The Impeachment Clown Show

bbee-tamper

From the Babylon Bee

Never before in our nation’s history has the ridiculous and despicable merged so inseparably.  Thank goodness that the Babylon Bee is here to capture this situation in all its pathetic glory.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In his opening statement at Trump’s impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff reminded the Senate of their solemn duty and the gravity of just what it is they will be discussing at the trial.

Schiff warned that if Trump is not impeached, the American people may have a chance to tamper with the next election.

Some wags are now saying: “The Babylon Bee has become America’s newspaper of record.”  As I have previously pointed out, it has become almost impossible for a parody site to stay ahead of the insanity that grips our supposed elite Progressive class.  Or, as well put by another parody genius across the pond: “Keep up!”

Defeating Progressivism (1)

Progressive-Foundation

Before addressing specific areas in which we must defeat Progressivism a few general comments are in order.

The Foundation

Contemporary Progressivism is built on a foundation of appalling hubris.  What other conclusion could possibly be drawn for a movement that asserts a unique, definitive claim to moral and intellectual authority?  And this claim is not theoretical, but is rather enforced by intimidation and even overt violence.  The recent series of posts on “Repressive Tolerance” sheds additional light on a mindset that justifies the abrogation of any opinion that exists outside of the Progressive “party line” for any given day (since the party line can change by 180 degrees overnight if necessary to advance their power).

This foundation guarantees that Progressivism is a house “built on sand.”  For the Bible is absolutely clear that there are no humans who are unsullied by Original Sin.  The Apostle Paul sums this all up in his Epistle to the Romans (3:9-12, NIV).

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.  As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

Perhaps you don’t consider the Apostle Paul to be a credible source on the issue of hubris (!?).  If not then how about Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Luke (18:9-14)

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray,one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I challenge you to find the difference between the Progressive elites who imagine themselves to be living at the pinnacle of human virtue and this Pharisee.

The fact that there are so many Christians who shamelessly partake of this Progressive hubris is a great embarrassment.  The fact that there are Christian denominations whose leadership bows at this idol is an appalling scandal to the faith.

The fact that the ruling elite class live in this state of pathetic hubris without the slightest understanding of its destructive power exposes our churches, schools and civic institutions as failed, hollow and impotent forces for civilizational survival.  We are currently living in the devastation wrought by this dereliction of duty.

 

The Impeachment Catastrophe

adam-schiff-jerry-nadler

Adam (Jackman) Schiff and Jerry (Royall) Nadler

Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) do more in a few words to undermine democracy in the United States than Vladimir Putin has done since he was born.

Adam Schiff:

“As we will discuss, impeachment exists for cases in which the conduct of the president rises beyond mere policies, disputes to be decided otherwise, and without urgency at the ballot box. Instead, we are here today to consider a much more grave matter and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election. For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

Jerry Nadler:

“Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president’s misconduct?  Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president’s cover-up? So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

A Fitting and Prophetic Commentary

Both must have been reared and educated well enough–very well, indeed. What flaws of character or intellectual false turnings had brought them into this ruthless business, he could not tell. They might have commenced, like others, full of humanitarian sentimentality. And then, perhaps, demon ideology, with its imperatives and its inexorable dogmas, its sobersided caricature of religion, had swept them on to horrors. Ideological fanaticism had made of Jackman the goat-man, mastered by lust: but not the lust for women’s bodies. Jackman’s was the libido dominandi, the tormented seeking after power that ceases not until death. And in the flame of that lust for power, Jackman and Royall would be burnt up, today or next week or next month: they were at the end of their devil’s bargain, and the fiend would claim his own.

Old House of Fear by Russell Kirk

The Travail of the United Methodist Church (3)

UMC-Split2

The Methodist Church to Split

Chicago Tribune Article

If you read the Chicago Tribune you’d be forgiven for thinking that the United Methodist Church (UMC) has worked our an amicable plan to split.  The article in question is titled “United Methodist churches that oppose gay marriage and clergy will break away, form new religion: ‘We came to an impasse that can’t be bridged’” was published on January 3.

The article’s title is one that only someone ignorant and/or vicious could have written.  The reason it’s so long is to highlight this cruel hit statement: “United Methodist churches that oppose gay marriage and clergy will break away, form new religion.”  Note that it is those churches who oppose gay marriage who are “breaking away” to “form a new religion.”  A new religion?!  So “real” Christianity supports gay marriage and thus those in opposition need to form a “new religion” distinct from Christianity!?  The mind boggles.  Perhaps long time readers will recall this figure from my April 13, 2015 post.

Gay-Marriage-US-Denom

All Christian denomination membership in the United States (left) vs. membership of denominations who oppose gay marriage (right).

The reason for this result is that Christianity has from its founding by Jesus Christ Himself defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  The “new religion” being founded is by the Progressives and its certainly post-Christian if not yet overtly pagan.

Now that we’re past the awful title, here’s the core information from the Chicago Tribune article.

The separation plan calls for the creation of a “traditionalist Methodist denomination” that will be distinct from the UMC. While the new denomination, which has yet to be named, will continue to practice the ban on gay marriage and clergy, the UMC will begin the process of removing restrictive language from its bylaws.

Recall that it was the “traditionalist Methodists” (i.e., oppose gay marriage) who won at the last world-wide denominational conference.  And yet the Tribune article says it is this winning group who are expected to exit the UMC.

UMC Pastor Post

However, it’s not as simple as the Chicago Tribune article leads you to believe.  I recently found a post written by a UMC pastor that is likely far closer to the truth, and also deeply troubling.  The author is Donald Sensing.

To begin, the document (called the Protocol by this author) upon which the Tribune article is based in not a statement of official policy.  It is rather a working document that proposes a specific solution.

In fact, nothing has been decided and no actual actions have been taken to split the UMC. That a split is nearly certain to come before this summer is not much in doubt. But what the details will be no one can predict.

The UMC’s only body that can determine policy denomination-wide is the General Conference. Presided over by bishops, who can speak to issues but may not vote, the GC convenes once per four years and does not exist in between. It will convene again on May 5. The “gay issue” will certainly be the priority matter. Voting delegates come from the church’s conferences, which is what the UMC calls dioceses. The number of delegates is fixed; how many come from each conference is based on their membership number. Delegates per conference must be both laity and clergy.

Pastor Sensing has low expectations for the to be formed “Traditionalist” and “Progressive” UMC denominations.

The UM Right has been defining itself mainly by its opposition to the UM Left. Once the divorce is finalized, then what? They do not yet know and it will be conflict-riven to find out. It will splinter the traditionalists’ merely-apparent monolith a lot. Purity codes inherent in religious conservatism will be fought over and will be their own source of energetic dissension. Unity there will not be.

Progressives, whether religious or political simply must have an enemy. There is always an oppressor who must be subdued, always and -ism to be overcome, always a class war that must be fought.

So, after a fully-progressive UM church is formed there will be a period of sweetness and light, and then the in-fighting will begin, then the purges will begin. The only way forward will be ever-more leftward (see: Democrat party). No one will count the casualties because Leftism has never cared about casualties, either literal or figurative. The Left has its own purity codes, too, and enforces them at least as vigorously as the Right does.

As has always happened when the Left attains power, a self-appointed revolutionary vanguard will cement its position and focus primarily on retaining control. The Progressive UM church will become effectively a social-justice-driven political party that uses religious language.

I hope that Pastor Sensing is proved to be too pessimistic.  In any case the UMC is likely to find itself in a travail at least as painful as the PCUSA, and perhaps much worse.  These are just specific instances of our nation’s disintegration into tribalism.

May God have mercy on the UMC, the PCUSA and the United States.

Defeating “Repressive Tolerance” (2)

david-goliath

Christian Arguments

I led this discussion with “secular arguments” because we now live in a post-Christian culture.  This does not mean that Christianity is irrelevant.  It does mean that we can no longer imagine that our audience will understand, let alone be convinced by Christian derived arguments.

Yet Christianity must still be the basis of our thinking about truth and morality if it is ever to regain a prominent place in our nation’s civic discussion.  We must learn by constant practice how to leverage Christian truth into arguments that demand attention by the general public.  What we know for certain is that the stylishly arid, transparently partisan and theologically vacuous pronouncements of Mainline Christianity must be relegated to the dust heap of history.

I see two primary lines of Christian argumentation in opposition to “Repressive Tolerance,” those being:

  1. Claiming to occupy a position of unique, unassailable moral / intellectual superiority is an act of sinful pride;
  2. Christ specifically condemned as sinful those in his time who sought public status and power rather than the actual good of others by their actions.

Note that neither of these arguments establishes a partisan Christian political position.  Rather they provide a spiritual / moral framework within which people of differing opinion can engage in good faith debate.

The Sin of Pride

The foundation of the Progressive Left’s “Repressive Tolerance” is the presumption that they and they alone have the right to decide what is good and evil.  And, this right includes the option to flip good to evil and vice versa at their whim.  It is only by this presumption that it’s possible to claim reasonableness for the position of not “tolerating” what they define to be “intolerance.”

This position should cause a Bible trusting Christian great concern.  For in the preeminent biblical discussion about the sin of pride it is precisely this human temptation that is introduced.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:1-7 (NIV)

And yet, not only do godless Progressives claim this position, but so do supposedly God fearing Christians.  Can there be any doubt that the Progressive Left’s adherence to “Repressive Tolerance” is built on the original sin of humankind?  No, from a Christian perspective there simply isn’t unless you are a Bible denying “Christian.”

The Sin of Status and Power

The Progressive Left enforces its dictums through their acquired positions of status and power.  And the use of this power is not bound by any “ethics” as understood by a Christian or classic liberal:

since history is not made by ethics, ethics are of no importance. In other words, might makes right. The ends justify the means.

Thus the Progressive Left has sought and achieved power for its own sake.  Since the purpose of power is to enforce their arbitrary, capricious decisions about what is good and evil, their pursuit of power and status falls exactly under this condemnation by Jesus Christ.

38As he taught, Jesus said, Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces,39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.

Mark 12:38-40 (NIV)

Yes, these “social justice warriors,” these “virtue signalers,” these mobs of vicious destruction are driven by a pretense of virtue that covers a wicked corruption of terrible sin.  These people only pretend to care about the poor and oppressed.  What they actually care about is the power and status that can be fraudulently obtained through this deception.  They are perfectly happy to have the poor and oppressed stay in that state in perpetuity, as an unchanging justification for their power.

It’s a terrible thing to see godless Progressives carrying out this viscousness over the decades.  It’s a scandalous, vile thing to see our supposed Christian leaders prostrating themselves before this wicked idol in return for the power and status it promises.

We must expose and reject all of this if Christianity is to ever recover its moral credibility.

Rotherham Update

rotherham-440x330

Way back in February 2017 I discussed the Rotherham Child Sex Scandal.  Here’s an update.

Investigations have been ongoing since then, and one just-completed inquiry has made headlines in Great Britain. This is from the London Times: “Rotherham police chief: we ignored sex abuse of children.”

A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.

If Progressive Multiculturalism is so moral, then why has it led to the most long-lived example of open pedophilia in the Western (enlightened!) world?

Defeating “Repressive Tolerance” (1)

wish-you-were-here-the-view-from-the-moral-high-ground-is-spectacular-dcdd3

Secular Arguments

The Progressive Left understands human psychology and cynically leverages it to win the argument.  Perhaps the most fundamental human desires are to think well of yourself and for others to think well of you.  The “Repressive Tolerance” position brilliantly leverages these desires.

By dominating our centers of social, educational and religious thought the Progressive Left is enabled to argue that opponents are bad people who should be shunned and persecuted by the rest of society.  Note that this argument has virtually nothing to do with the merits of the issue at hand.  However it has proved to be incredibly effective not in spite of but rather because of this characteristic.  This is because it gives the Progressive complete flexibility to make any argument (or tomorrow its opposite) that advances their program.  And, it places their opponents in the impossible position of proving a negative (i.e., I’m not a bad person!) rather than the actual point under debate.

So, the key to defeating “Repressive Tolerance” is denying its adherents this deceitful but advantageousobfuscation position.  Doing so will sometimes be painful and costly, but the cost of not doing so is the loss of our and our children’s liberty.

The first step is to utterly reject their claims of moral and/or intellectual superiority — in person, in writing, in general.  This is not the same thing as claiming that you actually own this position.  No, it is a nonnegotiable demand that your Progressive opponent prove their case on the merits.

It’s possible that having debated the merits they may be in the right on that issue.  Thus victory here isn’t about winning the argument but rather forcing the Progressive to engage on the merits.  What you will find in many cases is that, having become intellectual lazy and morally corrupted by their “high ground” tactic, their argument collapses without this fraudulent prop.

The second step is to have made the effort to understand the issue beforehand, including the arguments for both (or more) positions.  If you do this and realize that the Progressive position is best then you need not debate at all.  However, due to the fact that the Progressive position is driven by the desire for control of others, or by the desire to destroy boundaries that have well served humanity, their position will usually be found wanting.  Also keep in mind that Progressive positions on the issues are ever changing and often contradictory.  These characteristics can be easily leveraged against the Progressive position if only we have the courage to do so.

MargaretThatcher-PersonalAttacksFinally, if your opponent refuses to argue on the merits and insists on assaulting your character, reject them.  Make is absolutely clear that you don’t have the slightest interest in the opinion of a person who has only character assassination to offer.  This step could be painful, particularly if the opponent is a family member or friend.  On the other hand, we do no favors to people for whom we care by enabling their worst behavior.

There will also be occasions where the intransigent person has some sort of power over you.  While I’m not proposing that you choose to be harmed, you should work to change the power situation such that you are no longer threatened.  This could mean changing jobs or out-competing that person so that they no longer have the power.  Of course if it is a spouse, parent or sibling (among other family relations) then other considerations may dominate.  Another essential protection is for the people around you who agree to speak up in support.  Power is massively multiplied when the victim seems isolated.  It is massively diminished when others stand with the victim.

Regardless of the unavoidable complications and compromises, our general position must be to reject Progressive’s claims to the moral / intellectual high ground.  I have had many experiences where this tactic not only carried the day, but ended up exposing just how vacuous and even wicked are the positions of my opponent.  Thus to the extent that we grow a spine and do our homework, Progressives will increasingly find themselves experiencing the very feelings that they have attempted to create in us.  This will either drive them to become more responsible in their conduct or to be more transparently vain and cruel.

Hmmm, I wonder where we’ve seen this in practice?

Understanding “Repressive Tolerance”

no-toleration-for-intolerant

Although this may seem like nonsense to the uninitiated, it is a key foundational theory by which Progressives justify their bigotry and violence.

One of the great advantages of Progressive ideology is the existence of a theoretical basis.    Note that this is not to say that the theory is true or just.  However the esteem given to these theories by highly credentialed academics and powerful political players provides a sense of confidence to Progressive adherents.

For Progressives with a formal social justice education these theories are likely explicitly known.  For other Progressives actual knowledge is less certain.  Regardless, the fact that these theories have enabled effective practical results confirms their value.

In the vast majority of cases we Commoners are utterly ignorant of these theories.  Thus we often find ourselves perplexed by a Progressive opponent’s sense of superiority even as they advance arguments that seem absurd.  Consequently we are often at a significant disadvantage due to the resulting confusion.

One of the most effective of these theories is called “Repressive Tolerance.”  The primary author of this theory was a man named Herbert Marcuse, whose life and philosophy have been summarized as follows.

An immigrant from Germany who taught at a number of American universities, Marcuse was a member of the Marxist-influenced Frankfurt School, which wanted to deconstruct Western liberal capitalism. Though he opposed Fascism and contributed to the war effort during World War II, Marcuse believed that the industrialized capitalist democracies of the mid-20th century were themselves fundamentally repressive. He became one of the leading gurus of the New Left, the angry and at times violent Sixties radicals who were in many ways the progenitors of the current “progressive” power elite. Prominent New Leftists associated with Marcuse included the radical academic Angela Davis, and Michael Lerner, a former SDS member whose “politics of meaning” became a Hillary Clinton catchphrase during the Nineties. Marcuse’s students (and students of his students) can be found throughout American higher education today.

The following extended excerpt from the article titled “Repressive Tolerance” (written in 2016 by by P. Andrew Sandlin) provides the essential description of Marcuse’s theoretical response.

Marcuse’s solution is to create an entirely different kind of society. … he is after a different kind of tolerance than we have known in classically liberal societies. But how do you get there from here? For Marcuse, people looking for the just society, led by the elite like him, must reeducate an entire culture. But the presupposition for this reeducation is the repression of, and intolerance towards, all of those elements that would guarantee classical liberalism. Consider this long quote:

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior ….

Earlier he wrote:

[T]olerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation, in academic discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private [!] religion. But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.

Marcuse is saying that, by their very nature, democracies allow their own subversion by a subversive majority, who are opposing the inherent oppression of society. If there are impediments to the subversion, the way to get rid of them is to undemocratically silence them. The people he has in mind, of course, are the people who oppose the subversive program: classical liberals, Christians, modern conservatives, and so forth. This means that the subversives should loudly demand their right to free speech while denying free speech to people who oppose them. Sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds ominously familiar.  In fact it is an almost exact description of the contemporary mindset by which Progressives are advancing their radical goals.  Even worse, the above article finishes as follows.

And, if necessary, education and indoctrination must be supplemented by revolutionary violence. Marcuse is quite clear about this. He refuses to posit a moral equivalence between the violence perpetrated by classical liberals and the violence committed by subversives. The former is evil; the latter is justified. In fact, he argues that since history is not made by ethics, ethics are of no importance. In other words, might makes right. The ends justify the means. He writes that oppressed minorities — and this means people who lack wealth or prestige or acceptance — have the right to extralegal violence if they exhaust all legal means. No one has a right to judge them immoral or unethical. (Think: Black Lives Matter and the call to kill cops.) Marcuse offered a program for annihilating Christian culture and classical liberalism and replacing it with Libertarian Marxism. He had takers.

Those takers became college professors and journalists and foundation presidents and “community organizers” and artists and musicians. They have wielded massive influence on the West from 1960-2016. Their vision is the commanding social vision of our time, working out its implications right before our eyes.

To create Christian culture, Christians must vanquish that vision.

How can Christians (and other classical liberals*) vanquish this hellish vision?  It is to that topic that I will turn next.


*Classical liberalism is defined by Mr. Sandlin as:

… the political philosophy that developed gradually in England from the Magna Carta and was transported to England’s colonies, the largest of which became the United States. … Classical liberalism is marked by religious liberty, individual liberty, economic liberty, separation of powers, checks and balances, constitutions, and the rule of law. … it created societies in which families and churches are free to live within the boundaries of the rule of law. Classical liberalism means maximum, law-based liberty for citizens.

iBooks Publish Announcement: The Progressive Riot

I have published my fifth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2020-01-06 at 8.20.19 PM

Summary

In November 2008 citizens of the United States elected perhaps the most radical Progressive politician in its history to the Presidency. The opposing citizens and outgoing Republican administration accepted this verdict without rancor or defiance. In November 2016 citizens of the United States elected perhaps the most Populist non-politician in its history to the Presidency. The opposing citizens and outgoing Democrat administration erupted in what can only be described as a riot of resistance that has continued unabated to this day.

This book seeks to expose the breadth and depth of this Progressive riot that has been tearing asunder this nation’s founding principles, governing institutions and civil society. It also seeks to identify and illuminate the various ideological sources by which Progressives justify this riot. By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.

Preface

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the citizens of the United States elected Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate, to the office of President. Many of the almost sixty-million who voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate, considered Mr. Obama to be the most radical Progressive politician ever elected to the presidency.

For example, it was indisputable that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had been for decades members of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ whose senior pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Pastor Wright was a public supporter of Louis Farrakhan who is a virulent anti-Semite and hater of the United States. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the Rev. Wright gave a fiery sermon in which he gleefully yelled that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!” In another sermon the Rev. Wright said “God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Mr. Obama considered Pastor Wright to be his spiritual advisor and the good pastor officiated at Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s wedding. Before Senator Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright he said “I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community.”

Many also knew that Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. The 1995 event was a fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign. These two individuals are utterly unrepentant about their previous lives as leaders of a domestic Marxist terrorist organization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that being the Weather Underground. When provided the opportunity to apologize for the murder and mayhem of his terrorist group in 2001 Ayers responded by saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 2007 Senator Obama was designated to be the “most liberal Senator” by the National Journal. In 2008 Louis Farrakhan endorsed Senator Obama, leading Senator Hillary Clinton to criticize the implied ideological commonality. During the 2008 campaign Senator Obama chose to denigrate tens of millions of American citizens when he made his “bitter clinger” comments. Five days before election day candidate Obama said in a public speech that his purpose was to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

My purpose is not to relitigate the 2008 presidential election. Rather I’m pointing out that those who opposed an Obama presidency had very good reason to fear the consequences of his victory. And yet there was no coordination among the George W. Bush Justice Department, Intelligence Agencies and State Department to investigate the Obama campaign as possibly infested by traitors. There was no fraudulent “dossier,” funded and created by the McCain campaign using foreign (primarily Russian) sources to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy or to destroy his presidency after his win. And after Mr. Obama won the election there was no outpouring of demands for “resistance” by outgoing Bush high ranking officials.

There were no Republican calls to impeach Mr. Obama from the moment he was declared the election winner. There were no attempts to persuade Electors to vote for Mr. McCain even though a majority in their state had voted for Mr. Obama. There were no claims that Mr. Obama’s victory was illegitimate due to foreign (primarily Russian) interference and even vote count changing in the election. Celebrities didn’t speak about blowing up the White House, ask how long it’s been since an actor assassinated a president or pose with a mock decapitated Obama head. Elected Republican officials didn’t call for Obama administration officials to be hounded out of the public square.

No, the people in opposition to Mr. Obama accepted that the nation had legitimately elected the most radically Progressive man in its history to the Presidency. They weren’t happy about this development, but had no intention of being a disloyal (to the nation’s will and its Constitution) opposition.

And yet, when in 2016 the nation chose to elect Mr. Trump to the presidency all hell broke loose. All the things that hadn’t happened to Mr. Obama did happen (and then some) to Mr. Trump.

As a result the nation hasn’t been this divided since the 1960s Vietnam War era. A credible case can be made that our contemporary division is worse since in the 1960s it was a foreign policy issue over which we were divided as opposed to now when the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions are under attack.

What this nation has been experiencing since election day 2016 is nothing less than a wild Progressive riot in our streets, our government agencies, our mass media, our educational institutions, our states, and our federal legislatures and courts. The riot’s purpose is to overturn the 2016 election results, thus disenfranchising the over sixty-million citizens who elected Mr. Trump to the presidency.

This situation represents a radical break in our nation’s culture and institutions. This book seeks to explain how we arrived here and where we could be going. By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.

Table of Contents

TPR-TOC-1

1 of 3

 

TPR-TOC-2

2 of 3

 

TPR-TOC-3

3 of 3

Turning the Tide (3)

statue-liberty-justice

You may be wondering why the previous post discussed events that occurred over two centuries ago.  What I’m attempting to illuminate is the permanence of an ideological struggle that is now reaching a decision point in the United States.  This decision isn’t about a single Presidential or Congressional election.  Nor is it ultimately about specific people running for office.

It is about the recognition by a sustainable majority of Americans that their liberty as conceived at our nation’s founding is under explicit assault by the Progressive Left and the Democrat Party.  It is also about the myopic ignorance and cowardice of the establishment wing of the Republican Party.  They have proven themselves to be worthless allies in the fight to maintain our liberty.  It’s actually worse than that.  They have provided political and moral cover to the Progressive Left by pretending to oppose them at election time only to “reach across the aisle” by surrendering their supposed principles once in office.

Thus regardless of if President Trump is reelected or the Republicans control houses in Congress, regardless of how many Governorships or state legislatures Republicans hold, the Progressive Left and its fellow travelers will continue the fight to destroy the United States as founded.  Our purpose must be to defeat this proto-totalitarian assault regardless of how long it takes or how high the cost.

The Republican Party can only become a reliable, effective vehicle for our fight if we demand that this be so.  Yes, the variability of region and culture will enable some politicians to be more unequivocal than others in this fight.  However, if they wish to maintain our support they must demonstrate that, within the practical bounds of their particular constituency, they are in the fight on the side of liberty as conceived by classical liberalism.

We also as individuals and organizations must find the courage of our convictions.  We must lift our heads and boldly challenge the Progressive Left’s ideology and program.  We must end their dominance in our institutions of education, media, religion and government agencies.  We must organize to defend individuals and groups who find themselves besieged by the Progressive mobs who seek to win by intimidation and destruction.  We must take the time to understand the ideas of our nation’s founding and to communicate these ideas to our children, friends, communities and opponents.  And, we must never succumb to the temptation to use the vile tactics of the Progressive Left.  Our victory will be tragically pyrrhic if we become those whom we claim to oppose.

This struggle’s timeframe must be measured in generations.  For so embedded has the Progressive Left become in our nation’s institutions that it will take generations of unremitting work to turn the tide.  Thus the struggle will exceed my lifetime and that of many others.  But in God’s providential purposes we are called to seek justice and do mercy even when the goal remains hidden in the unforeseeable and inexplicable.  Protecting our nation from the catastrophe of Paganism and Socialism is a goal worthy of our lives as a free and proud people.  By so doing we will also ensure that the United States remains a beacon of hope and a source of support to those throughout the world who live under tyranny.


39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

Hebrews 11:39 – 12:3 (NIV)