Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Vic Biorseth, Wednesday, August 22, 2012
How, Exactly, did this Christian nation come to be? How did our political structure and our governmental organization come about? How did we wind up with this non-theocratic, multidenominational Christian national guiding ethos? No objective, honest student of American history would call such personages as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, etc., mere politicians. Sure, they committed politics against each other; however, when you look at what drove them and inspired them and motivated their arguments, you see that they were Statesmen first and foremost. They were men of Christian principle and conviction, and their political arguments were always a matter of principle and personal conviction aimed at formulating and constructing a truly decent nation. That was what inspired them and drove them.
Just look at what they produced! In their Declaration of Independence they recognized, set down in black and white, and concretized in the American psyche four of the most fundamental God-given rights of man, and established them as Principles upon which decent men could stand.
The American citizen’s right to private property is firmly established in the Fifth Amendment, and reinforced in the Fourteenth Amendment. The government is prohibited from establishing an official national religion, and the people are free to open religious exercise, in accordance with the First Amendment. By that amendment, we also enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance. We are actually free to openly criticize our own government. The Second Amendment guarantees our citizen right to keep and bear arms, representing a larger armed force than any army that may be maintained by the government. This too is a layer of protection of the citizenry from its own government. We discussed these uniquely American principles in more detail in the American Constitutional Principles page.
Another rather unique thing about our American form of government is its participatory nature. As you can see in the above link, the government is purposely arranged into three co-equal branches: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. They counter-balance each other and provide checks and balances against each other, so that no one branch may dominate the others, or the people. But, what is often overlooked by many, is the fact that We The People form a fourth co-equal branch of the government. The government is supposed to be Representative of us, and reflect our overall nature back to us. In other words, they are not supposed to rule us, but represent us. It is our interest they are supposed to be concerned about in their legislating, executing and adjudicating.
And that principle raises the question, exactly what are we? What sort of image is our government representatives supposed to reflect back at us? We know what we were at the founding, but what have we become? Are we still a Christian people, and is this still a Christian nation?
Our founders were all raised up in Christian households, and they lived their lives in Christian communities, within one or the other of the original thirteen Christian theocracies. We spoke of the official state Christian religions of the thirteen Colonies in the Separation of Church and State page. While their divergent Christian denominations differed mightily in theology, they all found common ground in their common Christian morality. Early America was steeped in it.
Christian morality – how man deals with his fellow man – comes down to us from those Commandments that address that social need. The details may be found in the Judeo-Christian Ethos page. These are those of the Ten Commandments that are summarized into the Second Great Commandment: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyselff. They involve honor of parents and duty to family, prohibition of murder, prohibition of stealing private property, prohibition of falsehoods, prohibition of sexual immorality, and prohibition of coveting private property. This is and has been the Christian basis for civil law in Western Civilization, since, at least, Emperor Constantine. And it is the basis of American representative law.
This American Ethos – this way of being – came out of Christianity.
We began going astray from our own natural guiding ethos when falsehood began to make headway against truth. We began going astray in our own governance when politics began to gain ground against principle. I submit that today, in America, the most successful elected officials are men of politics rather than men of principle. They have mastered the art of political persuasion at the expense of standing on principle.
It should be very simple, really. All truth is of God. All untruths oppose God. Standing for simple truth should be the very first and very strongest principle any decent man should stand firm on. Truth is the foundation stone of Christian Principle.
Americans have been being mal-educated and miss-informed in their formal education and in their news reporting for many, many generations now. Most Americans are traveling under gross misconceptions of reality, in broad, vast areas of human knowledge. Many if not most of these gross misconceptions are products of purposeful disinformation and propaganda programs.
I first became aware of American news reporting being false, contrived and ideologically slanted to favor Marxism over Americanism when I pored over all of the available mainstream media “news” of Cuba going Communist. That was a long time ago. Since then, I have learned that the predominant news in America has been slanted that way for at least all of my life, and I am 69 years old now. You can read the Professional Liars of Journalism page and the other related articles linked in the right column of that page for my evidences. The Marxist ideological element that controls the news media is so powerful that it was able to shut down and virtually destroy Senator Joe McCarthy, shut down his investigation, make him a laughing stock, relegate him to the permanent caricature of the laughable conspiracy theorist, and do all of that even despite the fact that, as we now know, he was right. What he said was true.
Elementary education and advanced education has similarly been handing down corrupted knowledge to ever increasingly mal-educated generations. I won’t go into the many manifestations of error officially taught as “discoveries” or “advancements” of the likes of Darwin, Freud and Marx, because we’ve written enough about them in this site already. Suffice it to say that their wild hypotheses have been officially elevated to be scientific theories, in biology, psychology, political science and economics, despite never having been subjected to the scientific method and never being proven, in any way, by anyone, or by history.
But what is worse than all of that is the Christian moral decline of We, The People.
If you don’t believe that We The People are in steep moral decline, and have been for quite some time, I invite you to read the Artificial Constraception page. Don’t laugh; if you call yourself a Christian, and you don’t think the topic of artificial contraception represents a radical change in Christian morality, then you have just proved the point. Go there and see what Scripture says about it. If you don’t want to rely on Scripture, or on what the Popes and Councils have said, then read how roundly and vociferously it was condemned by such historic luminaries as:
Note that in historical terms, the period from 1930 until today is an exceptionally short period of years. This is not merely moral decline; it is moral free-fall.
Since the social acceptance of artificial contraception, the moral slope has gotten steeper. For many generations now – although not in my own generation – beginning earlier and earlier in elementary education, children are officially being taught the mechanics of safe fornication, protected sodomy and “responsible” and “discreet” promiscuity, all at tax payer expense. People no longer even ask the question of when, and why, sex education even became a subject suitable for elementary education, or why it should be required, or why it should even exist. People just accept it. It’s as if they’ve been trained.
The quite predictable results, which refute the claims of contraception proponents and sex education proponents alike, involve radical increases over time in unwed pregnancies, radical increase in venereal disease, loss of respect for women and womanhood, increase in divorce and broken marriages, increase in cohabitation, broken families, social acceptability of cohabitation, social acceptability of homosexuality, sex, including all forms of illicit sex, as a mere leisure activity, etc., etc., etc. The more the “experts” teach the children, the worse the situation gets. The “experts” are not smart enough to see that they are encouraging the causative activity. Or, they are evil enough to want to increase it.
The more contraception is encouraged, the more unwanted pregnancy occurs; the safer science makes sex, the higher the venereal disease rate goes. If you ask a public school educated kid to define the word chastity, he would have to look it up. What can I say?
Remember, objective truth is independent of the human mind. Objective truth in this matter, as in all matters, remains unchanged. God has not moved.
On the Political side of the street the changes over time have also been negative. Modern “Statesmen” are much more attuned to political stratagems than to Christian American Principles. Just as with the decline in Judeo-Christian morality, the move away from American founding and constituting Principles and into pure political gamesmanship has been slow, smooth and largely unnoticed. It’s as if that’s the way it’s always been. Until the Tea Party awakening brought about by the actions of Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, most of the American citizenry saw little or no difference between the two major American political Parties.
Now, more and more of us are waking up to it. All you have to do is look at the Democrat Party platform, plank by plank, and it is as if you were ticking off all of the pillars of Communism listed in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Every single thing the Democrat Party pushes is against the foundation of America, and against her Constitution, against her Christian religion and against her Judeo-Christian guiding ethos. Marx once summed up his whole theory in one nut-shell sentence, saying “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” And that’s just what the Democrat Party seems to be driving at.
Note well that there is nothing – not one single thing – in all of Marxist ideology that is in any way compatible with Christianity, or with American Founding Principles, or with American Constitutional Principles, or with good economic theory, or with citizen freedom. In fact, Marxism opposes all of those things.
Now, the most Marxist and the least Christian among us - Democrats, teachers, journalists, celebrities and entertainers, along with the leadership of theFemi-Nazi Front, the Eco-Nazi Front, the Homo-Nazi Front and the Racial-Nazi Front - may eschew the title Marxist and call themselves Leftist, or Liberal, or Progressive, or even anti anti-Communist. But the bottom line is that they all seek the same ultimate conclusion that Marxism seeks. They even oppose our own national borders, and work toward a vision of open borders, non-sovereignty and non-nationhood in a completely New World Order, in which our Constitution – the supreme law of the land – if it still exists at all, will be inferior to some new utopian global authority. A new set of “better” rules will be superimposed above our Constitution, and not subject to our approval, not representative of us and not accountable to us in any way. And we will be ruled by people not elected by us, not accountable to us, and not representative of us.
They (the Democrat Party) consistently and vehemently oppose our Constitutional right to freedom of religious exercise, and they present a warped, twisted and purely Marxist interpretation of Equality, which is not an equality before the law and therefore equality of opportunity; no, what they replace that with is equality of outcome, which is to say, direct opposition to the right of pursuit of happiness and opposition to the right to accumulate and own private property. Prospering from the work of you own hands is to become the new Marxian immorality.
But the “Establishment” Republican Party members are not much better than the Democrats. The “Establishment” Republicans are comprised of two groups of politicians:
The second “Establishment” Republican Party group – the paid professional political contest winners – are almost pure political mercenaries. Up to a point, they will willingly switch Parties for the right price. The point at which they become less likely to switch Political Parties is when they become so solidly ensconced and even famous public celebrities, and very well paid, that they would prefer to keep their position even when their Party is out of power. They would rather be highly placed in an out-of-power Party than lowly placed in the one in power.
Bottom line is, “Establishment” Party types, of both Parties, are politicians first, before they are anything else. Allegiance to America, like allegiance to Christian Principle, is a secondary or tertiary thing, where it exists at all. Constitutional America is almost an afterthought. The political contest is everything.
I see the paid professionals as the worst of these. Karl Rove, James Carville and their like. On the Republican side, they oppose Tea Party candidates and issues just as strongly as do the Establishment Republican office holders. If the Tea Party gains control of the Republican Party, their jobs are jeopardized just as much as are the jobs of the old-hat, long-term office holders. It’s a matter of job security. They have made themselves indispensible through their mastery of the tools of the trade – demographics, effective political ads, the poll, the focus-group, speech writing, debate-coaching, issue-tweaking, image-projecting, etc. – and they are very well paid for all of this.
From their point of view, the political contest itself is everything. That’s what they live for. Their office-holding contemporaries are not much better. They all oppose ideology and attack “rigid” ideology for that reason. They condemn the Tea Party as far Right wing ideologues and pretend that their ideological positions cannot win a political contest in contemporary America. They are wrong. They are not only wrong, but they know they are wrong, and that makes them liars. Ideology and politics cannot be divorced.
Politics is the battle ground of ideas. It is where opposing ideologies do battle. Ideology is exactly and specifically what politics exists for. Politics is, specifically, almost definitively, divisive, and not inclusive, along strictly ideological lines. And the Establishment Republican Party knows it. A politician condemning ideology is tantamount to a preacher condemning faith in God. Such a thing should be seen by all – but it isn’t – to be downright stupid, unless it is a sly attempt at deep deception.
Many Tea Partiers I know think of Establishment Republicans as merely RINOs (Republican In Name Only) who are actually Leftist in their ideology. And many of them are. But the worst kind of Establishment Republican is the luke-warm, bloodless, nutless-wonder politician with no solid, motivational ideology at all, other than winning political contests.
And that brings us to the current brouhaha in the Missouri Senate race involving Republican candidate Todd Akin running against incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill. He made a pretty dumb statement having little or no effect on anything, and Republicans and Conservatives of all description jumped on him with both feet, and stopped just short of calling for his immediate execution. Instant opposition from all quarters!
No Christian Principle applied here; pure politics only. Truth? What is that?
The statement in question involves a reference to a "legitimate rape," meaning a forcible rape, and a true forcible rape as opposed to a false charge of rape. Pedantics entered the game with all of the oh, so horrified and oh, how insensitive exclamations declaring that all rapes are illegitimate, I'll have you know.
It also involved a misconception regarding a woman's reproductive process somehow "shutting down" under stress, particularly the stress involved in a forcible rape. This was one of many pseudo-scientific notions that floated about for a time and was even taught in schools. It might be likened to another one that still affects a lot of people today - the one that says that human blood is blue while in the human body, but red outside of it, or when exposed to light or air or something. Not true, of course, but a small and seemingly insignificant part of American mal-education nonetheless.
Eventually, the mal-educated person learns the truth in the matter and moves on. But no, not here. This was unforgivable. Akin publicly and profusely apologized for his poor choice of words and his lack of knowledge in the matter, but forgiveness was not to be his, for this was absolutely unforgivable, and all because, it turns out, Akin, who won his primary race, was not the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment.
Does the name Christine O'Donnell strike a familiar note? She was the popular Tea Party candidate who won her primary to run in the 2010 Delaware Senate race, thereby earning the ire of the Establishment Republican Party. She might have been The People’s candidate, but she wasn’t their candidate. They refused to support her, despite the fact that they owed her their support, as the Republican winner of the primary. No Party money, no ads, no support whatsoever, and in fact they actively campaigned against her in the public media, Karl Rove among them.
The completely false claim, in that instance, was that she was just unelectable, and so they washed their hands of her. Her Democrat opponent was so clearly anti-American that he even described himself as a “bearded Marxist.” So Karl Rove and the Establishment Republican Party were saying - quite falsely - that they were not smart enough to run a political campaign to defeat such an openly Marxist Democrat, despite the extreme popularity of Christine O’Donnell at the time, before they all cooperated with the Democrats and succeeded in destroying her chances. As a direct result of that Establishment Republican Party hissy-fit, Delaware has a bearded Marxist for a Senator, instead of the locally popular Tea Party candidate, the Democrats have one more Senate seat than they should have, and the Republicans have one less. Congratulations, drinks and cigars all around. That's another big win for the Establishment.
Akin, too, won his primary in Missouri against the Establishment favorite; and within 24 hours of his truly minor misstatement the whole Establishment Republican world came crashing down on his head.
On Republican Circular Firing Squads. Rush Limbaugh, during this Todd Akin dust-up, spoke of Democrats circling the wagons around their candidates who make a gaffe, and how Republicans invariably form circular firing squads around their own in the same situations, even though the Republican gaffes are usually minor and insignificant, and the Democrat gaffes are often absolute howlers. The Dems always, always defend their man; the Republicans seldom do.
In point of fact, even non-establishment conservative champions and spokesmen almost always join in with the establishment in quickly condemning any Republican gaffe, and quickly disassociate themselves with the implications of the gaffe, always showing a rather sickening personal super-sensitivity to how the gaffe might hurt someone's little feelings, and how they know that, and, why, heavens to Betsy, they themselves would never ever say such a thing, perfect beings that they are. We must be sensitive, you know.
But there’s a mighty difference in the gaffes themselves, as well as how gaffes are treated, between the two political Parties, and between pro-Marxists and pro-Americans in general. Over many, many generations, the Democrat Party guiding ideology has been transforming more and more into absolute Marxism, and is now today just about totally Marxist, although not publicly or admittedly so. They still pretend to be something else. That makes them liars, which should not be a surprise to anyone. You show me a Marxist and I’ll show you an Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar.
When a Republican or a conservative makes a gaffe, it is most usually of the more innocent, perhaps ignorant variety that the Akin gaffe typifies. Sometimes it is merely a misstatement, or a tangling of the tongue. But when you look at the typical Democrat gaffe, it is most frequently a misstatement of a lie – meaning that the speaker didn’t really intend to reveal the truth of the matter – it was an accidental and unintended statement of truth. Of course, with many Democrats, a whole lot of gaffes are clear marks of just plain stupidity. But quite often Democrats reveal their true intentions by making an unintended gaffe while trying to mislead.
They also can’t help but reveal their lying nature by the speeches and statements they make in guarded moments before trusted audiences, such as unions, homosexuals, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc., and then some of their unguarded remarks to trusted anti-American audiences somehow find their way into the broader public sphere.
This Giant Double Standard in how political gaffes are treated between the two Parties is strongly established and fiercely maintained by the Mainstream Media, which I long ago labeled the SLIMC1 . The American News Media has slowly and invisibly gone thoroughly Marxist over the same time span that the Democrat Party made the same journey.
You can read about the political metamorphosis of our media in the Professional Liar’s Club page, and it’s right-column linked articles. I submit that our Marxist news media represents a greater threat to America’s foundation and Constitution than even our Marxist Democrat Party.
The Establishment Republican Party is absolutely terrified of the SLIMC1 . They will do anything – anything at all – to earn and maintain the tolerance, if not favor, of the news media and popular celebrity. They even allow – strike that; they invite – thoroughgoing Marxist media members to "moderate" and slant political debates between Republican candidates the media holds in scorn, and Democrat candidates the media obviously favors. Republicans have been doing this for as long as I can remember. They’ve been getting slapped around by the media, apologizing, groveling, currying favor, and coming back for more, seemingly forever. They seem incapable of learning.
True conservative pro-American spokesmen, these days found only in Talk Radio and on the internet, publicly recognize this horrible double standard, and – get this – they accept it. Perhaps they don’t embrace it, but they do not fight it. They go along with it. They identify it, criticize it, condemn it, sigh a heavy sigh, throw up their hands and declare that that’s just the way it is, and everybody knows it, and we just have to live with it, forever and ever, or until Marxism finally wins.
They point out how good Republican candidates can still win debates despite Marxist moderators slanted and loaded questions, and despite their choosing the direction of the whole debate. But, they note, we can’t afford to have even one minor slip-up in even one contest; all of our candidates have to have upon their brow the unmistakable mark of genius, in order to overcome the double standard. There’s nothing we can do about the double standard, so we’ve got to win in spite of the unfairness of the contest.
One by one, the Talk Show conservatives trashed Todd Akins and called for his withdrawal from the Missouri Senate race. They all spoke highly of Akins himself, they all spoke negatively about this dastardly double standard, about which nobody can ever do anything, they all spoke damningly about his flat out Marxist and flat out immoral opponent, and then they told him to step aside, for the good of the Party and for the good of the Republic, because, in their view, he now had not the ghost of a chance to win. The only exception to this was Rush, who only indicated that if he were in Akin’s place, he would step aside, without actually telling Akin what he should do. All the rest got stronger and fiercer in the condemnation of Akin’s continued candidacy. It was a matter of political expediency.
The only person in the whole controversy who stood on Principle was Todd Akin.
After his decision to stay the course, the Establishment Republican Party, now with a lot of reinforcements from Talk Radio, set about to actively oppose Akin’s run against Claire McCaskill. Ostensibly for the good of the nation. Ann Coulter began a write-in-name new candidate program to split the conservative vote. Even Sarah Palin got sucked into this, and called for a third Party candidate to further split the conservative vote. Republicans are now, quite officially, throwing away a Senate seat. They will blame Akin for it; but here’s the thing:
Akin could win.
But, of course, he will not win; not with his own Party opposing him. It’s Christine O’Donnell, all over again.
I refuse to accept that the double standard is unbreakable, or that Todd Akin is (was) unelectable. The damage already done to his candidacy is in all likelihood already fatal; however, that damage came not from his gaffe, but from his Party and from conservatives who were thoroughly intimidated by the double standard, which they were all too terrified to openly oppose.
Akin’s contest for the Missouri Senate seat could have been ridiculously easy to win. For one thing, at that point in time, Claire McCaskill happened to be quite unpopular in a reawakened Missouri. For another, the typical conservative fear of so-called social issues is and always has been unfounded. Abortion, for instance, is winning conservative issue, and, I submit that it has always been a potentially winning issue. Establishment types and beltway types just don’t get out much; they only talk to each other. Those of us who live at the Town Hall and even lower level know better. Nobody wants unlimited and unrestricted abortion, and nobody other than Democrats wants the federal government involved in the issue in the first place.
There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution about abortion, and the federal government has no business exceeding its limited and enumerated powers in addressing abortion. See the Abortion in America article for how a Left-leaning Supreme Court, acting quite unconstitutionally, usurped the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress and made new law in the matter. That’s what started the whole mess; it remains for a future Congress to undo it all. Abortion, like a million other things, needs to go back to state and local lawmakers in accordance with local community standards, as it was before the Supreme Court began legislating new and unrepresentative law from the bench.
Akin is unreservedly pro-life; McCaskill is unreservedly pro-abortion. And that’s the term that should be used: pro-abortion, not pro-choice. It would be so easy for Akin to point out that he knows how much McCaskill loves, sponsors, promotes, champions and defends unlimited, unrestricted abortion and even infanticide, and he knows that unlimited, unrestricted and unrestrained abortion is a vitally important plank in the Democrat Party’s political platform, but that most Missouri voters, as well as most American voters, disagree with that position. And that if she really does not truly love, sponsor, promote, champion and defend unrestricted abortion, then she has a damned funny way of showing it.
In point of fact, through Obamacare, McCaskill and her Democrat Party hope to force every single American citizen, against their will, to pay for other people’s contraception and abortion “insurance.” They are to be forced by law to either buy this evil insurance product, or pay a fine for not buying it, and then not be covered, and also be possibly liable to other legal penalties, such as jail. It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who seek to impose their will on every citizen in this matter. The poorest of the poor will be forced by law to pay an additional $1,200 per year (or whatever) for an insurance plan, or, pay a smaller fine and not be covered at all, and possibly go to jail. So the poor man with no money will be screwed, any way you look at it. And McCaskill and the Democratic Party hope to get his vote by telling him he will get “free” health care. It is a lie; it was a lie from the beginning. McCaskill is a liar, and her Democrat Party is a liar.
There is to be no choice in the matter.
The Establishment Republican Party, and even conservative Talk Radio, don't think that kind of a campaign would win. They are wrong. It would win.
The Conservative Experts argue otherwise, and they they think we should avoid such social issues because:
First of all, the Marxists are not going to leave the issue alone. They do not want to talk about the economy, and the media is on their side. They are going to hammer Romney (and others) for his "exceptions" and any discernible limitations on his pro-life stance, such as a rape or incest exception, in order to try to split his pro-life conservative vote.
As far as the independent vote is concerned, to hell with them. If they haven't decided at this late date, they are not worth trying to win.
And I don't know about you, but we don't know one single woman who supports unlimited, unrestricted abortion, which is what the Democrats sponsor.
And this is true of social issue after social issue. When they go after Romney for his Mormonism - and they will - the response should be a full on attack showing that Democrat candidates can be shown to love, sponsor, promote, champion and defend open direct opposition to Jesus Christ, Christianity as a religion and to the Constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion when practiced by Christians out in the open. Clearly unconstitutional opposition to any such open practice of Christianity is another vitally important plank in the Democrat Party political platform. If they deny their hatred of Christianity and their opposition to public exercise of christian religion, they've got a damned funny way of showing it. Again, they seek to exclude Christian exercise at the federal level - there is to be no choice in the matter, for anyone.
When they try to legally impose a legal redefinition of marriage on the whole nation via legalization of homosexual marriage, the response should be a full on attack showing that Democrat candidates love, sponsor, promote, champion and defend sodomy and all open public expressions of homosexuality, and the "normalization" and forced cultural acceptance of all such perversion. And how forced acceptability of open homosexuality is a vitally important plank in the Democrat Party political platform. And if Democrats don't really love, sponsor, champion and defend sodomy, then they have a damned funny way of showing it. Again, open public homosexuality is to be imposed on everyone, against their will, at the federal level - there is to be no choice in the matter.
These are the very subjects Democrats will attack all anti-Marxist candidates on, and these are all losing arguments for them. They invoke an American tidal wave of opposition at the grass roots level. But, establishment Republicans are terrified of these issues, and Talk Radio does not resist, and therefore reinforces, the Media Double Standard. Democrats will do anything to avoid talking about the economy, or Biden's three letter word Jobs, and so they use these issues. When they do, we should hand them their heads. But we won't. Pick your social subject. Pick your moral subject. the Democrats will always be on the immoral, unpopular, unrepresentative side of it. No exceptions.
I would love the opportunity to argue the long, long, solid history of the Democrat Party's flat out racism.
I will never understand why the most powerful conservatives are so timid about even bringing up these issues, let along contesting them. The ordinary American citizenry, especially now after the great Tea Party awakening, is just dying to be represented on all of these issues, and waiting, hoping and praying for a champion.
Breaking the Double Standard will require a direct, head-on, full frontal assault with fixed bayonets. The American news media has got to be put out of business. It is possible, lacking any October Surprise (such as a war) that we will crush the Democrat Party within two elections, beginning this November. But what is more important, in my opinion, is the other head of the snake: the media.
Glenn Beck has made perhaps the first move in that direction with the launch of GBTV as a new free market alternative to mainstream media. Whether and how much it succeeds will only be revealed by the passage of a great deal of time; we have prayed for that effort. However, the Marxist threat has grown up within us for too long, and I fear the reach of its undetected tentacles. More must be done.
Talk Radio seems to universally oppose boycotts, probably because Talk Radio is an obvious potential victim of boycotts, and efforts to boycott their advertisers and sponsors as well as their programs. And that is understandable. However, we are not averse to boycotts of any companies or businesses that oppose truth. We boycott Target, for instance, so long as they censor the word Christmas, and prohibit Salvation Army bell ringers from collecting for charity at their doors.
Now, maybe our Talk Radio conservative champions cannot issue or sponsor any boycotts, but they can directly attack mainstream news. They already do it, when mainstream news does something deserving of attack. What I am hoping for is that they will go after the SLIMC1 for what they are and for what they stand for, without waiting for any reporter or article to give them an excuse. We The People need to be truthfully informed about what we’re dealing with when we turn on the TV or open up a newspaper or news magazine.
If a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck were to tell the people about the history of the Communization of the American Newsroom, his audience is already so large that the ripples from that sort of reporting would touch all corners of America in short order. It would make Media personalities stick their heads up, where he could get a shot at them. I am sure they would fire back, and I am sure that they would ultimately lose the fight. Truth always wins in the end.
The long and the short of it is that we need to not only defeat the Democrat Party, but defeat them so badly as to destroy them as a viable political force in America. We need to reduce them to the size and power of the other also-ran Parties that always put up a candidate or two, but never win. The Socialist Party, the Communist Party, etc.
Second, the new Republican Party needs to purge itself of the old Establishment Party members, and get back to our Founding and Constituting Principles that made us great.
Then the newly reinvigorated Republican Party could get back to Statesmanship rather than Political Science, and Republican candidates could argue among themselves, as the Founders did, about foreign affairs, national defense and the state of the national treasury. And leaving the people alone. And We The People could select from among them the one with the best arguments and the highest Principles. If we cannot totally get rid of political Parties, perhaps we can get down to one absolutely dominant Republican Party that is driven by what the Tea Party is driven by, which is our American Founding Principles and our American Constitutional Principles. All the rest is the proper business of state and local governments.
I have infinitely more faith in We The People than I do in any political Party, any political candidate or office holder, or any conservative leader or spokesman. We have always been a can-do people, and we are reawakening to our heritage, and looking to our destiny. Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, has set many traps and laid many mines with which to bring us down, and any one of them may yet do its intended nasty work. Whether we are already past the economic catastrophic tipping point, I do not know. One thing is fairly certain in my mind: we are not past the social dependency tipping point - yet.
Although nearly half of us are now on the dole in one way or another, I do not believe that 100% of those on the dole are on the dole willingly. Nor permanently. Many of those on some form of disability, or food stamps, or some other benefit, are there out of desperation of the bad economic moment in their lives, and they don't like it, and they want to get back to work. If they hadn't lost their house, and/or their job, and/or their business, and/or their investment, they would not be among those collecting benefits from the government.
Look at our national history. The Pilgrims were not exactly wimps, looking to be taken care of by anyone; it was just the opposite. It was American rugged individuals who pushed into the West and entered new frontiers. You go tell some Western rancher with some Comanche blood in him that he didn't build that and see what his response is if you've got the guts. We are Americans; we are free; get the hell out of our way and we will do great things.
I understand the fear and hesitancy among conservative leadership in directly and openly confronting the Democrats and the Media with what they actually are and what they are actually doing to America, and bringing it all to the full attention of all of We The People in a very open and very public way. it's risky business.
But what is the alternative?
How long, would you surmise, that it might it take for Marxism to win out over us, if the Marxist Double Standard stands completely unopposed by anyone with the ability to seriously oppose it?
Remember the root of all truth.
If you stand with the truth, you stand with God. If God is with you, who do you need to fear? Speak the truth boldly, and fear nothing.
Fast and pray; and then - lets get it on.
"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
- 2 Chr 7:14.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sun Aug 26 00:39:58 2012
From: Michael Rollins
America is not a Christian Nation. The founders and many non-puritan and non-anglican Christians believed in God, but did not think he should be included in civil government. People like Roger Williams, John Leland, and Isaac Backus had the ear of founders like Jefferson and Madison, and they pleaded for the founders to leave God out of civil government.
“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” John Leland
Date: Sun Aug 26 07:16:19 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
There are in America, as there have always been in any society, dissenters who disagree with the majority. Judas Iscariot was an Apostle. His presence in that society meant only that the society was imperfect, not invalid. The dissenter does not get to drive the bus.
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof;” put two restrictions on Congress, and no restrictions on anyone else. Congress is prohibited from establishing any religion as the official religion of the land, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with the free and open exercise of any religion.
I submit that we are a Christian nation not because of any official statement of our government, but because of our initial and continuing national guiding ethos, which is the Judeo-Christian Ethos that came out of the Judeo-Christian religion. It is how we tell right from wrong, and it is what makes us different from other people.
I submit further that the Democrat Party seeks and intends to legally impose the religion of atheism upon us all, against our will, and that this is a direct violation of the exercise clause in the Constitution.
Let’s look at some other quotes.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams.
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation of ours was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians … not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” –Patrick Henry.
“I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble supplication, that since He has been pleased to favor the American people with the opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of Government for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations and the wise measures, on which the success of this government must depend.” –George Washington.
“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.” –George Washington.
“I regard it [the Constitution] as the work of the purest patriots and the wisest states men that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benignant [gracious] Providence … it almost appears a Divine interposition in our behalf … “ –Daniel Webster.
“I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the framing of the Constitution] … should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that … beneficent Ruler in Whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.” –Benjamin Franklin.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” –Benjamin Franklin.
“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.” –Samuel Adams.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens … Let is simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” –George Washington.
“The link between culture and faith is not only necessary for culture but also for faith. A faith that does not become culture is a faith not fully embraced, not fully appreciated and not faithfully lived.” –John Paul the Great.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a barrack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” –Translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung on April 28, 2010.
Date: Sun Aug 26 12:36:55 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Just got back from Mass, ate dinner, and wanted to put something out here while it was still fresh in my mind. We heard an outstanding homily today. Fr. Eric, our new Pastor, said in a few short remarks, probably less than ten minutes, what this whole new page was saying. But he said it so much better and with so fewer words that I’m sure the Holy Ghost was involved. I can’t quote him precisely, because I didn’t take notes – I was serving at the altar, and it wouldn’t be too good for an altar server to be taking notes. And I don’t think Fr. Eric writes this stuff down; he’s a very off-the-cuff kind of guy. So, I’ll have to paraphrase as best I can.
Essentially, what is working against our current American culture is all wrapped up in two major sub-ideologies, or sub-philosophies, both of which operate to the detriment of objective truth, or the recognition of any absolute truth.
The first one is moral relativism, which denies the existence of absolute truth. Relativism says that morality springs from the culture, and thus whatever the culture thinks is good, is actually good, regardless of any other inputs. Thus, morality – right and wrong – can change, as the culture changes. You can take a poll, and if enough people think that something is OK, then, it is in fact OK. As long as you don’t infringe on anyone else, you can do as you please, because there is no absolute rule that says anything is wrong, or that anything is right.
The second one is secularism, which seeks to drive all religion out of culture and out of law and out of political argument. It denies religion as a bad influence on culture, because religion – at least some religions – declare the existence of absolute truth, and encourage people to recognize absolute truth.
I submit that the Democrat Party supports both of these movements; it promotes moral relativism, and it promotes the absolute secularization of American society.
And we can see in our own history how both of these movements have adversely affected our national ethos. Eighty years ago, use of contraception would have been not only unheard of, but roundly condemned by the whole of American society, regardless of religious affiliation. Less than fifty years ago abortion would have been not only unheard of, but roundly condemned by the whole of American society, again, regardless of religious affiliation.
That’s the train we’re all on. Where do you suppose we might be one hundred years from now, if we stay on this track?
The Democrats would have us take a poll and see if the people think this or that is a good thing or a bad thing, and adjust social rules accordingly. They would “evolve” society and social rules, saying that society makes the morality – the morality does not make the society.
But here’s the thing: There does indeed exist such a thing as Objective Truth which is completely independent of the mind of man. It doesn’t matter what we think of it, how we think of it, or even if we think of it – it remains Objective Truth, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Once you know that this Objective Truth exists, you will seek it.
If you are persistent in your seeking, and if you are honest, you will find God.
Date: Sun Aug 26 23:57:22 2012
This is insane!
I have read other parts of this site, and all I find is hate, misogyny, homophobia, racism and Catholic Triumphalism. This is absolute intolerance of the other. Not only do you not leave other people alone and allow them their preferences in life, but you attack them. No one “loves” abortion. You don’t know all the circumstances surrounding other people’s choices. Keeping it rare and safe is not enough for you. You just have to slander and attack and deny free choice.
I have had it with this site. Anyone who loves freedom should avoid what this site says. I will not be back.
Date: Mon Aug 27 06:37:54 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
We seem to have our panties in a wad. You say that no one loves abortion; if that is true, than many have a very funny way of showing it. Let me say this:
Comrade Obama (peace be upon him), Pelosi, Reid and all Democrats love, sponsor, promote, champion and strongly defend abortion, sodomy, anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism, unlimited government power, restriction of freedom of speech, and a host of other similar topics; They have made all of these things into vitally important planks in the Democrat Party platform, so that all Democrats will support them. They have made speeches championing these abominations to various abominable groups that make up their constituency. Their own words prove their absolute love of all of these abominations, and more.
Rare? You think abortion is rare? How many millions per year do you think would get abortion out of the rare category?
Safe? Safe for whom? Not for the babies, certainly. Do you really believe that no women die and that no women are critically or permanently injured at the hands of abortionists?
Again, I remind you, it is only the pro-abortion people who want to impose their will on the whole nation at the federal level.
Vic – your friendly, local hate-filled, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, flat out, unapologetic Catholic Triumphalist.
Date: Tue Aug 28 01:32:14 2012
To Michael Rollins -
What Victor is saying is that this non-theocratic nation is Christian at its core because its people are predominantly Christian, with a citizen-representative form of government. It is a good principle, but the people have to remain Christian, and the government has to remain representative for it to work.
Israel would be better off as a non-theocratic Jewish nation if her people were more religious and her government was consistently representative of the people.
Date: Tue Aug 28 22:13:11 2012
This is mostly right, but if Republicans get off track with all these side issues they will lose the big points which are the real winning points. All of these moral issues are side issues. We need to talk about the economy and jobs if we are going to win.
That’s just my opinion.
Date: Wed Aug 29 04:49:31 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
I disagree. While jobs and the economy are major issues, the winning arguments on jobs and the economy at this point are so obvious to everyone that they almost don’t have to be made. There is not a single issue the Dems could bring up that is not a potentially winning issue for conservatism, if the issue is pursued with strength and clear honest language. Not one. The Dems are on the wrong side of every single issue they could possibly raise. All any conservative has to do is stand in truth and profess it clearly and unapologetically.
All that has to be done is to highlight and magnify the Democrat position on any issue they bring up. Their position will always oppose Christian morality, Christianity itself, Judaism, the Constitution, the Declaration, private property, self determination, free speech, border security, national defense, national sovereignty, the family, sexual norms, decency, and even the glory of American history.
Democrat positions and propositions are indefensible and cannot stand against anyone who stands in truth.
From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2012
Converted webpage to SBI! 3.0 and/or updated to use Reusable Code feature of new release. (LOVE this new release.)
From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Saturday, September 01, 2012
Made some changes to take better advantage of BB 2.0 SBI 3.0 features, and using HTML to enable proper translation into the E-Zine for transmittal to subscribers.
Date: Tue Sep 04 22:26:39 2012
Location: Huber Heights Ohio
I've read a lot of your political views lately and agree with just about most of them. Tonight, my husband is watching the reds ballgame--he tried to watch some of the Democrat convention, just to see how the speakers would spin the lies that pour out of their mouths. But he didn't have the stomach for the people there or their obvious lies--so to the Reds and then listen to the Fox news team for their overview later...but I just turned to the Fox station and heard something I just can hardly believe--the democrat convention have decided to omit the name of God and deny Israel their capital. This sounds like something in a nightmare. Everything you have written about Obama is right on--Roger and I knew it the first time we heard him in ‘08. I believe that God knows and everything is going on according to what he wants--after all He is bigger than "even Obama”! I fervently pray to Him to help us who believe--to give us peace and understanding and reassurance of his love in the months to come.
Date: Wed Sep 05 05:33:19 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
So good to hear from you!
I know what you mean; I’m too old and/or I rise too early to be able to stay awake and attentive for either political convention. And at this point, I am so disgusted with the process – or perhaps with those who are driving the process – that I might not have watched the Republicans, even if I could keep my eyes open that late.
But when you go to the Democrats – lead by Party intellectual giants like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Biden, et al – that’s like a sleeping pill mixed with very, very bad comedy. So, I get the political highlights from Glenn Beck, and from Rush, and from Hannity as I drive my daily route.
As I said in the article, the Democrat Party platform is a near mirror image of the pillars of Communism. Marx is the author of Communism, and the Democrat Party has gone Marxist. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses and sought to eliminate it from society. So does the Democrat Party.
It is and was the Democrats who went beyond the Constitutionally limited and enumerated powers of the federal government in pushing forward a Marxist agenda, migrating power from the people up to the federal government. They did it by a combination of subterfuge, and an un-Constitutional delegation of legislative power to bureaucrats - nameless, faceless, unelected, unrepresentative minions of government with the power to make regulations with the full force of law behind them.
Let’s look at what Communism espouses, and what the Democrat Party actually does:
|Marxist Proposal||Democrat Accomplishment|
|Abolition of Private Property.||Property Tax; Zoning Laws; Fair Housing; Rent Controls; etc.|
|Confiscation (for redistribution) of property.||Graduated Income Tax; Luxury tax; etc.|
|Abolition of Inheritance.||Death Tax.|
|Confiscate property of Party enemies.||Asset forfeiture; eminent domain laws; etc.|
|Centralized control of banking and credit.||Federal Reserve; FTC; TARP; bail-out – take-overs; etc.|
|Government control of all industry.||EPA; FDA; OSHA; ICC; NRLB; EEOC; etc.|
|Mandatory organized and collectivized labor union membership.||Public Sector Unions; Legal forced withholding of dues by employers; etc.|
|Redistribution of collective property.||TANF; SSI, EITC; SNAP; ADC; CHIP; Food Stamps; etc.|
|“Free” public education.||Flat out indoctrination.|
No one should be surprised by this, but we all are. It has happened so gradually that we haven’t noticed. Progressivism is creeping Communism, where what Marx actually espoused was to accomplish all these things via straight up bloody revolution. We are only nationally waking up to it because Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is much more of an actual old-time revolutionary Marxist than are his comrades in the Democrat Party and the SLIMC1 .
Pray for America and the world, Catherine; and vote, as if your nation and your religion depended on it.
Date: Thu Sep 13 18:40:03 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Glenn Beck has gone live on Dish Network TV, channel 212, 24-hour round-the-clock broadcasting, effective yesterday, 9/12/12. The name GBTV has been changed to BLAZE. I heard him announce it and talk about it yesterday on the radio while driving my route, and I couldn’t wait to turn it on when I got home. But, I was very much disappointed; not by the content so much as by the format, and method. It was actually making me physically ill, and I wondered if anyone else had the same symptoms, or if I’m just weird.
First off, I am just not a sound-bite kind of guy. Speeches by the likes of Jesse Jackson turn me off almost immediately; rhyming, rhythmic, bumper-sticker slogans all strung together, and “repeat after me” crowd leading just leave me cold, especially when there is no discernable constant logical thread running through the whole speech. I had the same problem trying to read the Koran; it’s just a jumble of sayings, which are related only for awhile, but then the next saying or group of sayings goes right off the logical track, and I wind up re-reading, trying to make sense out of nonsense. That may be why I quickly learned to hate Twitter, and short-hand English, like “How r u,” and cutesy little emblems like :) in printed matter. Maybe I’m too literate. For me, it is often difficult to enclose a complete thought in 140 characters. Others do it over and over, for hours on end; I cannot. I don’t like incomplete sentences, or incomplete thoughts, and weighty issues demand more than 140 characters for proper treatment.
So, shortly after Glenn started his new show, it launched into a seemingly endless series of what I call visual sound bites, lasting from fractions of a second to a very few seconds each, before switching completely to another visual sound bite. I think it was a history of Glenn’s work on FOX, then on his website, then on his big events, then on various investigative stories, then on GBTV, then on – who knows what.
It was visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite visual sound bite after visual sound bite after visual sound bite – and I just had to change the channel. It was actually making me sick.
As much as I love Glenn, his work, all that he stands for, I couldn’t watch this without getting dizzy. I need a logical thread to follow, or – what’s the point? I just hope this isn’t going to be an every night kind of thing, because if it is, I can’t watch it.
Am I the only one it has this effect on?
Date: Tue Nov
27 11:14:24 2012
I told you before that the economy is more important than morality in politics. Now we’re seeing people voting to get or keep or increase their government entitlements, with one party increasing them and the other decreasing them. Now after the Obama reelection do you agree or disagree?
Date: Tue Nov 27 19:38:08 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
I disagree, and I’ll tell you why: Economics is a moral issue.
The minute a little immorality is tolerated, for an individual, a family or a culture, that is the beginning of the end. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, what’s going to happen next is so predictable as to be a foregone conclusion.
Spending more than you have is immoral.
Borrowing money you cannot pay back is immoral.
Spending other people’s money is immoral.
False claims about what you need money for (“investment” in education; “investment” in infrastructure; “investment” in green energy; “investment” in whatever) is immoral.
Taking money from the one who earned it and giving it to the one who did not earn it is immoral.
Sitting back and living off of the earnings of other people is immoral.
Violating a budget is immoral.
Not even having a budget is immoral.
Depending on people who don’t want to be your mommy or your daddy is immoral.
Growing government and restricting citizen liberty is immoral.
It’s pretty hard to even name a political issue unrelated to simple morality. We are either a moral people or we are not. Note well that when we were a highly moral people, and (horrors!) a judgmental people, we were a rich nation. What are we now? What are we cruising toward, in our new non-judgmental, non-moralizing way?
Date: Sat Oct 11 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the