opposed to Obamacare. Such expressions are uncharacteristic of a public servant, sworn to uphold the Constitution; they are more suited to the alarming, inflammatory rhetoric regurgitated by some ruler or despot, operating outside constitutional dictates. If Brother O is allowed to exceed the parameters of the role of a public servant with impunity, he will become a tyrant, for tyranny follows absolute power, absolutely.

 

In The Fellowship of the Ring movie, Frodo offers the ring of power to Lady Galadriel who refuses to take it saying,

 

“In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!”

 

Lady Galadriel discloses how absolute power leads to absolute corruption and tyranny.

An old watering hole acquaintance often divided bar patrons into the following three categories: sh*t heads, sh*t for brains, and pieces of sh*t. The first two designations are actually terms of endearment for well-meaning good ole boys who are too often beguiled and intimidated by evil and foolishness. The third designation applies to the truly wicked, sinister among us who strive for power to control others and who possess a deep-seated hatred for those opposing their desires and schemes.

Currently the “fly in the ointment” in the Progressives’ plan for iron-fisted rule over America comes mainly from the Internet, albeit talk radio and Fox News make for some residual discomfiture. However, based on the amount of legislation being fast-tracked through Congress, it won’t be long until the Progressives borrow a page from the Chinese and Chavez playbooks to shut down Internet services and crack down on ‘media terrorism’ to silence the voices of opposition. What gives the Progressives pause is that they don’t yet know how many liberty-loving patriots remain in America who are prepared to go all the way to stop them.

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

A Call to Muster

By Jerry A. Kane

Obama’s rapidly implemented progressive socialism is stealing our freedoms, even as we celebrate their birth.

Fritz Gerlich, a journalist who warned the German people of the dangers of Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s, wrote, “the worst thing we can do, the absolute worst, is to do nothing.” 

For too long now, many Americans have been sitting idle, listening to their radios, watching their TVs, allowing their favorite personalities and celebrities to articulate their rage and do their thinking for them.  They have been cajoled to bide their time, be non-combative, and let the talking head opinion makers plead their cause over the airwaves. 
 
But now Americans must decide whether to remain passive and docile or take a stand for their founding principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government and fight against progressive socialist governance.

The lesson to be learned from the recent success of the progressives is that is they view politics as war, and if freedom, liberty loving Americans don’t begin to view politics the same way, they will lose their freedoms and liberties as well as the country that has been, since its inception, the beacon of hope for freedom-loving people throughout the world.

America’s president is not dangerous because he’s a black, inexperienced junior Democrat Senator from Illinois who has skyrocketed to the pinnacle of world power; no, he’s dangerous because he’s a progressive ideologue, hell-bent on making the United States into a union of Socialist Republics. 

Simply put, socialism is a totalitarian system that controls a nation’s production and distribution of goods through a centralized government, which plans and controls its economy. To complete the transition to socialism, Obama has been appointing dictators or czars and turning elected representatives into rulers, using their power to distribute the nation’s wealth to their political allies and cronies. 

Recently on the House floor, Representative Michele Bachmann (Minnesota Republican) mentioned an article she had read about a constituent who had contacted Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts Democrat) for help to get a dealership reopened. Frank was able to administer the strong-arm tactics and string pulling because he knew the right people and had the right connections.

In Bachmann’s words, “We now have a total Gangster Government!  They don’t even pretend anymore.  It’s total, in-your-face cronyism….The Federal Government has set up a new cartel, and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their … Congressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business…. No business is safe when you see the administration appoint … over 20 czars….We now have an imperial presidency where the President has appointed various czars reporting directly to him.”

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, a completed transition to socialism is the “change” that Obama promised to bring, and from the outset of his coronation back in January, the Bread and Circuses Salvation Sideshow Administration has been working at breakneck speed remaking America. 

Back in May, the Republican National Committee (RNC) passed a resolution accusing Brother O’s Administration of “proposing, passing, and implementing Socialist programs through federal legislation” and of pushing the country “towards European-style Socialism and government control.” It’s hard to believe, but it looks like an actual spine is beginning to form in the elephant.

Think about what has transpired in our nation. Four years ago the Democrat Party was in disarray after failing to win the White House and Congress even though George Soros and the Hollywood leftists contributed record amounts of money.  Following their 2004 defeat, Soros and his wealthy cohorts formed a secret donors’ collaborative, the Democracy Alliance, to elect Democrats and to permanently realign politics in America.  They created a permanent political infrastructure by funding nonprofit think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups to confront, combat, and destroy the conservative movement. Soros and his colleagues funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to favored leftist nonprofit organizations, ensuring their control over the Democrat Party and the progressive movement.

The Democracy Alliance helped change Democrat fortunes, and they went on to defeat Republicans in 2006 and again in 2008. The Democracy Alliance currently has chapters in 19 states, and bankrolls the “Secretary of State Project” which has helped elect Secretaries of State in nine states, including Minnesota, where the Secretary of State, ACORN, and vote fraud played significant roles in stealing Coleman’s Senate seat for Stewart Smalley, a.k.a. Al Franken.  Talk about a state of bi-polar people; first they bless our House with Michelle Bachmann, and then curse the Senate with Al Franken.  Then again, it’s unlikely a curse will produce an effect on such an accursed body.

When I consider what must be done to save America from progressive socialist governance, I am reminded of a scene from the movie The Matrix.  Shortly after Neo is freed from his bio-pod canister he asks Morpheus why his eyes hurt.  In a rather nonchalant way Morpheus tells him it’s because he’s never used them before.

Americans whose eyes are open are witnessing a fundamental reshaping of their country, with the potential to definitively mark the end of personal freedom and individual liberty and give rise to a collective fascism. 

With such dire consequences ahead, I offer Colonel Bull Simons‘ prescient reminder, “History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight, someone who has the will to fight will take over.”

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Montana‘s Firearms Freedom Act Is No Laughing Matter

By Jerry A. Kane.

The citizens of Montana have struck the first blow in a fight to stop the federal government’s tyranny and totalitarian control over the states. The newly adopted Montana Firearms Freedom Act (HB246) is a declaration to diffuse political power, reduce tyranny, and protect individual rights; it demands that federal bureaucracies back off and allow state governments to deal with state problems; it restrains despotism and the federal government’s long train of abuses and usurpations; it proclaims the state’s right to throw off the power of a centralized government and provide a new guard to secure the individual rights of its residents.

After years of frustration and listening to gibberish from placating politicians, the citizens of Montana have thrown down the gauntlet for a showdown between their state and the federal government. The state’s new law contends that guns manufactured and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep them in the state are exempt from federal firearms laws given that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to control only commerce across state lines. This means that any gun manufactured and kept in Montana is free from federal gun registrations, background checks, and dealer-licensing rules.

Montana’s new law is not just another populist idea in the long line of toothless Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party protests and non-binding resolutions demanding Tenth Amendment protections; this law creates an actual pushback point against the 1942 interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the subsequent overreaching powers of the federal government. The main purpose for Montana’s law is not about extending gun rights; “it’s about state rights” and demonstrating state sovereignty.

In the past, the federal government has claimed authority to regulate guns under the Commerce Clause arguing that guns can be easily transported across state lines. Montana’s new law challenges the federal government to enforce its firearms acts or risk the door being open for further Tenth Amendment challenges that could significantly reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Now that the bill has been signed into law, what is needed to ignite the legal battle with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) is for a Montana resident with a spotless criminal record to notify the BATFE of his intention to build and sell several youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22-caliber rifles without a federal dealership license. If BATFE rules that federal laws prohibit him from doing so, the state will file a law suit and the battle contesting the federal government’s regulatory authority begins.

The fly in the ointment is that the federal government can also use tax laws to regulate firearms, a potential quagmire that makes the outcome of the new law uncertain. But the drafters of the law are hopeful that the rising tide toward federalism will break states free from Leviathan’s talons.

Since the court’s 1942 Commerce Clause decision, all states have been denied their rights under the Tenth Amendment, but more and more Americans and state lawmakers are becoming outraged that the Framers original intent of delegated powers to the states is being usurped by an ever-expanding centralized federal government. Drawing strength and encouragement from TEA party protests and Tenth Amendment state sovereignty movements, the drafters of the Montana law think the time has come to strengthen federalism again in this nation.

Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act may prove to be the straw that breaks the back of centralized government, but it will take a unified coalition of at least two-thirds of the states to make the federal courts ignore the labyrinth of conflicting state laws and recognize the people’s position regarding the Tenth Amendment.

If enough states act in concert, Congress and the President would be forced to acknowledge that American voters want the Tenth Amendment honored. Such a coalition of state legislatures would create a Tenth Amendment hegemony that would stymie the progressives and the Democrat Party long enough for the floodgates of freedom to open.

Currently Texas, Tennessee, and Alaska have introduced similar measures, while Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming are actively considering them.

It has become très très chic among America’s progressive media and celebrity culture to ridicule Americans who oppose the centralized power of the encroaching Nanny State. But for many Americans who live outside the bubbled confines of the pampered progressive elitist class, snobbish distain for the Tenth Amendment is no laughing matter. They don’t think it’s funny when the President and a majority in Congress continue to blatantly disregard the enumerated powers of the Constitution, tacitly ignore the overreaching powers of the federal government, and brazenly rob them of their wealth, rights, and freedoms.’

Congress, the President, and their media lackeys and celebrity sycophants have been acting as ruling elites who don’t seem to remember that the states created the federal government to serve the will of the states, not the other way around. But now that Montana’s new law has jogged their memories a bit, Americans can only hope that it will also serve to wipe away the smirks and to silence the snide remarks from the progressive pompous posh narcissists in the media and entertainment industry.

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Making Free Speech a Hate Crime

By Jerry A. Kane

The hate crime bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives April 29 is an attempt by democratic socialists and progressives to silence dissent against alternative lifestyles. Their incessant iconoclastic attacks on once established values and morality have nearly eroded this nation’s spiritual and cultural legacy. Instituting same-sex marriage and prosecuting hate speech will complete the process and shatter the remaining hopes for cultural regeneration and tear down the last vestiges of the country’s Judeo-Christian ethic.

In America’s brave new post-modern multiculture, homosexual and transgender people will become a federally-protected class under the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, HR-1913. Under this act, anyone who publicly opposes the practice of homosexuality or any of the 30 other sexual orientations as designated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) could be charged with expressing “hateful words” and convicted of a “hate crime.”

Under the guise of tolerance, Canada and European countries have implemented hate crimes legislation to suppress expressions that conflict with public opinion or do not conform to politically-correct policies, i.e., the views of the state are the views of the people. Only designated groups and minorities belong to the protected classes. The majority of Canadians and Europeans are not free to express politically incorrect religious beliefs, moral convictions, and political ideas publicly for fear they may enrage members in the protected classes.

Britain’s hate crimes legislation should be renamed the Islam Protection Act. In January 2007, British television aired Undercover Mosque, a documentary about Islamic extremism in Britain. The documentary was based on a 12-month secret investigation into mosques throughout the nation. In the footage, Muslim preachers exhort followers to prepare for jihad, incite violence against non-Muslims, urge followers to reject British laws, and praise the Taliban for killing a British soldier.

Leaders in the Muslim community complained the film was discriminatory and intimidating, so the police requested that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecute the film-makers for “stirring up racial hatred.” By ignoring facts and what had actually happened, the police and CPS found common ground with the film’s detractors — that is to say, they agreed the Islamic clerics were harmless victims whose sermons were “taken out of context” and condemned the film-makers for religious bigotry and inciting racial hatred. Alas, clairvoyance has supplanted the blindfolded matron, Lady Justice.

Hate crimes legislation allows a country’s legal system to disregard any notion of equality under the law, and apply it unequally and selectively, which means that some citizens are harassed, prosecuted, and convicted, while others are not. In Canada and European countries, hate crime prosecutions of heterosexuals, non-Muslims, or non-Socialists exceed those of homosexuals, Muslims, and socialists.

Hate crime laws are rarely enforced when slurs, insults, invectives, and ridicule are hurled at members in the majority group. For example, in May 2006, a Belgium man filed a complaint with the police against the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism because he was offended by the agency’s use of the words “Dirty Heterosexual” in its postcard distribution campaign. The agency director said that stigmatizing or discriminating against majorities is “not real discrimination” and dismissed the man’s objections with laugher saying, “Discrimination is something that by definition affects minorities.”

Hate crime laws establish a preferential justice system and create a double standard in the legal system that fosters distrust, conflict, and intolerance in a society. Such laws suggest that members of a minority group deserve a higher level of justice than those of the majority, which makes members of the minority group more important and morally superior. In Austria, it’s not considered degrading to Christians if Jesus is portrayed in homosexual acts with his apostles, but it is degrading to Muslims if the historical fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is mentioned.

In Britain, a 69-year-old evangelical was prosecuted for displaying a protest sign with the words “Stop Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism.” Objecting to his peaceful protest, hecklers knocked him down, threw dirt on him, poured water over his head, and tried to take his placard. The police came and arrested the protester, but did nothing to those who assaulted him.

The magistrates’ court ruled that the words on the placard could be harassing, alarming, and distressful for homosexuals who may find the words threatening, abusive, or insulting. Consequently, the evangelical protester was fined and ordered to pay court costs for displaying words that might offend the delicate sensibilities of a protected class member, but the criminal actions of the hecklers who assaulted him were disregarded and left unpunished.

Fears that hate crime laws will eventually lead to criminalizing speech are not unfounded. In 2001, a Saskatchewan resident published an ad in a local newspaper that consisted of a few Bible verses and an illustration of two stickman figures holding hands inside a circle with a line though it. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered the resident and newspaper to pay $4,500 to three homosexuals who had been traumatized and scarred for life by the stickman illustration.

Polemicists who denounce homosexuality and same-sex marriage are no less entitled to their opinions than the apologists who promote them. What has happened to religious freedom and freedom of conscience in Canada and Europe as the result of implementing hate crime laws is clear. Make no mistake, if the recently passed hate crime bill becomes law in the United States, freedom of speech will be sacrificed to protect particular classes from criticism and all forms of upset, making condemnation of homosexuality illegal.

Hate crime laws violate the fundamental notion that man’s natural equality entitles him to impartial justice, which is the underlying principle of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. How ironic the counterculture left that chanted in the 1960s, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” now fights to enslave all Americans to the will of a totalitarian bureaucracy.

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Where’s the Outrage for the Cybersecurity Act?

By Jerry A. Kane

Our government will control everything on the Internet, under the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe. If enacted, this “big brother” law would allow government scrutiny over everything posted to the Internet, while granting the White House “unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services” and powers “to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic.”

Under the guise of safety, the bill would grant a White House appointed cybersecurity “czar” unprecedented authority to shut down private domestic networks or limit Internet traffic in a “critical” information network during a cybersecurity emergency. What distinguishes a critical information network or constitutes a cybersecurity emergency would be determined by the president. The act would also impart authority to the Commerce Department to track cybersecurity threats and override any existing laws, regulations, rules, or policies restricting access to security data from private networks.

The bill would not only make the president more powerful, but it would also allow the Secretary of Commerce access to all information on a network, which could make the network less safe and more vulnerable to intruders or terrorists. Yet the senators remain resolute to remedy their perceived crisis. Rockefeller insists on protecting “critical infrastructure at all costs” and Snowe demands swift action to avoid “a cyber-Katrina.” Their rhetoric of a looming crisis matches the fearmongering manufactured for the bailout and stimulus bills, given that the bills required drastic intervention and immediate action with little or no consideration for a downside or potential harm.

The proposed legislation “would empower the government to set and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.” The president could use the authority granted in the proposed law to suspend the effective use of the Internet to circulate information or coordinate activities outside mainstream media outlets or government-approved channels. Such a law could lead to a network police force that would levy fines and shut down private Web sites that government officials determine inappropriate or offensive. The act could also open the door for more Internet censorship legislation, and follow the path taken by Australia and China.

In November, more than half of America’s electorate handed Barack Obama and the progressives carte blanche power to rule over the lives of all Americans, and now they are using that power by attempting to manage and control the flow of information through the only remaining medium capable of resuscitating personal freedom and individual liberty. The Americans who voted for the progressives have put the lives of all Americans in the steely grip of Leviathan, and no Chicago Tea Party, 9-12 Project, or surge in talk radio listeners will prevent the government from wielding its power.

Once again, a host Republican has engaged in parasitism to sacrifice her party for a perceived symbiotic relationship that in fact benefits only the Democrat Party. Snowe and her progressive colleagues in the Republican Party have transformed the party into a sacrificial organism to nourish and support extreme socialist objectives. And the corporate magpies on TV and talk radio seem to be too preoccupied with hawking books, espousing inane, meaningless platitudes, bathing in laudatory praises from fawning sycophants, and acting magnanimous in damning both political parties, to make their listeners aware of this transformation.

Ronald Reagan, Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Paine understood that a government works best only when it governs least, and that big government inevitably increases servitude, restrains liberty, and destroys freedom. While the Republican Party languishes, the approaching tyranny is poised to lead humanity headlong into what will become a deeply bloodstained century. Yet, there is no outcry from the fourth estate, which was traditionally the guardian of liberty, in opposition to the introduction of the Cybersecurity Law.

Will the media raise its collective voice against this new Orwellian power play as it did when the progressives touted the new Fairness Doctrine and advocated enforced localism? Not likely, because progressives’ outrage reaches a resounding crescendo only when the buttering of their bread is involved.

Open Congress, a project of the Sunlight Foundation, has posted the full text of this bill here. On their website, you can comment on this legislation by line item. You can fight this impending police state control by writing, faxing, emailing, and calling your Senators. Tell them to oppose S.773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

 

Read Full Post »

Published Commentaries

Republican Factions Must Unite to Stop the Coming Tyranny

By Jerry A. Kane

 

The representatives of the Second Continental Congress were divided over many issues and spent an inordinate amount of time feuding, but they knew their colonies must unite to prevent the establishment of absolute tyranny over them.  They had the common sense to heed Benjamin Franklin’s warning, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” The  “unite, or die,” slogan, adapted from Franklin’s 1754 join, or die, political cartoon, became the rallying cry for independence for those patriots concerned about their colonies’ security and future.  Franklin’s cartoon of a snake cut into pieces, with each piece representing a colony, illustrated his warning that the colonies would die if they remained divided. 

 

Today, the Republican Party lingers in disunity, while leftists single-mindedly rejoice for the birth of Leviathan (the totalitarian nanny state) to come round at last.  Like their colonial counterparts, Republican representatives must also unify and declare their independence from the left’s nanny state and the establishment of its absolute tyranny over them.  As their colonial counterparts broke away from the treasonous Tories loyal to the tyrannous monarchy, Republicans must break clean from the progressives in their ranks loyal to the encroaching Leviathan, for the history of progressivism is replete with injuries and usurpations to facilitate the absolute tyranny of this slouching, pitiless beast over freedom loving, liberty minded individuals. 

 

The treasonous element within the party has allowed the progressives to render Republican lawmakers powerless to stop the largest expansion of government authority and control over the private sector and the lives of individuals in the history of this country.  Some Republican pundits and politicians became so troubled by Leviathan’s image out of the Spiritus Mundi (spirit of the world) that they have hoisted the white flag and pronounced fiscal conservatives and the  “free market … dead in America.”  To wit, the current state of the party is “The best lack all conviction, while [t]he worst are full of passionate intensity.”   

 

The self-same American spirit that once beckoned the representatives of the Second Continental Congress to declare their independence from the tyranny of the world’s most powerful empire, now summons Republican lawmakers to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to stop the progressives from establishing a Leviathan nanny state.  That very spirit, which once stirred the imaginations of colonists to embark upon man’s greatest experiment for self-government and individual freedom, again moves across this nation calling on the party’s Fiscal Conservative, Social Conservative, Paleoconservative, National Security Conservative, Federalist, Libertarian, Theoconservative, and Moderate factions to set aside feuds and disagreements on their interests long enough to unify and drive out the treasonous progressive element and take up the fight for freedom and independence against their common enemy, the progressives’ nanny state beast.

 

No other established political party or newly formed third party movement can drive Leviathan from America’s shores.  The Democrat Party has been taken over by the progressives, and their cadre of super-rich donors has been building local, state, and national organizations to ensure the long-term success of progressive politics in the 21^st century.  For 20 years, progressive activists  have established think tanks, leadership schools, and candidate training centers and channeled hundreds of millions of dollars through organizations such as, the Democracy Alliance, Media Matters, Democracia USA, and Netroots to “to elect Democrats up and down the ballot in every state.”   

 

The Framers of the Constitution provided separation of powers, checks and balances, and the Electoral College to deter the formation of parties and did not foresee the domination of a two-party system in their government. Nevertheless, America’s political landscape for the last 140 years has been dominated by the Republican and Democrat parties, which indicates that the chances for the Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform parties, or any other party or movement to break the current stranglehold the Democrat Party has on the three branches of government is slim to none. 

 

The progressives’ election strategy embodies the Stalinist notion that “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Only a grassroots Reagan coalition takeover of the Republican Party can stop the progressives’ 2010 strategy to shape the future of U.S. elections and undermine the electoral process through the Secretary of State Project and their plan to manipulate the decennial census redistricting process by expanding and redrawing the Electoral College map.

 

Acts of futility such as the Tea Bag Revolution and the 9-12 Project will beget a Sisyphus Effect, i.e., discouragement and a feeling of helplessness at the inability to change things.  Talk radio celebrities and pundit personalities pushing such folly have opened greater fissures in the Republican Party and are keeping its members at odds with one another, unable to fight the rising Leviathan.  The sheer brilliance of their travesty is truly diabolical.

 

Under the guise of non-partisanship and fair-mindedness, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and others regularly denounce both parties as blameworthy and equally at fault.  These self-righteous, self-important corporate media clowns kick the Republican Party under the same bus with the Democrat Party and glibly pronounce a pox on both houses.  Their sin ignores both the progressive take-over of the Democrat Party and the stalwart Republicans who hold to their principles and fight the spineless leadership and treasonous progressives in their own party.  

 

Many in the purportedly right-leaning media have painted the Republican Party with the same broad brush as the Democrat Party, and their diabolical stroke has left the Republican Party in shambles but has strengthened and emboldened the Democrat Party.  Such broad-brushing of politicians has helped to loose the progressive hordes on America.  Only a Reagan-like epiphany — to wake up one day and realize that they have been going out and helping to elect the people who have been causing the things they have been criticizing — will shake these media clowns from their current self-assured, self-righteous state.

 

“The blood-dimmed tide is loosed,” and the window of opportunity to halt America’s slide to serfdom will slam shut after the 2010 election.  Republicans can either wait for an epiphany among corporate media’s bloviating heads and pundits, or believe as Reagan did and act on Thomas Paine’s words, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »