Connect with us

Culture and Religion

True Liberals Belong on the Conservative-Right.

Published

on

Which side of the political spectrum deserves the meritorious designation of Liberal?

Consider the words of a true Liberal on the effect of ever-expanding government on the cause of Liberty:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.” Letter From Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 27 May 1788

Then consider this ‘progressive’ synopsis of the issue:

  • Liberal precepts are essentially Individual rights and freedoms, It is self-evident that these are diminished as government grows.
  • Socialist-Left Precepts are of expansive government in conflict with the Liberal precepts based in Liberty.
  • Therefore, one cannot be an advocate of expansive government and be a true Liberal.

Despite this straightforward logic, the ever deceptive Socialist-Left would like to have it both ways. They incessantly demand the ever-expanding government to the detriment of Liberty, and yet they have the insolence to assume the pretense of being Liberal. This term is deeply rooted in the concepts of freedom, it really belongs to the Pro-Liberty, Conservative side of the political spectrum. The point of this discussion is to set the record straight on this issue, despite Leftist lies on the subject.

Those of the Socialist-Left belong on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum.

Those who favor Individual rights and freedoms belong on the Pro-liberty, right side of the political spectrum.

While It is conceivable that Leftists may try to rationalize that Liberty can thrive with an overarching government, common sense clearly indicates this is an impossibility. Perhaps they know deep down that this is a severe deception on their part. Or it could be that they haven’t given the contradiction too much thought, lest it disturbs their superficial worldview that is bereft of logical underpinnings. After all, everyone would like to have a positive view of themselves. Who wouldn’t want to think of themselves as “Liberators” or protectors of freedom?

The problem for the Socialist-Left is that they are neither protectors of freedom or liberators, they are quite the opposite. The blunt fact is that their base ideology of collectivism has been the cause of horrid oppression, as well as, mass murder in the past century – and is still going strong.  That they severely contradict themselves each and every time they use the Liberal label for their freedom destroying agenda should be obvious to everyone, but many (even on the Pro-Liberty Right) still unwittingly praise them when they use that label.

The unchanging meaning of the words Liberty and Liberal.

If it seems that words such as Liberty, Liberation, Libertarian, Liberalis as well as Liberal all convey similar conceptions it is because they all stem from the same root word Liber. This word that signifies the idea of freedom that traces it’s roots to the word in Greek eleutheros meaning: free, i.e. not a slave or not under restraint free.  That they all have a common and unchanging meaning should be obvious.

Proving the case that true Liberals belong on the political right with two recent examples.

Consider a recent article from Reason magazine  on the revelation that the ACLU is wavering on Free-Speech

It seems fairly clear to me what’s happening here. Leadership would probably like the ACLU to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they would also like to remain in good standing with their progressive allies. Unfortunately, young progressives are increasingly hostile to free speech, which they view as synonymous with racist hate speech. Speech that impugns marginalized persons is not speech at all, in their view, but violence. This is why a student Black Lives Matter group shut down an ACLU event at the College of William & Mary last year, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” Campus activism is illiberal, and liberal free speech norms conflict with the broad protection of emotional comfort that the young, modern left demands.

The ACLU’s capitulation to the anti-speech left should serve as a wake-up call for true liberals.

[Our emphasis] This revelation is pretty extraordinary considering that Liberty is part of the organization’s very name. That is but one data point in the revelation of the Left turning against Liberty and the proper place for true Liberals being on the political right.

Then there is the example of the Dartmouth study that showed that who self-identify as Republican were more likely to be tolerant of others:

Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.

In other words, it was those of the right who displayed a very Liberal attitude towards others.

The Takeaway.

Thus we have demonstrated that advocates of ever-expanding government are adverse to Liberty and the Liberal precepts of Individual rights and freedoms. This means that those two goals are in opposition such that those on the Socialist-Left cannot be Liberal.

We have also shown that despite many protestations to the contrary, the word Liberal, as well as others of the same root structure, have not changed in meaning. Thus those who are true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum that supports these important concepts. Finally, we furthered the case with two recent examples of how the Socialist-Left has turned it’s back on Liberty [and being Liberal] and is now very intolerant of other points of view.

Thus we have made the case that True Liberals belong on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right side of the political spectrum.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Daniel Greenfield discusses Jamie Glazov’s book “Jihadist Psychopath”

Published

on

Daniel Greenfield discusses Jamie Glazovs book Jihadist Psychopath

Jamie Glazov, managing editor of FrontPage Magazine and host of The Glazov Gang, has written a book that political commentator Dennis Prager says is “one of the most important books of the present time.” That book is “Jihadist Psychopath” and I just ordered a copy for myself.

Daniel Greenfield, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, made a video about the book that prompted me to order it. Both men are respected defenders of freedom and watchmen over the threat of jihad in America, Israel, and around the world.

As he is wont to do, Greenfield points to leftist politicians as enablers of the jihadists by turning a blind eye to the rise of sharia law across America.

“These servants of the people, public servants, they’re actually masters of the people. They prefer to dictate than to be dictated to. Now, of course, Islamic terrorists will, in their own time, dictate to them. They will dictate to them using Islamic sharia law, but as far as the left is concerned for the moment, these are the people who need them, who are badly, desperately in need of being defended and protected and of course will happily trade their votes in exchange for getting a few benefits on the side.”

He continues on, examining the book’s sober pronouncements of intolerance of anything and anyone who does not bow to sharia law. To jihadists, there is only one acceptable way to live and all other perspectives must be subjugated or eliminated.

“Islamic terrorists have no attraction for anything really positive in life,” Greenfield continues. “They’re drawn to destruction. They’re drawn to emptiness because they themselves are empty. They’re hollow, and that is a central principle of Jamie Glazov’s excellent book.”

Patriots ranging from Steven Emerson to John Bolton are publicly recommending this book. I ordered my copy after watching Greenfield’s video. Freedom-loving Americans should watch it and consider reading “Jihadist Psychopath” by Jamie Glazov.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Matt Walsh speaks out on #CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

Published

on

Matt Walsh speaks out on CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

When white Catholic students wearing MAGA hats are caught on video face-to-face with Native Americans on one side and Black Hebrew Israelites on the other, they’re definitely bigoted white supremacist hatemongers who went out looking for minorities to persecute. At least that’s how mainstream media and a good chunk of social media reacted when they saw the initial videos and images of smirking MAGA children.

But that’s not how it went down. It was the exact opposite of how it went down.

When the story first broke, I saw many of my fellow conservatives on Twitter scolding the kids while the progressive gangs attacked them. I held my tongue. It’s not because I don’t speak out against bigotry regardless of which side of the political, religious, or cultural aisle it comes from, but something seemed fishy. Other than having a disconcerting smirk, I didn’t see anything in the kids that resembled the type of bigoted outbursts we’ve seen in the past from actual white supremacists, Antifa, or other hate groups.

It seemed staged. As it turned out, it wasn’t quite staged, per se, but it was manufactured by the two “victim” groups who went after the MAGA kids, not the other way around. As political and religious commentator Matt Walsh asked, were they supposed to drop down to the fetal position when approached by the two groups?

Hot takes on social and legacy media are often based on incomplete pictures. Before people get outraged and attack others over perceptions based on partial evidence, perhaps we should wait until the whole story comes to light. Just a thought.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?

Published

on

Does Matthew 2229-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch

Extra-Biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch are often frowned upon by churches. Some see 1 Enoch as fake. Others say it’s a good historical reference but not inspired. The Ethiopian Bible includes it as scripture. Should we read it?

To understand the answer to this question, we need to consider three things. First, it was referenced as holy by many of the early church fathers, but was excluded from official canon. Second, Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.

Many who oppose the validity of Enoch say that it was written after the Book of Jude because the it includes the quote that Jude references, but fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which most scholars date to before Jude was born.

The scripture in question is Matthew 22:29-30:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Nowhere in the 66 Books of the Bible does it say angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. What did Jesus mean when he said “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” in reference to the angels not marrying?

Here is 1 Enoch 15:5-7:

5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

Hmm.

As with anything regarding extra-Biblical texts, I must urge caution. Many who believe 1 Enoch is authentic refute the authenticity of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Then, there’s the question of inspiration and protection of the text. Many Christians believe the Bible has been able to survive and flourish despite so many attempts to disrupt it is because it has been protected over the millennia. If that’s the case, why was Enoch not included the whole time?

The answer to this question, to those who believe in its authenticity, may be found in the first two verses of the manuscript.

1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3 for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:

If Enoch is real, it’s meant for a later generation living in the day of tribulation. If it’s a fake, then it’s intended to deceive those in the end times. Either way, it’s understandable that it would not be included in most Bibles.

I tend to believe 1 Enoch is legitimate, but not to the point that I would teach on it. Not yet. Much more prayer and study is required before I would ever risk misleading anyone.

Nevertheless, the reference in Matthew 22 is compelling.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report