|Back to Back Issues Page|
Anti-American Politics, pure and simple, describe Democrat Party strategy.
July 21, 2009
The Anti-American Politics of the Democrats. (And plenty of others.)
Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, July 21, 2009
What I want to emphasize here is the irreconcilable antagonism between the social theories of Marxism and Constitutional America. The two ideas are so antithetical to each other as to render them mutually exclusive. There can be no middle ground here. There can be no “little bit of Capitalism” mixed with a “little bit of Socialism” because the two systems each can only survive and function properly in the absence of the other. They therefore seek each other’s destruction, and only one can ultimately survive in any such social contest between them.
The fact that so many mature Americans simply do not know that points out the root of the real problem, which is, that most mature Americans, particularly the more educated ones, have been mal-educated and miss-informed about the very nature of the two competing theories all their lives. We modern day Americans, collectively, have a fuzzy and indistinct “knowledge” about both Marxism and Constitutional America. We don’t really know, in any substantive way, enough about either one of them to be able to give a concise and correct description of either one of them.
So, let’s strip it to the bare bones and talk about the sub-parts, and discuss the radical differences that make the two systems so incompatible with each other as to be deadly enemies. Part of the problem is that, on the one hand, Marxism seeks to control all – it is a form of government central planning of the whole economy, and it is a form of government control of the citizenry. Both at the same time. Constitutional America, however, is a loose arrangement between a free market economy, and a liberated citizenry, in which the government acts solely as a sort of referee to keep citizens and free market transactions honest.
Of course, that’s not all legitimate government does, but for the sake of this discussion, we’ll put aside national defense, international diplomacy, currency and so forth, in the interest of simplicity. For the sake of this discussion, in Constitutional America, the role of the government is to make sure no one violates a contract, commits fraud or gets an unfair advantage or a monopoly over products, services, workers, land, equipment, or any other resources in play, in the open and free market place.
What we are really talking about here, rather than Capitalism vs. Socialism, is, in truth,
First, Constitutional America requires a highly moral citizenry to function properly. Liberty, as we know it here, can only exist as it does here in a generally moral people. As a people become less moral, they must be increasingly constrained by civil law. As a people become more moral, they are in less need of such constraint by civil law. A predominantly immoral people would render Constitutional America inoperable and impossible.
Morality is born of religion. Our common Judao-Christian religion provides our collective American sense of right and wrong. A properly formed conscience, developed during the formative years in the home and in Church, guides the individual and makes him a moral man. The common Judao-Christian Ethos of America represents our collective national sense of right and wrong, and our collective national conscience. It guided our nation’s founders, and it underlies our Constitution and our civil law.
Second, individual liberty absolutely requires a right to private property, which has always been seen as a natural right, a common-law right, a seventh-Commandment right as well as a recognized civil law legal right, throughout the history of Western Civilization. When you take away a man’s right to private ownership, you take away his liberty.
Private ownership of property – of things – and the freedom and ability to invent, develop, manufacture, improve, give, hold, sell, buy or trade property is the root source of wealth. Since the dawn of specialization, each specialist produces more of whatever he produces than he needs, in order to be paid more. This is the source of wealth. Read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. New Wealth originates from Extra Effort, in forms that range between the good idea and the little bit of overtime. The product or service is produced in greater quantity, or greater quality, or for lower price, in order to satisfy a market need; the worker works a little harder or longer and puts a little more money in his pocket. As the market changes, the products change to satisfy it.
Third, existing wealth – whether it is earned, saved, exchanged, given, spent or squandered – can only be measured on some regular timely basis, be it daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually. It constantly changes. The Marxist view of wealth as a fixed pie in need of being fairly divided up is so absurd as to be stupid. The Marxist notion is that, after this year’s pie is divided up and spent, it will just magically reappear in the next time period, ready to be divided up again. Right.
Let’s cut to the chase.
It is a question of our religion vs. irreligion, anti-religion or foreign religion. That’s the real bottom line here. The American foundation stone is our religion, the next base of stone is our religious ethos, and upon these stones are built up the unique American Republic in which we all live and operate.
I submit that to oppose our common religion is to oppose Constitutional America.
Anti-religion at the root of anti-Americanism.
Marxist amorality is antithetical to the American Judao-Christian ethos. The opposition is so great that no compromise is possible. Marxism insists upon radical atheism. America insists upon Judao-Christian religion. Marxism is atheist and amoral, and Marxism opposes religion and our common morality.
Now, we have already addressed the false notion that the so-called principle of separation of Church and state has anything at all to do with the American Constitution. I would hope that silly notion is put to rest here, if not in the larger American psyche, yet.
Some of the earliest pages written on this website described the evil Secularism movement and the efforts of organizations like the ACLU to openly attack our religion and restrict it in civil law, and censor it in “public” schools, which should be called social indoctrination schools. The American college campus has become so anti-Christian that even so-called Catholic universities invite political champions of unlimited abortion and unrestricted open homosexuality, to be honored, and to give lectures or speeches.
We have discussed at length the clear and obvious Marxism of Obama. I have been railing against the clear and obvious Marxism of the SLIMC, which is to say, the entire mainstream news media, ever since the Vietnam War. Nothing about the gross, overwhelming Leftism of American Journalism should be any surprise to anyone at all by this late date. It’s been that way for well over fifty years, and was trending that way for probably a hundred.
Besides the link above, some other treatments of “pink” American journalism, in which America and American policies in general and Capitalism and American industry in particularly were demonized in the public’s eyes, see the links below.
American journalism is currently mourning the passing of Walter Cronkite, who was probably the greatest Communist traitor in all of American journalism, which is really saying something. After the disastrous defeat of the Vietnamese Communists in the Tet Offensive, in which over 100 Communists were killed for every one American or allied war fighter killed, Cronkite told the American people that "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is a stalemate" and he said that the war was "unwinnable." He called for U.S. withdrawal, and did his best to help turn public opinion against the war. His words so demoralized American troops and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, who declared that losing Cronkite’s support meant he had lost the backing of Middle America, that his heart and his Presidency were broken, and the war was eventually lost.
Cronkite’s words were, of course, a flagrant categorical lie. You can read more about it in the Vietnam War page. A top Communist general said years later on the Public Broadcasting Service crocumentary series Vietnam, that the American press – our own media – turned this disastrous Communist military defeat into a major political victory for the international Communist cause. They did it on purpose. Advancing international Communism at the expense of Constitutional America was their goal from the beginning.
When Republican President Richard Nixon refused to withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam, Cronkite and the Democrats used the Watergate scandal to break his presidency. Cronkite played the key role in the political process that ousted Nixon – chiefly by broadcasting a news story every single night on the CBS Evening News under the banner "Watergate" and hammering Nixon night after night. The whole Watergate event, in truth, revolved round an attempt to gather evidence of a prostitution ring operating through use of a phone in the Watergate. It was falsely blown into a story involving illegal Republican Party attempts to plant bugs to collect strategic political information for political advantage over the Democrat Party. Nixon didn’t even know about the break-in until after the fact, and neither did John N. Mitchell, who died in prison because of this story. It was nothing more than a typical game of high-level political hard-ball, Democrat style. (This is to say, Marxist style.) The ends justified the means.
The World Federalist organization, whose purpose was to achieve a one-world government, once offered Cronkite the job of being their main Washington lobbyist and spokesman. He stayed in journalism, but he strongly supported that internationalist, anti-American goal. He said that “We must strengthen the UN as a first step toward a world government.” Here’s what he said about how he envisioned his New World Order:
“[W]e must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government,” …. “… We must change the basic structure of our global community … to a new system governed by a democratic UN federation. … Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law."He specifically called for ratification of the "Treaty for a Permanent International Criminal Court" that would allow Americans to be convicted of actions deemed crimes by judges from nations such as Communist Cuba and Communist China. He also called for elimination US power of Veto in the UN Security Council, and he cited extreme Leftist international billionaire financier George Soros as one of the “best thinkers” on this topic. Birds of a feather flock together.
A world government means, of course, the end of the USA. You just can’t get any more anti-American than that.
Our Courts are also infected with this kind of anti-religion, anti-American thinking, although not nearly to the same degree. Yet. Look at the Abortion in America page for a gross example of what happens to law when irreligious, amoral people get on the bench. See the argument against separation of Church and state, as any sort of Constitutional principle, for another.
Recently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the news with some of her responses in an interview. Here’s a quote:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.Funny; I had always thought she was a Jewish lady. It turns out she’s a racist Nazi eugenicist. But her amorality should not shock anyone today who has looked at such decisions as Dred Scott and Roe vs. Wade, the two “freedom of choice” decisions. One established the right to own someone, and the other involved the right to abort someone, both under the right to choose.
Official Public Education is doing it’s part to dumb the American citizenry down, turn them into unthinking sheep and prepare them for herding. Lots and lots of American children today are convinced that daddy is somehow killing a polar bear every time he starts up the SUV, and mommy is somehow killing a whale every time she brings the groceries home from Kroger’s in a plastic bag, and the polar ice caps are going to melt and New York City is going to wash away any minute now, because of the thermostat setting.
But the kids are not alone in their indoctrinated invincible ignorance, and inability to do good critical thinking. Our best, brightest and bravest – our astronauts – are currently lobbying to promote an expedition to Mars, because, among other more excellent reasons, it is theorized that Mars may be the Darwinian birthplace of all life. Yean, right. Which proves that the elitist fad of extolling the Origin Of Species theory of Charles Darwin still lives on, and indeed, even gains momentum, in the complete absence of any supporting evidence, even after all these years.
You will get more science education out of comic books and science fiction novels than you will get out of public education, or out of most of all of TTRSTF working in paleontology or archaeology these days. And, perhaps most Americans do get most of their science out of comic books and science fiction novels. They certainly don’t get much out of the public schools.
Doctrine of “giving back” vs. virtue of charity.
The virtue of charity has been warped in the collective American psyche. Marxist philosophy, seeped into our consciousness, has done this to us.
Charity is, in actuality, love. It is perfect love, and therefore not humanly possible. Charity is the perfect love of God. We are called to emulate it as best we can, in our human imperfection, and in our fallen state. The love of God, like the saving grace of God, is unwarranted. It is un-earned, undeserved, etc. You cannot earn it or work for it or do anything to get it; it is just freely given, and either you will both accept it and cooperate with it, or you will reject it.
Acts of charity – giving alms, tending the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. – must be just as freely done; else they are not acts of charity. Look at the words spoken by people who have just given something to someone out of a sense of charity. How often does the sports star or the celebrity or the famous alumnus say something like, I have been truly blessed, and I need to give something back, (to the community, or to the institution, or to the local gym or foundation or whatever.) How many times have you heard similar words?
To give back. ???
To give back in these cases implies that the giver first took it from someone, which is not true. He legitimately earned it in the free market place, and he is giving it, period. The sense of the need to give some of it “back” comes out or the Marxist notion of the fixed-pie view of all wealth and property. I got my big slice of the pie, therefore, in good justice, I need to give a little back for the good of the community. This sense of giving is not charity. Non-criminal members of society who are more successful than others rob no one by earning their wealth. Rare is the individual who becomes wealthy by luck or coincidence. Don’t give as if you owe, unless you really do owe, and that’s not charity either, it is debt repayment. Don’t give back; just give, as generously and quietly as you can. That’s the virtue of charity. The recipient does not need to deserve it, and the giver does need to owe it. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand love.
Obama’s Marxist redistributionism is stealing, pure and simple. There is absolutely nothing charitable about redistribution. Charity must be given freely, never taken forcefully. You can no more force someone to be charitable than you can force God to love you. Charity flows one way, only. It cannot be demanded or commanded. If it is not freely given in love, it is not charity.
The advance of selfism: pure selfishness.
Today many people who are professed worshippers of God, both Christians and Jews, will betray a failure in adherence to their faith by their ability to stand aside and let evil pass. They will look away, or not speak up, when evil and sin is presented in public, right in front of their faces. Culture destroying, ethos weakening, society wrecking abominations are made not only legal in civil law, but acceptable in society, and not only acceptable, but even promoted, right in front of their faces. The invariable public excuse given, if one is given at all, will be on the order of “that issue is not going to affect me personally one way or another, so it’s not my problem.”
This attitude is taken even in the face of family and potentially culture destroying evils. Our civil law is supposed to be representative, and it is supposed to be complimentary to our collective sense of right and wrong. When civil law contradicts or opposes the cultural ethos, something has to give. And in America what has “given,” over and over again, is our common national Judao-Christian Ethos. People learn to put their religion aside and stand mute, even though it is expressly against their religion to do so.
“If that woman chooses to have an abortion that is not going to affect me personally in any way at all.” I therefore don’t care if she has an abortion.
“If those two men want to get married, that is going to have no affect whatsoever on me personally, so more power to them.”
Such statements are wrong, of course. These are evils that threaten the nature of the normative and normal family, and the family is the primal social unit. Such statements promote the mortal sin of Indifferentism in the social order and the civil legitimization of sins that can never be theologically legitimated. You would expect to hear such arguments from atheists, but people who still claim to adhere to some form of Judao-Christian religion say them in public, and mean what they say.
Our common religion is at the root of Constitutional America, and that is what has been under constant attack for the longest time. To oppose the religion of the founders and of the overwhelming majority of the citizenry is to oppose the very idea of America herself. Too many of us have turned inward in our spiritual life, and we have turned our religion into a private thing rather than an important part of our culture.
Abortion is against our common religion. Our religion demands that we say that abortion is against our religion. Not saying that abortion is against our religion is against our religion. Failing to condemn abortion whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself is against our religion. Supporting or voting for laws or programs or candidates that promote abortion is against our religion.
Homosexuality is against our common religion. Our religion demands that we say that homosexuality is against our religion. Not saying that homosexuality is against our religion is against our religion. Failing to condemn homosexuality whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself is against our religion. Supporting or voting for laws or programs or candidates that promote homosexuality is against our religion.
President Obama is an irreligious man, possibly to the point of being anti-religion. The Obama family is an irreligious family; they practice no faith. They therefore have no moral basis that is in any way familiar to most of us, if indeed they have any moral basis whatsoever. They may as well be foreigners. By the clear and obvious Marxism of Obama we may safely assume that he is a materialist-atheist. The Obama Ethos page showed that his guiding principles are not only alien but antithetical to Constitutional America. He has proved, again and again, that he is a typical MEJTML who will say anything at all in order to win the political contest of the moment.
The Democrat Party is an irreligious Party, taken to the point of being anti-religion in general and anti-Christian in particular. It is the Party of the Secularism movement that seeks the religious cleansing of the American public square, of all political debate, and even of all of the American people. Completely unrestrained medically unnecessary abortion on demand, and completely unrestrained highly public and open homosexuality are major planks in the Democrat Party platform. It’s what they stand for, what they are about, what they sponsor, champion, love and defend. It’s where they make much of their money.
All the untold millions of medically unnecessary abortions that have already been committed are not enough for the blood thirsty Democrat Party. They will not be satisfied until every single pregnancy ends in abortion. All the men holding hands and kissing in public in front of other people’s children are not enough for the Democrat party. They will not be satisfied until America is recognized throughout the world as the New Sodom. This is not our common national ethos directing political action here. This is the ethos of BMDFP and Democrats.
Take stock of what’s going on here. What kind of a “family” do you want your children to found? What kind of a culture do you want them to grow in and become a part of, and form? What kind of a nation do you want this to become?
America is our religion’s best hope.
Please pray for Constitutional America.
Respond to this article at the link below :
This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
|Back to Back Issues Page|