One of the saddest things I’ve seen in my lifetime is the intentional dumbing down of America by the radical left and their minions in the federal government. Don’t even think for a second they haven’t been doing it. How else do you explain Hispanic Transgender Studies? Or Jerry Springer? Or the professors of our elite institutions teaching our kids that socialism is the way to go … it just hasn’t been done right; but it’s still an ideal worth fighting for … and dying for in droves, apparently. It is hard to believe Americans would send their kids to colleges that teach such criminal nonsense, where the Constitution that guarantees their freedom and liberty is treated like so much toilet paper. But such is life in this upside-down world we live in.
As result, many Americans are no longer familiar with the real history of America and its Constitution. From my perspective, as just an everyday, ordinary citizen, I see an all-out assault by the radical left and progressive movement to abolish the U.S. Constitution. I believe progressive means to progressively move the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution and replace the entire system with a new one. And G-d only knows what that would be, but you can damn well guarantee it won’t be free enterprise.
Any new economic system created by the radical left will be the complete and total collusion of big government and big business under the guise of “uplifting the community,” when, in fact, the community becomes trapped between the steel jaws of government and big business, as if in a bear trap. The citizen becomes a slave to the state and must pay for the privilege for living in the state; and will only be given what the state thinks they “need.” Of course, any new economic system requires the destruction of the present one.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Notice the from-to paradigm in the famous quote by Marx above? Something will be taken from you, and then you will only be given what the state determines you need. It is that simple. All wealth is confiscated and centralized under one authority—an oligarch of elites—who are themselves fabulously wealthy, yet they demand ever more service and sacrifice from the masses in order to sustain their riches and power.
The problem is the money runs out because the incentive for individuals to work and produce in such a system is wiped out; no real revenue is generated by the people. It is just not worth it to try and create businesses when there is no pricing structure or any value given to anything but labor. Under this scenario, the people are completely dependent on the state. The masses are forced to produce for the state in order for the state or provide for their need (see slave labor), or what they perceive as need. Like Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.”
If there is no supply and demand to accompany the labor, then there can be no pricing structure. Under this scenario, the people are completely dependent on the state. But if the government cannot provide , they will steal it, or force the masses to produce it (see slave labor).
It all reminds me of a saying I grew up with; and it starts with a question: what do you get when you work your fingers to the bone? Answer: bony fingers. John Locke wrote, “All wealth is the product of labor.” But labor, for labor’s sake alone, is an exercise in futility if the goal is to create wealth and prosperity for all. One must apply labor to that which will prove profitable, not labor in exercises of madness, like Mao’s Great Leap Forward, or Pol Pot’s agrarian nightmare, which killed millions.
It was Karl Marx who brought us the whole Labor Theory of Value in his interminably boring work Das Kapital. It is interesting to note that about 90% of what Marx wrote was about economics. Yet it was his ideas about a utopian workers’ state brought about by revolution and struggle that captured the imaginations and hearts of so many who would employ his atheistic, anti-Western ideology in future bloody Marxist insurrections–always bloody.
What I keep hearing from the administration and the progressive radicals in Congress is we need to tax the rich more; we need to continue our massive unrestrained spending; we need to continue to stimulate the economy by having the Federal Reserve pump out money in perpetuity; we need to stimulate the economy by providing food stamps and endless unemployment benefits—and on and on and on. This approach to economics might as well be straight out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto. Oh, wait a minute! It is!
I realize some people are bothered and made quite uncomfortable by the direct comparison of the Administration and the Democrats in Congress to a bunch of Marxist-Leninist ideologues. If that describes you, well, at the risk of sounding condescending (and maybe I am), I’m sorry. I’m sorry you didn’t read the Communist Manifesto, or the Soviet Constitution, or Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (required reading in some public schools), etc. … yeah, I’m real sorry that reality makes you squirm. But don’t feel alone, it really makes me squirm, as well.
I didn’t intend to write so much on the left’s penchant for Marxian socialist-style economics, but I felt it necessary to present my case, since so many are creeped out by any references to de facto Marxism, despite the fact that the Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party USA wholeheartedly support Obama’s policies. I guess I’m just supposed to ignore that. Fat chance. Homie don’t play dat!
So, we have a “movement for social change” pouring down from the president and the democrats and crashing down on the American people … a movement for social change—the quintessential definition of Communism with a capital “C,” or in its modern-day incarnation: community organizing.
So, in order to bring about this collectivist utopia where we spread the wealth around by stealing the wealth of others, we’ll need to start dealing with this pesky Constitution, sayeth the leftist radical. The best way to do that is to attack the very foundation of the U.S. Constitution—the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the private U.S. citizen protection form an invasive and intrusive federal government; it enshrines these rights as inalienable rights that no earthly power can take away from the individual. Yet that is exactly what the radical left wishes to do!
When I say radical left, or progressive, I do mean “communist.” I make no apologies. It is what it is. I believe one must filter everything the Democrats and Progressives do through the filter of Marxist ideology.
For example, communism is an intensely atheistic ideology. In every Marxist insurrection in history, the communists have gone after religious people and institutions with fanatical and brutal zeal. For many years now, the left has viciously attacked people of faith and religious institutions—namely, Jewish and Christian—attempting to create a paradigm whereby Americans begin to believe that the First Amendment means freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.
This shift in thinking by the populace has been reflected in numerous court decisions which take the position that the freedom of exercising one’s religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. NONSENSE! A court decision to prohibit the free exercise thereof is a violation of the First Amendment! Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention a “separation of church and state.”
The whole notion of “separation of church and state” originated from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Society in 1802, whereby Jefferson stated he believed there should be a “wall of separation between church and state.” James Madison also reflected these sentiments when he stated that “a line should be drawn between church and state.”
What is fascinating, at least to me, is the very next day, after writing his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended church services at the House of Representatives. Although Jefferson believed in a line separating church and state in respects to the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, clearly, he did not believe in prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith—even within the halls of Congress.
Remember, what the First Amendment clearly states, in regard to religious expression, is that Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. For example, if the Congress passed a law respecting the establishment of Islamic Sharia Law, this would be a gross violation of the First Amendment; but Americans are free to exercise their Muslim faith. Jefferson did not say that the free exercise of religion could not be practiced in the public forum. Anything contrary, goes against the Constitution itself. So, we can clearly see that the radical left has a serious beef with the very first clause to the First Amendment itself. In fact, they they really have is a big problem with religion, period.
But it doesn’t end there. It is the progressive liberals who have brought us the whole notion of Political Correctness (i.e. Cultural Marxism) in the first place. The whole goal of P.C. is to get citizens to censor themselves and deny their own inalienable right to free speech. The democrats know that if they just came right out and said they would prefer to ban free speech, or severely curtail it, it would be political suicide. By introducing the notion of Political Correctness into the culture at large, the left conditions people to accept the concept of limiting free speech, even embracing it in the spirit of so-called fairness.
Along with the inalienable right to free speech, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. But when one sees the Justice Department refer inquiries to Soros’ funded Media Matters, or the White House regularly meeting with representatives from MSNBC, or issuing strict parameters to the mainstream media on what questions can and cannot be asked, or disseminating instructions manuals on how to report on Obamacare to journalists, then one must question whether the free press has become a de facto state-run press. It is hard to come to any other conclusion, unless you are part of the state-run press.
Lastly, the First Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to freely assemble and peacefully petition their government for redress. This means citizens have the right to protest their government non-violently. And yet it is now a felony to protest anywhere where the Secret Service is present—which means anywhere the president is present. It is the radical left who has turned protest into a religion, but they dare not allow anyone to protest them; it terrifies them.
Now, following the horrific mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, at Sandy Hook Elementary, the White House and congressional democrats are on the warpath to curtail the rights of citizens to bear arms. This whole lexicon of “gun control” was first introduced by FDR in 1934. Since 1968, there has been a torrent of anti-Second Amendment legislation that has poured forth from the likes of fanatical anti-gun zealots Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Chuck Schumer, and other prominent democrats.
What must be understood is the Second Amendment is equal to all other rights; it is an inalienable right. So, if one attacks the Second Amendment, then they are, in effect, attacking the Bill of Rights itself. According to the Constitution, these rights are inalienable and are endowed by our Creator.
Which brings us to what I believe is the crux of the matter, and where the real lines have been drawn. The radical left does not subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights that were endowed by a Creator, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, because they don’t believe in the concept of a Creator. Instead, they propose their own version of rights referred to as “human rights.” This is what the United Nations, European Union and the radical left in the United States wish to supplant inalienable rights with; and why the U.S. Constitution poses such an impediment to their goals.
“Human rights” are not endowed by one’s Creator, but are, instead, granted by the capricious will of men. They are arbitrary rights drawn up by elite councils of individuals who can add and remove these so-called rights as they see fit, depending on what is expedient for the “common good.” Although “human rights” sounds like a noble and worthy thing, it is, in reality, diametrically opposed to the concept of inalienable rights, which are derived from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” This is an actual legal term from Blackstone’s Commentaries on Law (1766), which forms the basis of why we find these truths self-evident and God-given.
So, in conclusion, it appears the real divide is between those who believe our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator, versus those who believe man is the ultimate authority on the Earth. I doubt this controversy will end anytime soon. The problem for the radical left is the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The progressive left may not like it, but it is what it is. By attacking the very pillars of our Republic enshrined in the Bill of Rights, they are, without any shadow of a doubt, attacking the very foundations of the United States of America. In my mind, that’s called TREASON!