Connect with us

Culture and Religion

An old progressive radical in my hometown

Published

on

An old progressive radical in my hometown

Progressive radicals come in all shapes and sizes. Young and old, they could be your sons and daughters and grandchildren. Sadly, they can be as old as your grandparents. Yesterday I decided to unblock a person on a Facebook account I know to be a progressive radical. I was wondering if this person finally kicked the bucket.

Nope, that person is still very much alive, and likely in their 80’s if not 90’s. How do I know this person is a radical? I know this because I have read many of the letters that were published either by our local daily newspaper as well as our alternative weekly. Without fail she always came out swinging for supportive of abortion rights (and abortion on demand), discouraged adoption, and supported China’s one child policy.

If this ghoul had it her way, we would have to put our conscience aside and support and fund birth control policy that include abortion in health care (along with baking cakes and taking pictures for gay couples and affirming the way they enjoy having sex). It’s all about the woman’s active libido, and Margaret Sanger’s push for sexual liberation for women. One thing I noticed on her Facebook is that she talks about making a good future for our children and that means you should oppose any energy bill that promotes fossil fuel. Got to keep the focus on the more expensive wind and social energy programs that our children and grandchildren will pay a heavy price for.

But then again, they may not need to pay if their mothers did not want their children and had them murdered while still in their wombs. Like I said before, the mother must be able to enjoy a big juicy “Ballpark” even if that means she gets ‘knocked up’ at a time not of her choosing. Hey, all those family planning methods may not work, and abortion must become that backup and final resort.

Eight years ago, Dennis Prager wrote a piece for townhall.com in which he writes that polices of Democrats and Progressives are not based on rational and/or realistic thinking. They are based on their brand of faith and dogma. For the progressives that faith is based on hope, change and a utopia in which they can be “good without God” and creating the perfect utopia and prove that they are equal or better than God.

Democrats’ Policies Based on Dogma, Hopes, Dreams, not Reality

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2009/10/27/democrats-policies-based-on-dogma,-hopes,-dreams,-not-reality-n828673Given the huge economic failures that the left itself attributes to Medicare and Medicaid and given the economic collapse or near collapse of these systems in other countries, the left’s prescriptions can only be explained in one way: The left has made its views a form of religion.

Most individuals on the left are not religious, but virtually all people, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, yearn to believe in dogma, i.e., absolute beliefs that transcend reason. For people on the left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, belief in the state — the notion that the state can do a better job at helping people and making a good society — is one such dogma. This applies especially to educating the young and to health care.

Funny thing is, even if the Freethinkers don’t believe in the supernatural, their opposition to drilling and fossil fuels does revile something. They too are ‘dirt worshipers,’ or people who worship the creation rather than the creator. They also must make the government the state church of their faith, because that is the institution that must “take care of the people.” They would rather put our society into a real-life hell instead of admitting they are wrong and need to return to God and His law. He is just in the way of their ‘fun.’

Want to know why people get upset when you tell them they are doing wrong, regardless of what that wrong is? You’re telling them that they can’t “feel good,” even if it’s using adult language, having sex outside of marriage (I could have done that myself but I didn’t), having sex with the same gender, or getting high on whatever drug or anti-drug it might be. You tell them that they can’t feel good, they get upset and demand that you shut up and leave them and warn them of their likely self-destruction no more. Breaking God’s law in any shape or form usually does “feel good,” at least for the short term.

They also prove Romans Chapter 1 to be correct. You reap what you sow kids. You’re not going to mock God and get away with it no matter how hard you try.

Moral relativism only applies to questioning God’s unchangeable law. Progressives actually believe in absolutes as well when it applies to what they believe in. Easy Sex/Free Love, worship of the dirt, big tyrannical government, and shaping the society they envision in their poisoned brainwashed minds. Progressivism is the biggest cult that Christians must push back against just as much if not more against other anti-Christian faiths that they consider such.

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Alexander Hamilton was right about the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment

Published

on

It’s amazing how many people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It’s less surprising, however in the context of how bad our public schools are failing our children and by extension, the country as a whole. Now, this isn’t an article on why it’s not the solution. I believe Torcer was eye-opening in explaining why gun control is a dead solution. This isn’t a defense if the 2nd Amendment or a statement of the impracticality of its repeal. Rather this is more focused on the context of the Bill of Rights as a whole.

Context

Believe it or not, the idea of placing a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution was controversial. There was a huge divide when the United States was transferring from a confederacy to a federalist form of a republic (not a democracy). A stronger central government was and still is a grave danger to the rights of the people. Then Thomas Jefferson, anti-Federalist, side of the spectrum sought to have a Bill of Rights in order to place explicit limitations on the government. The Bill of Rights was a compromise on the Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, side of the spectrum. The 9th Amendment was the compromise on the anti-Federalists part:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Danger to Freedom

You might be wondering why a Bill of Rights was so controversial? What seemed like a no-brainer really wasn’t. Despite favoring a larger government than Thomas Jefferson, rivals like Alexander Hamilton did not want to explicitly protect rights through a Bill of Rights because the protection of some would lead to the exclusion of others. Hamilton pens Federalist 84 arguing:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.

Hamilton follows the logic whereby if rights are given extra protection, the Constitution would then invite tyrants to use these provisions as mere limitations. Thus these tyrants would be assuming power that the Constitution did not grant. He uses free press as his primary example.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

It’s amazing, looking back, how valid Hamilton’s arguments are in modern contexts. The danger he describes, we see today in various forms. The protection of free speech has led to the regulation of speech. The protection of religion invited the regulation of the pulpit

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Threats to unenumerated rights

The 9th Amendment is hard to use in defense of a freedom. Though to their credit, I do see liberals claim it more often, while conservatives champion the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendments. In truth, we see the 9th Amendment in action all the time. The Amendment defends a person’s right to be gay without government intrusion. This Amendment is succeeding for leftists wants on multiple fronts. However, on a broader scale, the government has regulated and in some instances outright banned freedoms.

In theory, a person should be able to donate money towards causes they believe in yet campaign finances are highly regulated which is why we have Super PACs. Courts are ruling that Christians can’t act on their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. The right to life can be taken away from the unborn because apparently, the right to life wasn’t clear enough (though to be fair Roe v Wade had virtually no Constitutional pretext for their decision.) The government could penalize you for not purchasing healthcare. The list goes on but I’m sure you see the point about an overreaching federal government.

Jefferson was right also

In the end, we truly do need a Bill of Rights. Many abusers have threatened the freedoms of others on speech, guns, and investigations. Conservatives hold the lesson that freedom is a generation away from extinction as Ronald Reagan said. The culture during the time of the Constitution valued natural freedoms. How else would rivals of politics both seek the same goal? If that same culture existed today, Alexander Hamilton would be right that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. But today, a prominent belief is that natural God-given rights derive from the government. A culture that believes rights come from the government necessitates a Bill of Rights to protect from the government taking away from those freedoms.

Second Amendment

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. 

The Second Amendment is under fire, and if we had, Hamilton’s way, the battle may have been lost already because our view of government has changed. Though luckily the prevailing Heller v DC case solidified the right to private gun ownership ending leftist hopes to confiscate our guns. But Hamilton’s point remains that the protection of the right to firearms has encouraged the regulation of them. How many gun control arguments begin by stating that the founding fathers hadn’t envisioned “AR-15 military-style assault rifles?” A good amount these days. These may be the semblance of reason that Hamilton was referring to.

Moving Forward

  1. The advancement of conservatism needs to be done emphasizing that the source of our freedom is not the government, rather they are natural and God-given.
  2. The 9th Amendment is largely what we make of it because of how open-ended it is. We need to strive to protect implicit freedoms whether or not we agree with them.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Empty Churches: Roman Catholic Cardinals Push Activism on Immigration And Trump

Published

on

Even the Roman Catholic Church’s top American leaders are not immune from the earthly allure to virtue signal on immigration. Both ordained and lay Catholic voices, have argued that people of faith have a moral duty to accept the “Dreamers,” to support DACA, and indeed, to oppose the Trump Administration’s policies on immigration.

This weekend, one American cardinal, Joseph Cardinal Tobin of the Archdiocese of Newark (New Jersey), declared that American Catholics have a “duty” to call their elected representatives to support the Dreamers.

However, truth can be inconvenient. Even for learned Church prelates. Tobin and others have selectively picked and chosen from Church teachings. In so doing, they’ve ignored concepts of duty and responsibility.

A careful reading of comments on actual Catholic social teaching from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, reveals that the current Catholic Church’s embrace of open borders is, ahem, misplaced.

While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.

Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.

Recent years have seen the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate its worldly fallibility as an institution, while on doctrinal issues, under the current Pope (Francis I), the Church has moved clearly to the Left.

Yet as recently as 1996, Pope Saint John Paul II wrote:

When no solution is foreseen, these same [social and charitable] institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.

The rejection of some unconditional duty to receive refugees is clear. The individual’s plight is not ignored; it is, however, not treated as the only factor to be considered to the deliberate exclusion of the hosts. The current Church would do well to follow it. Its own faithful — and its own benefactors — deserve to be ministered to as well, and not viewed solely as a silent audience of putative sinners (and donors) whose Americanism equates to irredeemability.

In societies where cultural traditions emphasis liberty over obedience, freedom over force, and the individual over the collective, shaming your faithful is a recipe for falling Church attendance, falling Church donations and closing institutions. Indeed, in many places, the Church has been closing schools and hospitals, merging parishes and selling off its properties — often bought eagerly by growing Moslem congregations. It’s alarming that Roman Catholic Church leaders are increasingly electing to attack America’s faithful, in favor of pursuing acceptance by “the world.”

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Kamala Harris: “Stop slaughtering babies! Abortions OK”

Published

on

You may have missed it amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the Parkland shooting and the CNN Town Hall, but Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has become pro-life — she just hasn’t realized it yet.

Two days after the massacre, Senator Harris told MSNBC, “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” This just two weeks after she helped defeat a 20-week abortion ban in the Senate.

Apparently, Senator Harris, a staunch pro-abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood donation recipient, couldn’t hear the cognitive dissonance, referring to deceased teenagers as “babies,” while almost one million actual babies are literally being slaughtered every year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the United States saw 926,200 abortions in 2014, of which Planned Parenthood claims 323,999 — about one-third. In the same year, total gun homicides (including gang and drug related, all age groups, and the tiny fraction that is mass shootings) totalled only 11,000.

926,200 to 11,000 — even 323,999 to 11,000 — is not even a close contest. Babies are being slaughtered, Kamala, but not the ones you care about.

(And to anyone claiming that unborn children are not babies or human beings or living things, I recommend Ben Shapiro, as usual, and I’ve already covered whether an unborn baby has rights).

Harris’s appeals to deceased children contributed to increasing cries for a boycott of the NRA, but pro-lifers on Twitter such as Steven Crowder and Devin Sena were quick to point out the irony of supporting a murder mill that receives over $540 million in taxpayer funding while berating a much less influential group whose purpose lies in defending basic constitutional rights and has never killed a single human being.

But let’s take Senator Harris at her word; in the aforementioned interview, she insisted, “When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding, this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical.”

All right then, let’s look at what happens to a baby when it’s aborted.

Below there are diagrams of abortion procedures, but no actual photographs, as even I can hardly stomach looking at that horror or putting it on my website. Here’s one in an article on partial-birth abortions, and I’m sure you can find othersfairly easily if you really want to “shock some people into understanding.”

Let’s start with partial-birth abortions, also known as “dilation and extraction,” wherein the baby (read: living human child with its own DNA) is partially delivered through the birth canal until its head gets in the way, at which stage the abortionist stabs the baby through the back of the head, vacuums out the child’s brains, causes the skull to collapse, and removes the baby-shaped tumor, deeming the operation a success.

Next up is dilation and evacuation, a slight variant of the previous process, whereby the clump-of-cells-with-a-unique-heartbeat-and-pain-receptors is arbitrarily snipped to pieces by an abortionist with a toothy clamp and the leech’s body parts are ripped from the womb one at a time until he (or most likely “she” in many cultures) has fully exited the birth canal.

You may notice that I employed varying levels of sarcasm throughout that discussion, as this is and ought to be an intensely difficult topic to discuss. It’s disturbing, horrifying, and disheartening.

But Senator Harris is right, even if in the wrong way. We cannot just stand by as babies are being slaughtered, and if takes brutally direct language and agonizing photographs to “shock some people into understanding,” then so be it.

Almost one million babies are murdered in the United States every year. If that fact is less viscerally disgusting to me than seeing a picture of a premature child, then that’s a problem I need to work on.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.