50 Years since LBJ’s Great [Slave] Society

greatsociety

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

~LBJ, “Great Society” Speech, University of Michigan (May 22, 1964)

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

~ Dr. Thomas Sowell

50 years ago on May 22, 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a historical Commencement Address at the University of Michigan. That speech introduced America to his utopian vision called the Great Society, the most recent stage in the evolution of Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism and Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights socialist revolution. Until I started researching for this article I did not know that those grainy recordings I heard of LBJ touting his Marxist vision for America was made at U of M, yet I am not surprised. From 1985-87, I attended graduate school at U of M and in 1989 was an editor at the Michigan Law Review. It was a great experience but I’ve never been to a university so reflexively and uncritically in love with everything socialist, Marxist, even communist than my alma mater U of M (although Harvard would be a close second).

Remember the turbulent times in America in the 1960s: LBJ gave his Great Society speech just 6 months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the country was reeling from societal angst, counter-cultural upheaval and grotesque Jim Crow racism and discrimination against Blacks. President Lyndon Johnson boldly proposed his Leviathan monster he called the Great Society as the antidote to these societal ills. In this speech Johnson conflates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was being filibustered in Congress) with his legions of comprehensive new federal programs – the apotheosis of FDR’s New Deal, Part 2. The madly utopian expectations and experimental recklessness in social engineering took modern progressives into a crisis and historically prolonged the socialist Leviathan State into every aspect of our daily lives, with all its waste, fraud and abuse, regulatory fascism and bureaucratic entanglements amounting to a verifiable loss of our constitutional liberty, inalienable freedoms and societal morality.

This Great Society, Johnson declares, is no “finished work” but “a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.” As with Wilson, Roosevelt and John Dewey’s education atheism, the decisive target is by design to obscure, to pervert, to deconstruct American exceptionalism, thus LBJ’s Great Society is an enterprise well past the material necessity and the eradication of poverty they presuppose. It is an existential enterprise that will never end.

Johnson war on poverty programs are directed to the cities, the environment, and education. In each venue Johnson sought both utility and beauty. Thus, Great Society urban policy should not only “rebuild the entire urban United States” in the next 50 years (by 2014) but promote “community” and combat “loneliness and boredom and indifference.” The environment should not only be unpolluted but allow men to “wonder at nature.” Education will not only bring children out of poverty, it will give them “hours of leisure.” Johnson is self-assured that a socialist government, reliant on Deweyan education atheism and social engineering experimentation in government programs, can achieve both political and spiritual transformation. Under the paradigm of “creative federalism” the Constitution’s true principle of federalism is deconstructed and ultimately destroyed without amending one word of the U.S. Constitution. It is all done by autocratic executive decree, an activist, lawless Supreme Court and a lazy, unaccountable Congress: just like Obamacare was passed in our era.

Remember historically like the communists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao or the fascists: Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, education for the socialist left has always been the most irresistible (and effective way) to take over, deconstruct and destroy a society and culture and rebuild it into their own grotesque image. Remember Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin who said regarding education: Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. The Democrat Socialist Party has controlled education at all levels (particularly colleges and the public schools) much longer than the advent of LBJ’s Great Society 50 years ago which belies the fact that plummeting standardized test scores and public school dropout rates are at an all-time high. This is not by accident but by design because only in a poorly educated country can the majority of sheeple be controlled and manipulated with socialist collectivist public policies like the Great Society.

To advance such populist and uplifting programs, Johnson promised to “assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America.” With their help, he asks students to fight four battles: for civil rights, against poverty, for enduring international peace, and, finally, for the Great Society, which seeks a “richer life of mind and spirit.” On all these fronts he retains all the utopianism of Progressivism, socialism and secular humanism as his anti-American polices propels society ever deeper into the abyss.

Johnson claims that the Great Society marks a watershed in America’s history, which men will appreciatively look back on this day and say: “It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment of his life”—LBJ’s myopic view of history implies that great presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Coolidge had no indication about leading a significant life, without demanding an ever-growing socialist state.

Johnson challenges America’s graduating youth to join him in his noble crusade but in reality surrenders to the most radical of them, as his Great Society pronounces the prophecy of the Students for a Democratic Society. Founded in 1962, two years before this address, the SDS protested the Vietnam War while hijacking universities and demanding a complete transformation of society (sound familiar?) along the lines envisioned by Dewey’s evolution education campaign. This radical utopianism was virtually synonymous with the evolutionary worldview of the man they would soon spew hatred at, Lyndon Johnson. History is filled with such ironic twists in the dialogues of those who abandon the natural law, natural rights and constitutional government of the Framers for the 30 pieces of silver of socialism and evolution atheism.

When I recently read LBJ’s Great Society speech given 50 years ago I felt like it was Groundhog’s Day all over again where America, overcome with collective dementia, wakes up each day only to experience the same day as before; everyday Americans are beset by the same retarded rhetoric and failed public policies that our forefathers suffered through 50 years ago. Beginning with the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1990, socialism and an evolution atheist worldview has failed in every country where it was implemented, yet like inmates in a poorly run mental asylum we seem incapable or oblivious to the words of Einstein who said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush and president of Ari Fleischer Communications wrote a provocative yet compelling critique directed at President Obama’s ‘income inequality’ proposals but indirectly against LBJ’s 50 year Great Society catastrophe which has decimated the Black family. Since 1965 the Democrat Socialist Party spent according to a Cato Institute study almost $15 trillion to eradicate poverty in America, yet 50 years later every socio-economic demographic proves that the Great Society not only was an utter disaster but pushed more people into poverty where they remained generation after generation after generation without hope or redemption.

Instead of spending trillions to eradicate something that will be with humanity forever (Jesus said, “The poor ye have with you forever.”) Congress should minimize the negative effects of poverty. For example, Ari Fleischer, using simple, yet profound wisdom reminiscent of the great Jewish Rabbis and philosophers of antiquity like Maimonides (1135-1204) or Moses Mendelsohn (1729-86) wroting, “If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family.” In other words how does America fight Income Inequality: Get Married. As proof Ari offers statistics that in families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.

In conclusion, Ari wrote, “Given how deep the problem of poverty is, taking even more money from one citizen and handing it to another will only diminish one while doing very little to help the other. A better and more compassionate policy to fight income inequality would be helping the poor realize that the most important decision they can make is to stay in school, get married and have children—in that order.”

The Democrat Socialist Party (and virtually all of their appointees including secretary heads, administrative agencies and judges) have nothing but utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, natural law, the original intent of the constitutional Framers and biblical values. Long before he was president, Barack Obama was already plotting to deconstruct and destroy the U.S. Constitution while “fundamentally transforming America” into a servile socialist state. As far back as 2001 Obama, in a chilling public radio interview, boldly confessed that the Constitution was a “charter of negative liberties,” full of constraints imposed upon us by our Founding Fathers.

This is what you get for 100+ years of socialism slavery where since the Age of the Imperial Presidency—from Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) to Woodrow Wilson (1913-21); from FDR’s New Deal and Welfare State (1933-45) to LBJ’s Great Society and phony civil rights scams (1963-69). Writer Roger Stone in his blockbuster new book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, said of LBJ: “I think he’s an amoral psychopath,” further writing, “I think he’s crude, evil, vicious, vindictive, drunk.” Right up to Obama (2009-present), who contrary to progressive/socialist propaganda isn’t at all unique or transcendent; historically he’s just another Alinsky demagogue in a long line of political hacks whose Napoleonic, narcissistic ego compels him to rule not as a statesman using presidential restraint, but as an arrogant dictator who in his first speech to lawmakers of 2014 threatened to continue to bypass Congress via his authoritarian rule by executive order. Obama boasted: “I have a pen and I have a phone” [to make whatever laws I decree].

If America is to survive this existential Progressive Revolution (circa 1859 Darwin’s Origin of Species – present) which systematically seeks to replace Christianity, the Bible, and intelligent design with evolution atheism; natural law with positive law; capitalism with socialism and the rule of law with tyranny and executive decrees, then We the People must tell Obama—Yes, President Obama, you have a pen and a phone, but we have a Constitution and a Congress and the Tea Party… and God.

Sic Semper Tyrannous—Down with the tyrant!

Opening the Gates of Hell

A UK Daily Mail article on former defense secretary Robert Gates who served in both the Obama and Bush administrations exposes damning allegations in a new book which describes Obama as ‘a feckless commander-in-chief who was less interested in winning wars than in taking political advantage of withdrawing America from them’ and in one meeting Hillary Clinton and Obama admitted they opposed Iraq troop surge only for what in essence amounted to cowardly, selfish political advantage.

Robert Gates, secretary of defense under Barack Obama and George W. Bush, argues that Hillary Clinton used craven, Machiavellian political tactics in 2006 when she announced her opposition to Bush’s Iraq troop ‘surge’ just before entering the presidential race. Gates writes that subsequently she admitted making that decision as to avoid being politically outflanked by Obama as they entered the 2007 primary season. This blockbuster revelation could prove problematic for Clinton as she prepares what politicos characterize as a second run at the White House in 2016.

From the initial planning stages the former defense secretary says Obama knew his own troop surge – the move of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan – would fail, yet he callously pursued this ill-conceived escalation of the war in Afghan to keep a cynical political promise he made during the 2008 election. Gates also criticized VP Joe Biden, saying he ‘has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past 40 years.’ The White House timidly responded, saying Obama ‘disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment’ and stubbornly defended Biden as a ‘leading statesman’ while leaving Gates’ criticism of Hillary unchallenged.

One of the most discussed portions of this memoir describes a ‘remarkable’ exchange he witnessed, Robert Gates writes about when ‘Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.’ Obama, too, ‘conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political,’ Gates recall. ‘To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.’

Yet I would ask Secretary Gates why would it surprise you (or any rational person not beset by leftist politics) that the two leading members of the Democrat Socialist Party would use Machiavellian tactics of ‘might makes right’ and ‘the ends justify the means’ to gain political advantage at every opportunity? Remember it was political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) the patron saint of leftist political skullduggery who infamously said, “It is better to be feared than to be loved,” or as Lord Acton wrote of Machiavelli, “State power is not bound by moral law.”

And Gates recounts how, as the president lost faith in Gen. David Petraeus’ handling of hostilities in Afghanistan, he – Gates – lost faith in Obama’s commitment to accomplishing much of anything. ‘As I sat there,’ he recalls, ‘I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his.’ ‘For him, it’s all about getting out.’

Now there’s the rub as Shakespeare would say: Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given Republicans something- a huge cudgel to bash Hillary over the head in 2016 presidential elections with new revelations about what the GOP will view as Hillary Clinton placing crass, cowardly political expediency over principle. Gates writes his recollections about Obama’s own troop surge, a move of 30,000 armed personnel into Afghanistan meant to stabilize the country in advance of a final all-out troop withdrawal. (Remember that Gen. Petraeus insisted on at least 50,000 troops be sent to Afghanistan in order to insure a successful mission, but Obama refused). The commander-in-chief, Gates says, was ‘skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.’ ‘I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops,’ Gates insists, ‘only his support for their mission.’ That’s Washington-speak for Obama didn’t believe in the troops or the mission in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, Gates nearly quit over Obama’s duplicity and cowardice about Afghanistan, he writes. The Bush administration hold-over reveals in his memoir that he was ‘deeply uneasy with the Obama White House’s lack of appreciation – from the top down – of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war.’ Describing a contentious day when Obama evaluated his Afghanistan strategy, Gates recalls: ‘I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure, though no one knew it.’

Who then is ultimately to blame when cowardly politicians not only don’t pay a political or legal price for using our brave troops as cannon fodder and as faceless means to their own craven, political ends is We the People. It is the American voter who for whatever reason—leftist media propaganda, low information voters, a go-along-to-get-along philosophy, people being willing dupes for political hacks no matter what, cult of personality, etc.—in the end it is us the American voter that puts scoundrels like Obama and Hillary Clinton in office and empower them to elevate their morally bankrupt cronies to make decisions over our lives most tragically deconstructing the constitution and destroying our liberties and freedoms by their socialist and nihilist policies. The ultimate enemy of freedom, natural law and constitutionalism is not Obama, Hillary, socialism or the welfare state, it is the man or woman looking back at you in the mirror… no one else!

Gates views Obama’s war Iraq and Afghanistan strategy as wholly servile to preserving and deifying his overarching political career, writing that during his tenure at the Pentagon Obama ‘simply wanted to end the “bad” war in Iraq and limit the U.S. role in the “good” war in Afghanistan.’ However, the president’s specified strategy for withdrawing troops Iraq and Afghanistan, he claims, ‘conflicted with his own pro-war public rhetoric (especially during the 2008 campaign), the nearly unanimous recommendations of his senior civilian and military advisers at the Departments of State and Defense, and the realities on the ground.’ Finally, he concluded, Obama was ‘inexperienced’ yet ‘determined to change course – and equally determined from day one to win re-election.’ ‘Domestic political considerations would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled.’

I repeat Obama and Hillary acted cowardly, callously and with Machiavellian tactics used our brave troops to further their own political careers and once having seized ultimate political power, sacrificed by the tens thousands our U.S. soldiers by expanding a foolish war in Afghanistan, by weakening our stronghold in Iraq and destroying our foreign policy in the Middle East, so that these cowards among heroes could prance around on stages across the world and lie to the American people about how great a statesman they were… Not!

May Gates’s memoir and the subsequent public debate it will engender, open up the gates of Hell against Obama, Hillary and the Democrat Socialist Party for committing treason against our heroic troops who gave their lives, blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan wars… for nothing.

DO YOU KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION? PART 2

constitution

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

~Charles de Montesquieu

Dr. Larry Arnn, constitutional scholar and president of Hillsdale College, has instituted a series of public interest programs aired on conservative talk radio called “Constitution Minute.” So far there have been nine episodes. Here are parts 5-9:

1. What is bureaucratic despotism?

DR. ARNN: “One of the chief sponsors of the Dodd Frank Finance Reform bill called that legislation, “about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives.” And how does this legislation deal with every aspect of our lives? In the most unconstitutional way: It sets up a board called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has the power to regulate our economic transactions independently of both the president and Congress—in other words, permanent government employees are placed in charge of us beyond the control of those we elect, the control of “we the people.” This is a violation of the representative form of government, without which there can be no Constitutional government.”

Historically, the Progressive Revolution under the auspices of the Democrat Socialist Party has shown nothing but utter contempt towards the constitution, natural law, America’s sacred traditions, and in this case the separation of powers doctrine that the Framers borrowed from the writings of French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws (1748). All the political left is concerned about is deconstructing the constitution to amass more political powers unto itself. Excessive regulations since the Theodore Roosevelt’s decreeing millions of acres of private land as federal land during his conservation revolution of the early 1900s and FDRs “New Deal” welfare programs of the 1930s and 40s has been an effective way to achieve power over the masses while entrenching liberal fascism into every aspect of our lives. Socialism in America was deceptively simple—control the economics and the courts you control the people and the laws, control the people and the laws and you have absolute power.

2. Is the Constitution relevant today?

DR. ARNN: “Many argue today that the Constitution is outdated because it addresses problems peculiar to the eighteenth century, so long ago. Consider the injunction against titles of nobility in article nine section one of the Constitution. But is that outdated? The purpose of that injunction is to prevent the partisan bestowal of special privileges by the government, which privileges strike at the heart of a free society, which is based on the rule of law. Look at crony capitalism today, so common, whereby the government bestows favors and tax dollars on some businesses and it gives them a leg up over others. This is a striking example of what the Constitution was meant to prohibit and a striking illustration of why the Constitution is not outdated at all.”

Laissez-faire or conservative economists oppose crony capitalism equating governmental favors as a perversion of true free market capitalism. Laissez-faire supporters criticize crony capitalism as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problem of government intervention or “investments” as an avoidable aberration; free-market advocates refer to governmental favoritism as “crony socialism”, “venture socialism” or “corporatism, a modern form of “mercantilism” to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such systems is to have help from corrupt government officials who are open to bribery. Armies of D.C. “lobbyists” lauder hundreds of billions annually to control government legislation in their favor.

3. What is the relationship of the three Branches of Government under the Constitution?

DR. ARNN: “There’s a lot of confusion these days about the relationship of the three branches of government—especially among many who are in government. Some think the judiciary sits atop the other two branches—the legislative and the executive. Others think the president sits above Congress and the courts. In fact, all three branches are equally accountable to the Constitution, and therefore to the people who made the Constitution. The president, members of Congress, and federal judges all take an oath to the Constitution. In making the laws, Congress must adhere to the Constitution. In executing the laws, the president must abide by the Constitution. In interpreting the laws, judges are bound by the Constitution. All the people’s representatives are accountable to the Constitution, and therein lies our liberty.”

Constitutionally speaking it is both misleading and wrong to ask the question: Which is the most powerful branch of government? Because the original intent of the constitutional Framers placed enumerated powers in each branch that were in their sole domain and from which the other two branches held no power or sovereignty outside the blackletter text of the constitution. However, an existential constitutional crises is precipitated when one branch of government bleeds over into the others’ domain. The most infamous example of this is Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) which created a new doctrine called judicial review whereby the Supreme Court out of whole cloth claimed for itself “the province and the duty… to say what the law is” and made the judiciary, originally the weakest of the three branches of government, into what Jefferson called, “the despotism of an oligarchy [of five].” This judicial tyranny to a large degree caused the collapse of our federalist system of government.

4. Why is Federalism crucial to free government?

DR. ARNN: “Many in Washington today have grown so accustomed to centralized bureaucracy that they think of Federalism as old-fashioned, kind of like fife and drum music. Those who wrote the Constitution saw Federalism as a vital principle of free government in a large republic. The division of power between the Federal government, state governments, and local governments, which serves an important protection against tyranny. The Founders also understood that while the Federal Government is essential for national matters like foreign policy and defense, the governments closer to the people were far better suited to oversee local matters. As we see in the problems that resolve from centralized bureaucracy today, there’s nothing out-of-date about the Founders argument for Federalism.”

Conservatives must return to doctrines of our political forefathers; we must re-embrace federalism, judicial restraint, and states’ rights. The party of Lincoln should protect core civil rights, but beyond that, states and localities should be given as much freedom as they can handle. If California wants to become a socialist hellhole then let it. If Texas wants to become Hong Kong on the Rio Grande, more power to them. And the same principle goes for cities and towns within those states. People will vote with their feet and move to the best states which is why Florida is quickly approaching New York as the most populous state in America—Florida is an island of low taxes and free market dynamism while New York has devolved into a socialist hellhole of collectivist misery.

5. Is the Presidential Oath of Office still relevant?

DR. ARNN: “Members of Congress and federal judges take an oath to the Constitution, but the Constitution prescribes the exact words of the oath only for the President. The American Presidency was a new and powerful office created at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Nothing like it existed in any other Constitution in history. It was designed to allow certain virtues, decision, activity, secrecy, dispatch, things like that. And they were thought to be essential to executive power especially in a crisis. But despite this immense power, the power is not so powerful as the Constitution itself, that is why President’s must pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and why it is the duty of the people to make sure they do so.”

Every president, member of Congress, judge and Supreme Court Justice has vowed at pains of impeachment “to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies—foreign and domestic.” When was the last time a sitting member of any branch of government was impeached?—Nixon resigned before he was impeached in 1974, Clinton was impeached in 1999 but stayed in office and Florida Federal judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from his judgeship in1989, yet in 1994 launched a successful career as the most impoverished and purveyor of cronyism than any member of Congress. Despite the rampant political corruption in Washington, D.C., there have only been eight [8] federal officials in American history to be impeached and removed from office. Impeachment must become commonplace if we are to save the Republic.

In “Federalist No. 46,” James Madison asserted that the states and national government “are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers.” Alexander Hamilton, writing in “Federalist No. 28,” suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens’ benefit: “If their [the peoples] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.” I don’t believe the states are the servants of the federal government. I believe in dual federalism which holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.

In conclusion, it is the deception, duplicity and tyranny of the Democrat Socialist Party with their willing lackeys, the RINO, establishment Republicans, who have done great harm to lowering our education level and perverting our understanding of the constitution by dividing and conquering We the People, rather than standing on principle like the Tea Party is attempting to do following the original intent of the constitutional Framers.

Dr. Arnn’s ‘Constitution Minute’

constitution

The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property.

~Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

Dr. Larry Arnn, constitutional scholar and president of Hillsdale College has instituted a series of public interest programs aired on conservative talk radio called, “Constitution Minute.” So far there have been nine episodes. Here are the first four:

What is the Difference between Natural Rights and Entitlements?

DR. ARNN: “America’s founders knew, obviously, that human beings are not equal in terms of strength or beauty, or in terms of intelligence, industry or talents. They understood that because of such differences, differences in talents and things like that, some people would be wealthier than others. But human beings are equal, the founders believed, in their possession of natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. Today many American’s reject this equality of rights in order to pursue equality of condition through redistribution, or spreading the wealth around to use a famous formulation. This is destructive of liberty as the founders understood it.”

Entitlements (legal rights) are those granted onto a person by a known legal system, while natural rights are those not dependent upon the laws, traditions, or beliefs of any specific government or culture, and are therefore universal and inalienable. 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, who influenced America’s framers in his famous work, “Two Treatises on Government” (1690) identifying them as being “life, liberty, and estate (property)”, and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies.

Social contract theory is an agreement between citizens to live within a common system of laws. Particular forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their cooperative capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly defend these rights, it can be overthrown by We the People.

In a draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May, 1776), George Mason wrote that, “all men are born equally free,” and hold “certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” Therefore natural law, from which natural rights originate can be defined as laws, principles and standards not simply originate by mankind but rather part of an objective moral order, existing in the universe and accessible to human reason.

Redistribution or spreading the wealth around are just progressive euphemisms for Marxism, socialism and communism.

How Well Do You Understand Our Constitution?

DR. ARNN: “America was founded on the idea that human beings are born with natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. A person who holds this view of rights makes no demands on others except that they respect those rights. Today, however, many Americans talk about rights to a college education, state of the art medical care and even birth control pills. These are rights understood as entitlements and a person who holds this view of rights, far from making no demands on other people, is making claims on other people’s money and resources. This understanding of rights not only sets citizens against each other, but it undermines the whole idea of natural rights.”

According to Locke there are three natural rights:

  • Estate (property): everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights.
  • Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right.
  • Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.

Increasingly since the 1850s and 60s the political left through the Democrat Socialist Party, have made an art form at deconstructing America’s natural rights, sacred values and societal institutions in a systematic and comprehensive manner. I call it the Darwin-Marx-Gramsci long march through the institutions. For example, recently the left has convinced people to ignore the moral foundations of the U.S. Constitution to embrace that same-sex marriage is real (legal) marriage thus overturning by judicial activism hundreds of anti-sodomy laws; also that college education, healthcare, birth control, abortion pills and “recreational” marijuana are constitutional rights.

The diabolical genius of such a plan is that you make people think they have rights contrived through the leviathan State thereby conflating rights with wants. These Machiavellian tactics harkened back to Thomas Hobbes in whose magnum opus Leviathan (1651) wrote, “Good simply means getting whatever you want, and evil is anything that might stand in your way of getting it.” Thus, it was Hobbes who over 460 years ago first elevated our wants, desires, needs and lusts to the heavenly dominion of Rights which has contributed to our present constitutional crisis and the deconstruction of societal morality.

Did America’s Founders Intend to Create a Separation between Church and State?

DR. ARNN: “America’s founders believed in the separation of church and state, in that the country was not to have an official religion or an official sect, but that did not mean that government was to be hostile to religion, or even indifferent to religion, as many today argue. In fact, America’s founding document the Declaration of Independence includes both a reference to God as the author of the laws of nature and a confident assertion that human beings are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Far from being hostile or indifferent to religion, America’s founders understood the theology of the declaration to be an essential part of the education of citizens.”

If there was an original separation of church and state then that doctrine would be self-evident in the writings of the constitutional framers, right? To address the question of what writers and writings most influenced the constitutional Framers University of Houston political science professors Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman in 1985 published a monumental study that took them 10 years to bring together. They compiled over 15,000 items, including 2,200 books, newspaper articles, pamphlets and monographs of political materials written between 1760-1805, and discovered that the three writers the constitutional framers quoted from the most often were: 1) Barron Montesquieu (1689-1755), 2) William Blackstone (1723-80), and 3) John Locke (1632-1704). Significantly, all of these men were strong adherents of natural law and natural rights philosophy, which followed an inseparable connection between law and morality. The Bible was referenced in fully 96 percent of all political writings of this period.

Why Does the Constitution Limit Government?

DR. ARNN: “James Madison writes in Federalist 51 that “Men are not angels; their passions and self-interest often get the better of their reason and sense of justice, so we need government in order to protect our rights against those who would take them away”. “But for the same reason,” Madison writes, “government must be limited because people in government have passions and interests too.” Many Americans today forget this, supposing that we can do away with constitutional limits on government, supposing that the unelected bureaucrats being put in charge of our health care, for example, will rule as if they are angels. If Madison was correct about human nature this is foolish and dangerous.”

Human nature, an indispensable part of humanity which science, economics, business and politics knows little about, was well-understood by the constitutional framers like Madison who along with Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Franklin and others certainly realized that natural law and natural rights were derivative of God, morality and the Bible. Human nature, therefore is concurrently humanity’s best character trait and our most intractable vice which Jefferson said to “bind him [politicians, judges] down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” This is a central reason why the framers borrowed the separation of powers doctrine from Montesquieu by not investing absolute power in any one branch of government but spreading those godlike powers to three branches of government—legislative, executive and the judiciary.

Tragically, since the advent of the Imperial Presidency (1901– present) progressive presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama have increasingly conflated the three branches of government into one which inexorably leads to this existential socialism, fascism and tyranny.

Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord

nativity-sceneThe gifts have been exchanged and opened. Santa has returned to the North Pole to begin work for next Christmas Eve. The turkeys or Christmas hams are roasting in ovens across this great country. The commercial side of Christmas is over for another year.

Now we honor the true and real purpose of our Christmas celebration: the birth of our Savior, Christ the Lord.

From Luke 2:

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Behold! Today we celebrate and honor the birth of a life that gives eternal life to every sinner willing to humble themselves and repent their sins before the Lord. God is indiscriminate. Each and every one of us is given a choice: accept Christ into our hearts as our Lord and Savior, or not.

No other life has had or will have such a profound impact on earth as Jesus:

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in still another village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was 30. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a house. He didn’t go to college. He never traveled more than 200 miles from the place He was born. He did none of the things one usually associates with greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. He was only 33 when public opinion turned against Him. His friends deserted Him. He was turned over to His enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. When He was dying, His executioners gambled for His clothing, the only property He had.. . . on earth. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race, the leader of mankind’s progress. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on earth as much as that One Solitary Life. Do You Know Who He Is?

Merry Christmas from everyone here at The Conservative Beacon!

Frank Capra’s Greatest Gift

itsawonderfullifeMany of us will gather our families around the TV this Christmas Eve to watch Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life. The story behind the movie is well known, so I won’t bore you with reiterations of such.

Capra based It’s A Wonderful Life on the short Christmas story, The Greatest Gift, by Philip Van Doren Stern. His adaption on the big screen of the ultimately undeniable importance and fragility of each and every one of our lives has become a gift to us in and of itself. But Capra’s real gift to us was his philosophy as a filmmaker.

He describes it best in his autobiography The Name Above The Title:

My films will explore the heart not with logic, but with compassion. “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of,” wrote Blaise Pascal, the French Scientist. I will deal with the little man’s doubts, his curses, his loss of faith in himself, in his neighbor, in his God. And I will show the overcoming of doubts, the courageous renewal of faith, and the final conviction that of himself he can and must survive and remain free. For the only true revolutionary is the free man, and revolution is liberty, and liberty is revolution. And I will remind the little man that his mission on earth is to advance spiritually , that to surrender his free spirit to Big Brother’s concentration camp is a step backward to the jungle.

As a filmmaker I will champion man–plead his causes, protest the degradation of his dignity, spirit, divinity. Because be he saint or sinner, rich or poor, coward or hero , black or white, genius or retarded, basket case or pole vaulter; be he lame, halt, or blind, each is of a piece with his Maker. Pat the head of a child, you are patting God; slay a man, you are murdering Goodness.

And finally, my films must let every man, woman, and child know that God loves them, and that I love them, and that peace and salvation will become a reality only when they all learn to love each other.

That’s exactly how it should be. Unfortunately today’s so-called filmmakers and producers like Oliver Stone, Quentin Tarantino, Harvey Weinstein, etc. don’t share this philosophy. Theirs is one that glorifies and romanticizes the villain, seeks to humanize and sympathize with the enemy, denigrate Christianity and Judaism, rebuke the American Dream, and devalue and destroy the greatest gift: life.

As you watch It’s A Wonderful Life this Christmas season, please remember the philosophy behind the making of the movie and understand the dire need to re-populate Hollywood and the entertainment industry with modern versions of Frank Capra-esque entertainers.

A Bonhoeffer Christmas

advent

It’s time now for something to be done. He who has the courage to act must know that he will probably go down in German history as a traitor. But if he fails to act, he will be a traitor before his own conscience.

~Col. Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg (Operation Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler)

Prologue

For eighteen months during 1943-44, Bonhoeffer was imprisoned at Tegel military prison awaiting trial for his part in a conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler and thus save millions of lives by bringing an early end to World War II (“Operation Valkyrie”). A Saint to the bitter end there he continued his evangelism among his fellow prisoners and even with the Nazi guards some of whom were compassionate and aided Bonhoeffer to smuggle his letters out of prison to his student and best friend, Eberhard Bethge, family and to others, and these uncensored letters were posthumously published in volumes 7 and 8 Bonhoeffer Works: Letters and Papers from Prison. Corporal Knobloch, a Nazi guard even offered to help him escape from the prison and “disappear” with him, and plans were to accomplish this end. However, Bonhoeffer ultimately rejected escape fearing Nazi revenge against his family, particularly his brother Klaus and brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi who were also imprisoned.

Due to the failure of the July 20th Plot to kill Hitler in 1944 (“Operation Valkyrie”) and the location in September 1944 of clandestine Abwehr documents connecting to the conspiracy, Bonhoeffer’s association with the conspirators was exposed. For the next year and a half he was relocated from the Gestapo’s high-security military prison, Tegel Prison in Berlin. In February 1945, he was secretly moved to Buchenwald concentration camp, and finally to Flossenbürg concentration camp where at Hitler’s command he was sentenced to death on February 8 and executed by his Nazi guards by hanging on February 9, 1945.

Ethics—Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, (Volume 6)

The great German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought of his book Ethics as his magnum opus, the culmination of his theological and personal odyssey, yet, like the Apostle Paul he wrote much of it while he sat in his cold, foreboding cell at Tegel prison where deep down in his heart he had to realize that he would never finish this magisterial opus. Yet, this book can be seen, along with his Discipleship and Life Together, as essentially complete, and as certainly important in forming an extensive understanding of Bonhoeffer, who willingly gave his life as a martyr and with his fellow conspirators’ heroic efforts gallantly fought against the evils of Hitler and the Nazis.

Bonhoeffer’s Ethics opens with these lines: “Those who wish even to focus on the problem of a Christian ethic are faced with an outrageous demand—from the outset they must give up, as inappropriate to this topic, the very two questions that led them to deal with the ethical problem: ‘How can I be good?’ and ‘How can I do something good?’ Instead they must ask the wholly other, completely different question: ‘What is the will of God?’”

For Bonhoeffer, there is no reality separate from God and no goodness apart from Him. No false dualisms like sacred and secular, natural law and positive law. No separation of church and state. Such sophistic pretense is to invoke his spiritual mentor Karl Barth’s judgmental notion of religion—a structure to pervert God altogether and create a failed humanistic path to heaven alone. Bonhoeffer called it “Barth’s Tower of Babel,” and “the fig leaf that tries to fool God, but fails.”

“All things appear as in a distorted mirror,” Bonhoeffer wrote, if they are not seen and recognized in God.” So God is not merely a religious concept or religious reality. God is the one who invented reality, and reality can only be seen truly as it exists in God. Nothing that exists is outside his realm. So there are no ethics apart from doing God’s will, and God—indeed, Jesus Christ—is the nonnegotiable given in the equation of human ethics.”

Bonhoeffer continued this transcendent theme on the mystery of singular obedience to God through Christ as the only logical reality in this life or the life to come in paradise:

In Jesus Christ the reality of God has entered into the reality of this world. The place where the questions about the reality of God and about the reality of the world are answered at the same time is characterized solely by the name: Jesus Christ. God and the world are enclosed in this name . . . we cannot speak rightly of either God or the world without speaking of Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality that ignore Jesus Christ are abstractions.

As long as Christ and the world are conceived as two realms bumping against and repelling each other, we are left with only the following options. Giving up on reality as a whole—either we place ourselves in one of the two realms, wanting Christ without the world or the world without Christ—and in both cases we deceive ourselves. . . There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is God’s reality revealed in Christ in the reality of the world. Partaking in Christ, we stand at the same time in the reality of God and in the reality of the world. The reality of Christ embraces the reality of the world in itself. The world has no reality of its own independent of God’s revelation in Christ. . . . [T]he theme of two realms, which has dominated the history of the church again and again, is foreign to the New Testament.

Bonhoeffer dramatically expressed this singular reality to God in life and in death. Regarding his death Eberhard Bethge, a student of Bonhoeffer, writes of a man who saw the execution: “I saw Pastor Bonhoeffer… kneeling on the floor praying fervently to God. I was most deeply moved by the way this lovable man prayed, so devout and so certain that God heard his prayer. At the place of execution, he again said a short prayer and then climbed the few steps to the gallows, brave and composed. His death ensued after a few seconds. In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God.”

Epilogue

Would to God that during this Advent season of 2013 that America; that this grotesque, insane, evil world would just for a moment STOP . . . and embrace the selfless martyrdom of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer for he said that, “Advent creates people, new people.” Bonhoeffer’s life is the very essence of sacrifice and thus the real meaning and reality of Christmas—not Santa Claus, reindeer, snowmen, Christmas trees and not material gifts, but the one Holy gift from God, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ who 2,000 years made the ultimate sacrifice and gave His life that we might have a right to the Tree of Life. Saint John wrote of our Lord and how he would be received by us—“He [Christ] was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew him not.” Yet, through Bonhoeffer’s sacrifice we can know the Lord this Advent season.

…A Bonhoeffer Christmas.

Mandela the Marxist

mandela

The cause of communism is the greatest cause in the history of mankind!
At the end of the day… violence was the only weapon that would destroy apartheid.

~ Nelson Mandela, 1959 (He never renounced violence)

The globalist, progressive propaganda campaign deifying South Africa’s Marxist revolutionary and former president Nelson Mandela should be galling and disgusting to all people of good will who love truth, real history and hate lies. The Big Lie is that yes, Mandela experimented with communism in the 1940s early in his political career at the dawn of the black struggle against the racist White Afrikaners and that he and his organization, ANC (African National Congress) only turned to armed struggle in the early 1960s once he saw the futility of overturning capitalism while seeking to establish Black majority rule in South Africa. The myth continues that during his 27 years as a political prisoner at Robben Island Mandela learned to embrace “democracy” and thus overtime he totally renounced communism and political violence when he was let out of prison in February 1990. These popular sentiments are all lies and Marxist-sympathizing propaganda shamefully disseminated by socialists worldwide to this day.

Here’s the truth about Mandela: On January 31, 1985 the State President of South Africa, P.W. Botha speaking in parliament, offered Mandela his freedom on one condition: that he “unconditionally reject violence as a political weapon.” This offer of freedom was repeatedly made to Mandela during his 27 years in prison at Robben Island where all of his co-conspirators accepted a rejection political violence and were eventually set free. Mandela, the so called “man of peace” repeatedly rejected all offers of freedom. Why? Because unlike the phony, global adulation of this man Mandela and the ANC were not only brutal murderers of children and innocent civilians, but look at who attended his funeral celebration earlier this week—a veritable rogue’s gallery of every tyrannical, communist, Islamic and Marxist dictator on the planet with the socialist Obama leading this pack wolves at Mandela’s memorial service. Indeed, birds of a feather do flock together.

According to the original 1963 and 1964 indictments of the Rivonia Trial: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, Mandela was not charged for being a political dissident but for four acts of TERRORISM. Specifically, he was himself originally incarcerated, for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage, conspiracy to overthrow the government and treason. He and his fellow terrorist conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades. Mandela lied when he confessed that the ANC only adopted violence as a means of protest “when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us.”

Mandela was inspired by Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution, in 1961 Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”, abbreviated MK) with Sisulu and Joe Slovo, a notorious communist. Mandela became chairman of the militant group while embracing ideas from communist literature on guerilla warfare by Mao and Che Guevara. Soon after ANC leader Luthuli was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, MK publicly announced its existence with 57 bombings on Dingane’s Day (16 December) 1961, followed by further attacks on New Year’s Eve.

Politically Mandela was a democrat socialist and a Marxist who was openly opposed to capitalism, private land-ownership and the power of big money. Influenced by Marxism during the revolution Mandela advocated scientific socialism, although he denied being a communist during the Treason Trial, yet historically it has been proven Mandela had been a communist since at least the 1950s. Despite his Marxist politics, Mandela nationalized nothing during his presidency (1994-99), fearing that this would scare away foreign investors. This decision was in part also influenced by the fall of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the early 1990s.

Mandela’s second wife, Winnie Mandela (married, 1958-96) was a close confidant; an unindicted co-conspirator to ANC’s human rights atrocities, who has been equally flattering in her praise of communism and violence. In 1986 she was reported in Moscow’s communist party newspaper Pravda as saying: “The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations. We have learned and are continuing to learn resilience and bravery from the Soviet people, who are an example to us in our struggle for freedom, a model of loyalty to internationalist duty. In Soviet Russia, genuine power of the people has been transformed from dreams into reality. The land of the Soviets is the genuine friend and ally of all peoples fighting against the dark forces of world reaction.”

And again at Munsieville, on April 13, 1986, Winnie said: “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.” Referring here to her own specific brand of socialist, political terrorism whereby anyone who opposed her and Mandela’s ANC would be bound hand and foot and then burned to death by means of a tire filled with gasoline being placed around the neck of their victims and set on fire. A truly gruesome and tortuous death.

Has Mandela since changed his tune in any way since being freed from prison in Feb. 11, 1990? Absolutely not. Leaving Victor Verster Prison on 11 February 1990, Mandela held Winnie’s hand in front of amassed crowds and press; the event was broadcast live across the world. Driven to Cape Town’s City Hall through crowds, he gave a speech declaring his commitment to peace and reconciliation with the white minority, but made it clear that the ANC’s armed struggle was not over, and would continue as “a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid.”

Today it is hard for even the most fanatical Mandela apologist to ignore the increasingly definitive evidence of his key role in the international communist conspiracy which has been filtering out for decades. 30 years ago stalwart, conservative leaders like President Ronald Reagan, PM Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II all spoke out against Mandela and his communist, terrorist tactics in fighting apartheid. Early on, for example, there was a hand-written document by Mandela, dubbed “How to Be a Good Communist,” that was referenced during his Rivonia Trial prosecution for sabotage, subversion, and terror. “We communist party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history,” Mandela declared in the essay and further wrote that, “The people of South Africa, led by the South African Communist Party, will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism.”

In Dec. 2013 The New American reported evidence exposed by British historian Stephen Ellis revealing Mandela’s repeated denials of Communist Party participation as a fraud, while using communist disinformation tactics to downplay the consequences of those evil associations. Ellis’s current research, based on ANC Party minutes and more, established not only that the ANC leader was a member of the South African Communist Party (SACP), but also that he was indeed a senior official working with the party’s Central Committee throughout his 27 year prison term.

Despite numerous articles by The New American which has comprehensively documented over a period of decades, despite Mandela’s communist and terrorist atrocities against innocent civilians, Western governments and power brokers, together with the world’s most cold-blooded communist dictators, all worked together in creating Mandela the “Man of Peace” myth bringing him to power in May 1994. Yet, socialists cannot ignore the irrefutable truth exposed that Mandela was a socialist and Marxist even as South Africa continues its 20 year descent into perpetual chaos, genocide, and existential poverty, it is doubtful that regrets will be made—South African cities like Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Johannesburg currently number as the murder, HIV/AIDS and child rape capitals of the world.

Although Democrat Socialists love Machiavellian tactics, yet Machiavelli was dead wrong—the end does not, and will never, justify the means, despite the excessive adulation and crocodile tears communists and Mandela apologists may express. Mandela is neither remarkable nor unique. He is a classical Soviet- trained, Soviet-backed Marxist leader and an admitted terrorist revolutionary in the mode of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, yet tragically Mandela’s bombing campaigns against innocent civilians from the 1940-90s have faded from memory due to this existential Cult of Mandela.

Political science professor Dr. R.J. Rummel has written that in the 20th century alone communism (including Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, socialism) was responsible for the evil genocide (e.g., democide) of over 260 million people.

Barack ‘Adam Smith’ Obama?

obamaadamsmith

Statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.

~President Barack Obama

To the 65,910,437 people who voted for Obama in Nov. 2012 I ask: Based on the above statement where Obama gleefully cites “statistics” showing America’s level of “income inequality” to socialist hellholes like Jamaica and Argentina, I ask: Who has been president of the United States over the past 6 years?! And who was elected to correct the “worst economy since the Great Depression” which is how Obama repeatedly mischaracterized the recession of 2007 when George W. Bush was in office?

Speaking at a forum earlier this week sponsored by the leftist think tank Center for American Progress, Obama promised to dedicate the remainder of his presidency on shrinking the income and opportunity gap between rich and poor, increasing the minimum wage, increasing the funding for education from pre-school through college, and a defense of welfare and entitlement programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, while standing strong with Marxist labor unions and conflating economics to promote the radical LGBT agenda in every part of society.

“It’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office,” Obama said to loud applause.

Don’t be fooled: Democrat socialists love socialism. A major argument from Karl Marx’s 1848 “Communist Manifesto” is this famous statement: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” which actually came from his 1875 essay, “Critique of the Gotha Program.” Every economic policy of Obama during his almost 6 years is based on this aphorism and another radical socialist statement which last year he said off prompter, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Every statement Obama says on economics is taken chapter and verse from his intellectual mentor Saul Alinsky, the father of Marxist community organizing and his vile 1971 biopic he personally dedicated to Satan titled, “Rules for Radicals.” Rule 13 says: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. The target for Obama and the Democrat Socialist Party attacks has always been capitalism and Christianity and the Progressive Revolution is their existential means “to fundamentally transform [i.e., deconstruct] America.”

Obama is back on his Marxist Propaganda Tour 2013 to make you think that Obamacare will still allow you to keep your own doctor and keep your own healthcare plan despite the fact that the Obama administration has caused already tens of millions of Americans to lose their healthcare insurance on purpose to force them into a one-size-fits-all Marxist healthcare system where rationing and mass deaths are inevitable.

Yet Obama’s arrogance and narcissism always pushes him further into the abyss.

In that speech he spit in the face of history to imply that Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723-90) the father of economics and free market capitalism as a supporter of his socialist healthcare plan. He gets away with this insanity because truth doesn’t matter to his political base. To Obama’s LIVs (low information voters) they are true Kool-Aid drinkers who will believe all the lies and disinformation that comes out of his mouth no matter what because the end result is power and control over the masses.

Regarding Adam Smith, Obama had the temerity to state: “This shouldn’t be an ideological question. You know, it was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, ‘they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves, to be well-fed, clothed and lodged,’” he continued. “For those of you who don’t speak old English, let me translate: It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living.”

I’m certain that 95-99% of Obama’s audience are clueless to who Adam Smith was and just as Marx, Charles Darwin and Nietzsche is to the Left—to dethrone God, deconstruct Christianity and to destroy capitalism, Adam Smith, the father of economics and free-market capitalism is to conservatives on the Right—he is our philosophical progenitor. Smith’s famous treatise, “Wealth of Nations” was even published in that critical year of 1776 where Smith liberated economics from monarchical cronyism and slavish mercantilism while America concurrently declared our liberty from the tyranny of King George III and British colonial rule.

“It means coming together around a responsible budget one that grows our economy faster right now and shrinks our long-term deficits, one that unwinds the harmful sequester cuts that haven’t made a lot of sense and then frees up resources to invest in things like the scientific research that’s always unleashed new innovation and new industries,” Obama said. “When it comes to our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago. A relentlessly growing deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit.”

Republicans contend that Obama shouldn’t shirk responsibility for the difficult economic conditions, the majority of which worsened during his watch.

Citing U.S. Census Bureau data, the Republican National Committee pointed out that since Obama took office, poverty has increased from 13.2 percent to 15 percent, with 6.7 million Americans having fallen into poverty under a week job market during the Obama administration. As of 2012, there was a total of 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, according to the Census Bureau information.

Lincoln said that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Yes We Can! Because the 65,910,437 people who voted for Obama in 2012 willingly did so after they witnessed the cataclysmic deconstruction of America and all of her sacred institutions, policies and economy during his first term (2009-12). I believe the collective dementia and miseducation of America is so comprehensive that they would vote Obama into office for a third term in 2016 if they could.

Adam Smith was a capitalist who famously said, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In other words businesses don’t exist to give you a job or pay your healthcare insurance. That’s your business. The free market and businesses exist to promote the moral self-interest of the creative, innovative, the smart and hardworking who made America the greatest country in the history of the world, not to subsidize blood sucking leeches draining the resources from the diligent citizens brokered by Leviathan government and their overseers we call “politicians” and “activist judges” who hate the U.S. Constitution.

In fact in an article written in The Blaze, Pastor Chad Hovind traced modern economics and capitalism beyond Adam Smith back to God and the 10 Commandments:

Capitalism is not just a good idea, its God’s idea built on timeless biblical principles including property rights, freedom, incentive, and the rule of law. These Godonomic [sic] principles saved the pilgrims from the spiral of starvation caused by practicing socialism.

When Gov. William Bradford, of the Plymouth Colony, switched to a free enterprise system that he extracted from the Scriptures, productivity and generosity were released. Free enterprise resulted in the bounty of our first Thanksgiving. (If a group of zealot Puritans can’t make socialism work, why would we think that Washington D.C. could make it work?)

If you really, really want to understand the mind of the Democrat Socialist Party, progressive voters and the anti-capitalist, anti-Christian policies they have promoted with reckless abandon since the 1850s, simply examine the judicial opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney whose infamous holding in the Dred Scot case (1857) affirmed slavery in the most narcissist and vile terms that, “…the negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect.” Allow me to update Chief Justice Taney’s racist words to represent the core and credo of the modern Democrat Party today— On Economics in Detroit: Bankrupt Detroit have no rights that corrupt union cronyism, NEA miseducation, welfare addiction, ghetto glorification, and Democrat Socialist Party slavery is bound to respect; On the Sanctity of Life: Pre-born babies have no rights that a woman, Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Socialist Party is bound to respect; On Capitalism: American taxpayers and American businesses have no constitutional rights that the IRS, EPA fascism and the Democrat Socialist Party is bound to respect.

To Obama: President Obama, I knew Adam Smith. Adam Smith was a friend of all my intellectual mentors and sir, you are no Adam Smith!

Cognitive dissonance and the political Left

cognitivedissonance

…[T]those who oppose ENDA [Employee Non-discrimination Act] for religious reasons, is it not possible to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but also believe that LGBTs are entitled to fair treatment in the workplace?

~Professor Eric Martinez, National Paralegal College

30 years ago I used to be a liberal Democrat until I used critical thinking techniques to convert to conservatism during my senior year in college. When I think back why I ever voted Democrat my only logical answer is tradition. My parents always voted for the Democrat Socialist Party (although my maternal grandfather and uncle was named after Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican). I grew up believing without question the racialist propaganda from the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People), Jesse Jackson, the Congressional Caucasian Caucus (aka Congressional Black Caucus). I even remember watching Walter Cronkite, the quintessential leftist company man, on CBS whom America believed in his evening “news” broadcast with such unwavering faith it was like Marx (I mean Moses) coming down from Mt. Sinai with the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

Eventually I got tired of listening to the Marxist propaganda from my college professors and parroted by my fellow college students and began reading and researching on my own. Thus critical thinking was birthed in my soul and using these techniques I soon deduced that the political Left has a serious case of cognitive dissonance which is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.

Professor Eric Baime, my colleague at the National Paralegal College where I’ve taught at for the past several years, in my opinion is the quintessential Leftist academic. I like Eric. He’s a true believer in liberalism, progressivism, and socialism presenting Leviathan government remedies for every societal problem. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him a Marxist, but the doctrinaire leftist ideas he frequently expresses on our NPC Facebook page has him right at the door. Furthermore, he seems incapable of resolving the obvious paradox that increasing numbers of Americans are discovering about Barack Obama—that the majority of American people voted twice for a president that is a pathological liar.

Here is how the cognitive dissonance of the Left is manifested regarding Obama messiah:

  1. Barack Obama is a historical, transformative and revolutionary political figure therefore to speak against him or his policies means I’m a racist or a right-wing fanatic; and
  2. Barack Obama is a bad or deceitful person who is spying on me and those I care about while stealing my doctor and healthcare plan through Obamacare.

Below are a couple of recent Facebook postings of Professor Baime and the dialogue it initiated demonstrating cognitive dissonance on the Left:

Professor Eric Baime: Do you think our Tea Party Congress will pass ENDA, ending discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, like the Senate did?

Professor Ellis Washington: Eric, sometimes I don’t know if you are a true believer of everything Leftist, or you just love making outrageous comments to foster passionate responses? I’m prone to think it’s both, but more of the former rather than the latter. The premise of your question (as with virtually all Leftists’ questions) is spurious, sophistic and often anti-intellectual (anti-logical). Same-sex marriage has no constitutional legitimacy whatsoever.  If it did, why didn’t the Framers make it plain? And please don’t insult the historical struggle of Black Americans for equal rights by conflating Black civil rights with the radical LGBT agenda… just don’t do it!

Professor Eric Baime: Why can’t I do that, Ellis, and what about the struggles of women for equality and other minority groups, or are they “off limits” as well? Likewise, explain to me what there is inherently about LGBTs that prevent them from enjoying the same rights against discrimination as the rest of us.

Renée Hendrix (NPC student): Ellis, I notice a marked tendency in your posts to make assumptions and ascribe names or agendas to those who post. It appears to me that Eric has applied critical analysis to a relevant issue. His proposal is based on reason. I also challenge you, Ellis, to answer this question: why do you believe that, unlike blacks, gay people are not entitled to civil rights?

Professor Ellis Washington: Renee: First, if I have made “assumptions and ascribe names or agendas to those who post,” I ask, is this unlawful or cruel in this public forum? If so, name my improprieties or untruths written against Prof. Baime or anyone else in this forum. Secondly, I cautioned Renee to not use innuendo, state your arguments to me clearly using quotes of my own words. (Here, Renee couldn’t defend her initial attacks against me: that I make baseless assumptions about others).

Now to your question, Ms. Hendrix: “Why do I believe that, unlike blacks, gay people are not entitled to civil rights?” First, I do not believe that gay people are entitled to civil rights to the same degree of Blacks. Their historical struggle in America is totally different than the slavery and inhumane racial discrimination suffered by Black people in America to this day. Gays should not be entitled to special rights above those of other American citizens under the rule of law and under a reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, unless you first separate law from morality and separate church from state.

Historically, Black people in America were subjected to hundreds of years of forced slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after that. Our second class citizenship in America did not end with a perfunctory handshake and smile by LBJ and MLK at the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Was all of the marching, the vicious dogs, the lynchings, the water hoses, tear gas, the separate and inferior housing, restaurants, hotels and schools, the economic discrimination and racial hatred, the daily tortures perpetrated against Blacks by White people and fought against by MLK and the civil rights movement done so that so called “gays” can have the freedom to practice their unorthodox sexual behavior?

Did MLK march and give his life for gay rights? Absolutely Not! If you think that MLK did Renee you are in great need of relearning America’s real history, not the revisionist propaganda you’ve apparently been taught in the public schools. To equate Black civil rights to gay rights or the LGBT agenda is to belittle the struggles, the life, the deaths and the moral sanctity of all of those Blacks who sacrificed their lives over hundreds of years for us to one day be included in the “We” of We the People of the U.S Constitution based on God, Natural Law, liberty and truth.

Professor Eric Martinez: Performance is what employers should focus on. What people do on their own time should generally be their own business. As for those who oppose for religious reasons, is it not possible to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but also believe that LGBTs are entitled to fair treatment in the workplace?

Professor Ellis Washington: In a state of cognitive dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc. which seemed to be absent here since Professor Baime answered Professor Martinez’s remark with “good point, Eric.” Therefore, I will hope against Hope that perhaps Professor Baime for the briefest moment was able to suspend his cognitive dissonance to allow a measure of intellectual clarity and critical thinking (which is the antithesis of cognitive dissonance) to just consider the reasoned views of others outside his existential progressive penitentiary.

America, please join me in trying to cure the cognitive dissonance of the Democrat Socialist Party and their tens of millions of voters that has given us such popular cognitive dissonant policies like FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Obama’s ENDA and Obamacare—anti-American, anti-constitutional policies that have done so much to pervert, deconstruct and destroy the original intent of the constitutional Framers, Natural Law, liberty, truth and our Judeo-Christian traditions of this once great country.

Moral clarity is always greater than cognitive dissonance.