As I contemplated the possibility that the Obama bandwagon could well steam-roll over all of us who cherish liberty, the thought occurred to me that this could be the culmination of years of hard work by those who have a vested interest in destroying America.
The 60s generation gave us school busing, lower standards in schools, safeguarding 'self-esteem' at all costs even if it means giving passing grades to those who can't read, and of course, Leftwing radicalism that called America evil and Communism/Socialism good.
Some among that generation never gave up their vision for a different kind of America where the Constitution is considered a relic of the past and where government is all-powerful.
After all, the Constitution was written by 'a bunch of old men who believed in slavery,' as Whoopie Goldberg stated during an interview with John McCain some time ago on that joke of a TV program, 'The View.'
This, of course, is meant to silence all defense of the Constitution out of the fear one may be tagged as a racist.
Whoopie, of course, failed to mention that this very Constitution FREED slaves. One cannot hold people who lived in the 18th century to 21st century concepts. But the principles espoused by those 'old men' in the 1700s led to slavery being outlawed in the 1800s. The principles themselves were so forward-looking that even the Founders didn't know all of the ways in which liberty could express itself.
In addition, many products of our public school system today seem to think that mass murderers like Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Chairman Mao are pretty cool guys. Communism and Socialism are accepted as good ideas. Nevermind that in each case where these ideologies gain a foothold, citizens are robbed of their rights and multi-millions are murdered by their own government.
Do most students in America today know this?
Absolutely not!
Even John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama didn't know that the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. And each of these are lawyers!
By the way, why is it that not a single reporter in the media has asked Barack Obama why his campaign offices across the country have pictures of Cuban mass murderer Che Guevara hanging all over the walls? Guevara, of course, was one of Fidel Castro's hatchet men when he first came to power in Cuba, making sure the opposition was minimized by the systematic slaughter of ordinary citizens.
But of course, Fidel Castro is considered a pretty good guy by Obama supporters as well.
Yet the Obama-worshippers in the mainstream media think we who oppose Obama are an 'angry mob!'
This must be la-la land. What's good is called bad, and what's bad is called good.
Therefore, it is no wonder that in 2008 a large number of Americans are going to march into the polls like zombies and pull the lever for a radical, anti-American, neo-Communist who believes in infanticide and outlawing handguns in this country.
The social engineers of the 1960s planned this out from the beginning. You see, in order for revolution to occur, you don't need guns or violence. All you need is to take over the school system, dumb down the students by lowering standards, withhold information about the Constitution and the men who wrote it, brainwash them in the ways of Socialism/Communism, until one day in the future you have an entire generation of Americans who think it's absolutely splendid that a person with an ideology like Barack Obama runs for President.
That one day in the future is now.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There is much here and much I agree with. However, I do wish to focus on one thing and comment:
I do take a somewhat different tack in looking at this whole thing. I see it as a far older conflict that is only now coming to a head here in America. I believe this particular conflict is at least two centuries old. The side that we stand with (a Constitutional Republic) found its voice and expression in the 17th and 18th centuries, and gave us those wonderful documents called the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the constitutions (covenants) of the several states, culminating in the federal constitution.
The other side tried its voice in the French Revolution and failed utterly. They did not gain coherency of thought until Marx and Engels. Sadly, people believed the writings of a shiftless bum, and that culminated in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, the underlying thinking that brought all this about has existed for quite a long time and is the antithesis of the system of individual liberty and consequent responsibility that makes a covenant form of government, not only possible, but very workable under the U.S. Constitution.
It is plain that the two opposing ideologies cannot co-exist. Hence, one has ever warred against the other.
There are significant differences in the way the two ideologies engage in this conflict, and that is most evident in the world-wide gains of the communists over the last 50-60 years. So long as communism allows its true face to show, it can never gain in this world. Hence, it wars by deception. Communism has no problem adopting all the tenets of Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and has no problem demanding conformity from its adherents. On the other hand, those advocating the individual liberty and responsibility approach to government and society (as expressed in the U.S. Constitution) appear fractured and incoherent in waging the war. This is primarily due to the lack of understanding on the part of many of who support the concept of individual liberty, and the fact that, overwhelmingly, they believe that deception is not an option when presenting one’s intentions. Of course, deception is not necessary when the outcome is wholly dependent upon the individual, and not on any particular constituency of the ideology.
A further distinction can be seen between the ideologies in how they seek to achieve their respective ends. To the communists, the end is of such supposed value that any means necessary can be used to achieve it. To those who hold that government exists for the protection of the liberties of all, the end cannot justify the means as that destroys the very truth they stand for. Plainly, you cannot bring about and ensure individual liberty through the oppression of individuals, regardless of class.
Here now we arrive at this point, having fought the same war, two entirely different ways. For the communists, their war is fought in the totality of man’s existence, leaving out only the spiritual realm. For them, no place is immune from the ideological war they wage. They present their ideas in the schools, the workplace, churches, medical facilities, the entertainment media, sports, etc., etc. In this, the weakness of those standing for constitutional government (as envisioned by the Founders) is evident. In their desire to leave well enough alone and live life, they have not engaged the communists seriously on any front. Unfortunately, they do not view the church, the school, the workplace, or the community as parts of the battlefield. Moreover, there is a decided lack of understanding about war, and what war is. To most, war is defined by shots fired in anger, and engaged in on a scale larger than the individual and the community. This was not the understanding of the Founders, nor of John Locke, who gave clarity to the social compact ideology.
There are some things essential in understanding Locke’s view of war. One that war involves a set, settled design, an end, if you will:
The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, . . . (Locke, 2nd Treatise, chap. 3, para 16)
And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. (Locke, 2nd Treatise, chap. 3, para 17)
And so we have it that there is recourse . . .
. . . and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out, Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind. (Locke, 2nd Treatise, para 11)
By extension we can see this applied to government and those who aspire to establish a government that can bring nothing other than tyranny:
He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war. (Locke, 2nd Treatise, chap. 3, para 17)
As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion. (Locke, 2nd Treatise, chap. 18, para 199)
If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James the first, in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus, I will ever prefer the weal of the public, and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant: for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people, . . . (Locke, 2nd Treatise, chap. 18, para 200)
I trust the words of Locke speak for themselves, and that they make plain that there has existed a war against this constitutional republic for quite a long time. And, that we have neither viewed this war, nor fought it as we should have. This is not to say that we should ever engage in deception, or having the end justify the means. Rather, it is to say that we, our parents and grandparents have enjoyed the liberties we have, and have taken far too benign a view of opposing ideologies. We have not done as the children of Israel were instructed:
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)
This lesson of history we have ignored at our peril, even as the children of Israel ignored it, neglected it, and paid an egregious price, so have we. We will pay ever bit as high a price as they paid. The principle of teaching your children everywhere, at all times reflects the fact that war is total, encompassing all aspects of life.
And yet, there is a longer view, that yields an even better understanding of our situation, but I have already gone on far longer than the original post. Thus, I will leave it here.
Excellent, deeply insightful commentary!
Post a Comment