Home » atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, End Times, eugenics, family, General, gun control, Holocaust, human rights, Liberalism, morality, Obama, original sin, philosophy, politics, science, Secular Humanism » Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom

Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom

I really believe that Progressives will be the death of the United States, the Republic, the democratic process, and freedom itself.  I also doubt very much that the Progressives intend this, know that their positions will result in this, or, when tyranny is upon us, have any notion whatsoever their their beliefs, behaviors, attitude, and conduct, had anything to do with it.

This latter contention is borne out from actual history:  the Nazis merely acted on all of the things that the Progressives in America and England had been saying, and trying to act on, for decades;  afterwards, they were shocked–genuinely shocked–at the outcome, but, like a dog that returns to its vomit, once the Holocaust Hang-over was forgotten, they quickly returned to the same thinking, strategies, and behaviors.   They are quite sure that this time the results will be much different.

I realize that this is quite a damning thing to say, and ought to be defended.  I have been doing just that for many years on this blog, though, and this particular post is not the place for that.  However, if you would like it in a single document, you could look at my ‘Roots and Fruits‘ publication, lately released.  I led off this way in order to set up a couple of recent news items.

First, let’s take this news story detailing a piece of legislation that would have made owners of ‘assault weapons’ submit to searches of their homes on an annual basis to verify they are complying with the law.  A couple of quotes from the article:

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Palmer continues,

In other words, [Police can come] into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

 Interesting.  You can’t fully blame the NRA and those ‘fleeing into their arms.’  The NRA is needlessly paranoid… except they aren’t, really.  But I would call your attention to the shock of the article’s author, and that of Lance Palmer, ‘self-described liberal’, that something like this could be really proposed by people of their mindset.  I believe the word you’re looking for here is, “Duh.”   The culprit responsible for inserting this phrase into the legislation is an unnamed staffer, but it doesn’t really matter who it is.  Since liberalism is essentially a movement of good intentioned emotions rather than reality-bound principles, as we see in this case, you can find one particular liberal that finds an idea shocking and borderline tyrannical but another liberal perfectly prepared to propose that very thing.

So, one particular liberal assures me that “he’s not coming for my guns” and I’m supposed to be comforted–as if he’s the only liberal in power, or the only one who will ever be in power, or that ‘unnamed staffers’ don’t have ways to push their various agendas.  One liberal snorts that gun confiscation will never happen, another actively pushes it.  Then liberals have the audacity to accuse the other side of being paranoid, and is shocked when their fellow liberals cross the line.  Shocked.  Just shocked.

In another news item, we find out that some Obama voters voted more than once in one particular jurisdiction.  Now, I think many conservatives these days find such stories to be par for the course.  Personally, I suspect that quite a few elections have been stolen by Democrats just within the time period I’ve been paying attention, and I think the 2012 presidential election could very well have been one of them.  It is not so difficult to suspect, given the mindset of those who tend to support Obama.  You see, one of the essential characteristics of a person of a Progressive mindset is the view that the ends really do justify the means.  This was was one of Saul Alinsky’s main points in his ‘Rules for Radicals’, and of course Obama totally subscribes to Alinksy’s views, along with a lot of liberals in leadership today.

To put it plainly, if you know that having Obama as president absolutely must happen, then breaking the law to make this happen is not really a bad thing.  It is “no big deal.”  What is the ‘law’?  Just words on a page:  “This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.”

So, from the article:

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.

[...]

“There was absolutely no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud,” she insisted.

Well, of course.  It isn’t voter fraud if it is for a good cause.  This is our country.  We live in it.  We have a right to the kind of country we want.  We should not allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Voter fraud, said Husted, “undermines public confidence in democracy, and that’s why we need, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, to root out all cases of voter fraud.”

But democracy is actually the problem.  That’s what many Democrats actually think.  You can’t let democracy and the democratic process stand in the way of the “nation’s health.”

Why is anyone surprised when people with this mindset bend or break the rules?  What are rules and laws anyway?  They have nothing to do with real life.

Waitasec.  Back the truck up.  One vote per person is ‘outdated’?  Well, that was the idea of the founders, was it not?  You happen to like that particular idea?  But for a good cause, wouldn’t you jettison it?  Melowese Richardson had no problem doing so, and since she had good intentions, it was not ‘voter fraud.’   No one is advocating that we get rid of one vote-one person as a vestige of our ‘ancient and outdated’ Constitution, right?

No one thinks like that, right?  Wrong.  It might not be the ‘one vote-one person’ principle considered expendable, but the general principle is widespread among liberals.  And not just low level folks like Richardson, either.  I actually quoted a law professor, without the “”, to sum up the perspective.  Let’s get him out for our consideration:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Don’t like some parts of the Constitution?  Just jettison those parts, then.  “Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.”  Talking about gun control in terms of the Constitution “needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion.”  Why should we be shackled by the views of those who died over two centuries ago?  Interpreted:  let’s just pretend the second amendment doesn’t exist, and those who find that idea outrageous should lighten up.

One particular liberal’s part of the Constitution he doesn’t like is the second amendment.  Richardson’s part she doesn’t like is the idea of ‘one person-one voter.’  She’s just engaging in ‘Constitutional disobedience.’  Besides, the idea of ‘one person-one vote’ is probably much older than the Constitution.  If the Constitution is so old it can be simply tossed, surely this provision, which predates it, can be tossed.

And that idea bout Obama not being a natural-born citizen?  Who cares.  It’s just the law.  (Note to Progressives:  I would not suggest admitting that Obama is not a natural-born citizen until after all the guns are confiscated.)

People with views like this are in power throughout the land and they are put there by folks like Richardson and others willing to sacrifice the rule of law in the name of progress.

What could possibly go wrong?

What is there to be paranoid about?

What do you have to fear about giving up your guns?  People are civilized today:  with Progressives in charge, we’ll all be nice and safe.  They’ll be able to act quickly when the next ‘good cause’ emerges, because they are not beholden to the law, even if they do write it.

This can’t end well.  And when it does end in tyranny–and I’m pretty sure it will, although I don’t know when exactly–it will be because of dolts like those I just featured in this blog post who created the conditions and actually carried out the acts that facilitated it.  And when it happens, they’ll look around, surprised, “How did this happen?  This isn’t what I had in mind!  I had good intentions!  This foul result has nothing to do with anything that I did… put me in power again and I’ll do it right this time…”

Dear God, I hope for our sake that this time the American public will do no such thing.

share save 256 24 Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom

9 Responses to Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom

  1. Tell me, Tony… would you say, generally speaking, that National Socialism is ‘right wing’?

  2. I’d ask what does ‘generally speaking’ have to do with anything other than dodging a point? All that matters is what principles are steering the nation at this time and where they’re leading towards. And you can’t really deny that it’s Prograssivism/Socialism as primarily embodied by liberals today.

  3. The terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ aren’t usually helpful without a great deal more clarification and definition, neither of which you offered. So, I’ll just answer it based on the unhelpful, and generally accepted modern notions: uh, no. National Socialism was demonstrably left wing. Let’s start with the name… it has SOCIALISM right in it! Let that be your first clue.

    The National Socialists espoused a large number of ideas that are very similar to what liberals today think and say. For example, they were outspoken proponents of physical education ‘for the good of the state’, and for lack of a better phrase, ‘health nuts.’ The rationale being that the state had an interest in what people were eating and drinking because A., the State was paying for their SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and B., the health of the species required it. Bloomberg in NY has similar justifications in mind–eg, that he has a duty to manage the health of the population, for their own good, and for the good of city/social finances. Eg, compare and contrast with this an argument made by this NYC professor:

    doing nothing about the effects of soda consumption on obesity is just letting soda drinkers slurp dollars out of their fellow citizens’ wallets. That’s not living free: It is just drinking and dying at the public’s expense.

    Bloomberg sees this in ‘national’ terms:

    In defending his proposal, Mr. Bloomberg said at Montefiore that the ban was not intended to tread on anyone’s rights, and he noted that more than individual liberties were at stake. “We are absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to help you get on track and stay on track to maintain a healthy lifestyle,” he said. “Because this isn’t your crisis alone — it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/nyregion/persistent-obesity-fuels-soda-ban-by-bloomberg.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Now take a moment to check out what the Nazis believed.

    There is very little about the Nazis that made them ‘right wing’ by the current understanding of the term. They were ‘left wing’ in almost every thing, save one: what liberals and Progressives felt about mankind in general (and still do, perhaps), they felt chiefly about their country and the Volk. There have been very weak attempts to try to link the Nazis with conservative (as understood today) psotions. For example, some people have observed that the Nazis opposed abortion… but only for blue-eyed, blond haired women, who were expected to reproduce for the good of the Volk. Minorities and defectives could, and should, have as many as they want. Somehow this important observation is overlooked… I wonder why… at any rate, the Nazis were NOT against abortion in principle, as a conservative pro-lifer like myself is.

    People who think that the Nazis are ‘right wing’ in any sense similar to what we might mean by that phrase today know next to nothing about the Nazis. Not really. I gave that link to that overview, but the real educational experience is reading them in their own words, which is what I’ve been doing. The similarities in the arguments are chilling, especially when on occasion you turn up the exact same phraseology.

  4. EB – I’m not dodging a point, you dolt. I’m making one.
    _____

    Tony,

    No, I didn’t offer any clarification or definition, precisely because I wanted you to answer according to “generally accepted modern notions”. Except that your answer goes completely against such notions.

    From Wikipedia , the Source of All Knowledge:

    There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in “social-libertarians”; not to be confused with the right’s “economic-libertarians”), secularists, communists, and anarchists, and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left’s “civil-libertarians”), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.

    Yes, yes, Wikipedia doesn’t prove anything. But you must admit that your classification of National Socialism as left-wing isn’t a classification that is shared by many. You might even be the only one.

    Well, except for EB.

  5. I don’t think you’ve proved anything, here, Tim. The problem with ‘generally accepted modern notions’ is precisely because the labels of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are not defined. People just throw the words around indiscriminately, thinking they are saying something intelligent. You know, like you just did. ;)

    Like EB said, what really matters is the substance of the principles and beliefs, not the label, which can, and does, change over time. So, when you’re ready to deal with substance rather than labels, you let me know.

  6. I’m ready now! I was only using the labels as an opening to my initial point… that almost no one thinks Nazis have anything in common with Liberals / Progressives. Sure, you can trot out a few similarities (exercise!), but then I can do the same, and to greater effect. To wit, Nazism has a lot more in common with Christianity than Liberalism.

    As I said, that was just an initial point. I have a lot more to say on the rest of your post, don’t you worry. :-)

  7. Alright, let’s start then. I’m not going to ask you to agree with this person’s assessment of what liberalism has as its core philosophy. It is enough that you agree that, yes, a former editor of a prominent liberal journal should be regarded as a serious describer of his and the liberal worldview. Do you? Here is the quote for your consideration:

    For many years — during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society — the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea — the philosophical principle — that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

    This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance — not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. Any rank-and-file liberal is a liberal because she or he somehow or another, through reading or experience or both, came to believe in this principle. And every leading Democrat became a Democrat because on some level, she or he believes this, too.

    Before I go on, I’d like you to speak to whether or not this liberal A. believes what he is saying and B. is competent to speak about the liberal worldview.

  8. For whatever reason, I still do not get notices about comments left at my own blog, so if you post something and I don’t reply for awhile, I may have gotten distracted. ‘poke’ me on FB.

  9. “EB – I’m not dodging a point, you dolt. I’m making one”

    Unless your point is that you think the American government today is being led by “National Socialism,” you really aren’t.

    And it shows in how you’re trying to do everything to avoid addressing ‘Progressivism’ as it exists in America today. You bring up ‘National Socialism’ and just spout what’s “generally understood” (setting aside the fact the “general public” thinks Nazism is only about exterminating Jews and little else), as if that made any difference. Guess what? We can point to Communist Russia as a fine example that in no way can be construed as being remotely ‘right wing.’ Interestingly enough they subscribed to many of the same principles as the Third Reich (especially in regards to the concern of society as a whole over the individual), and not-so-coincidently it led to many atrocities of a similar vein.

    Same principles. Same end result. Only difference being in what form they were expressed under.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>