Posted on 10/14/2014 2:21:31 AM PDT by servo1969
Truly, as you say, the culture division is what ails America and presents us with the challenges we currently face.
I strongly believe the liberals set out long ago to capture the publicly funded education system and patiently use it to change the culture to a liberal vision.
The children have been taught for generations to feel more than to think. And the latest batch of graduates have a sense of moral superiority in defiance of God like a wicked swarm of hive mind insects.
So we must think, we must turnout and if necessary, we must hold our noses to vote against all the Democrat incumbents at all levels. And we must do it again in two years and again and again until we've accumulated enough power to wrest the liberal stranglehold on the education system and get the kids back to being independent, stand on your own two feet, thinkers!
Nevertheless, in all things may God's will be done.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
The “reproach” can take many avenues of action.
true dat!
And I strongly agree with your assessment, dearest sister in Christ!
Yet your post set me off onto so many different areas of investigation, which entailed finding answers to such questions as: What is a "Liberal"?; What is a "Democrat?"; and finally, what is a "Progressive?"
Here are the best definitions that I can come up with, respecting these three terms:
(1) "Liberal" refers to a great political tradition spawned by the experience of British citizens asserting their "sovereign natural rights" against the powers of an unaccountable (to them) Monarchy. The great political philosopher John Locke proclaimed that State power concentrated in a single quasi-divine figure whose mandate derived from the ancient theory of the "divine right of kings" was an illegitimate power — because it did not recognize the fundamental, natural rights possessed by natural human beings — the divinely-endowed natural powers of life, liberty, and the acquisition/conservation of personal property against any encroachment/usurpation by the State. Liberalism makes the people the sovereign of the State. The main value protected under the Liberal understanding is the protection and preservation of the natural, "God-given" powers of the human person against abuses arising from the actions of an abstract State that sees itself as unaccountable to these self-same people — the We the People who chartered the entire American Experiment, as primordially expressed in the U.S. Constitution — in contrast to the usurper's better idea, which conduces to some kind of human utopia to be "certainly" instantiated at some future, yet uncertain, date.Boiling it all down, what Hegel did was to destroy the relevance of any former idea of the "ground of being" of human existence — the key concept of both classical and Christian philosophy/theology — exterior to, but required for, intelligent human understanding and control of truthful human action.
(2) Democracy, on the other hand, when you boil it all down, is nothing more than a system describing how the electoral franchise is to be executed. It is all about "equal voting." The Dems are really, really keen on that, nowadays.
(3) Progressivism is a German import into American culture. It comes down to us, in contemporary times, from the German Transcendental Idealist School philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. (See his Phänomenologie des Geistes [1807] for relevant details.)
Of all people, Hegel was a master student of Classical and pre-Socratic philosophy, not to mention of the specifically Christian development therefrom. I gather he may have self-identified as a Lutheran at a some point in his career.
But what he actually accomplished, by the communications of his writings, was to assert that the idea of God is not at the root of all material and immaterial things. Rather only unaided human reason and will can govern human thinking, and thus define and account for what happens NEXT in space and time — to human beings and to the natural environment of which humans are both parts and participants.
In short, God is not only unnecessary, but is positively a stumbling block to men who want to be "as Gods" themselves. Thus, the Lord can be dispensed with, in favor of human "expertise." That was the major lesson that Hegel wanted to teach, if only because he presented himself as the New Candidate for the eternal Godhead....
Anyhoot, the Progressives have a very ambitious schedule to implement. "Ambitious," because it flies in the face of actual, cumulative historical human experience in so very many ways.
It should come as no surprise that the Democrat Party would be the party especially vulnerable to "progressive" ideas. What is surprising to me somehow, is that the Democrat Party is the first VICTIM of Progressive ideology. And they probably can't even figure out how that even happened in the fisrt place. So go figure.
Just look at the history of the Democrat Party: After the Civil War, they resisted tooth and nail any constitutional amendment that would recognize the basic humanity, sovereignty, and free status of persons formerly held in a condition of slavery, of bondage. I am here speaking of the Amendments 13 through 15.
Amendment 13 freed the slaves. Amendment 14 secured their civil rights as Americans equal under the laws of the United States of America (and penalizing, in its following Sections 2–4, any attempt by local jurisdictions to get around the full implication of Section 1). Amendment 15 guaranteed their right to vote.
As mentioned already, the Democrat party resisted such innovations tooth-and-nail. But when they were duly ratified by the People of the Several States, thus to became constitutional law, the Democrat Party continued to resist, adopting such postures/strategies as Jim Crow, "separate but equal" jurisprudence, and even the mobilization of the Ku Klux Klan in order to try to maintain unjust domination over an already thoroughly lost cause.
One hundred years after the ratification of these overwhelmingly Republican-championed amendments, the state of (so-called) African Americans had improved enormously. Notwithstanding the "separate but equal," Jim Crow legal ambiance that obtained during these years, the strengths of Black Americans came straight out of the achievements of the corresponding strengths of their own natural community, which placed the premium on such things as: Strong family formation; strong ties to their spiritual moorings, that is, to the Black Church (the foundation of so very much good in American society, from the basics of social order to the beauties of modern American music).
Given such foundations — freedom and the Holy Bible (which was their main instrument of education/acculturation at a time when Blacks were forbidden all means of formal education, under criminal penalty) — they were bound to prosper, even if they were not getting any "help" from the larger secular "society."
To wrap up this point, there is no historical evidence whatsover of sympathy for the "problems" of Black Americans emanating from the Democrat Party until LJB came along. And he was a political cynic, were you to ask me.
LBJ evidently had no love of Blacks, and was not inclined to extend much sympathy to them in their struggle to fully assimilate into American society. It was only when he recognized that they were actually bona-fide VOTERS — meaning to a political cynic like himself that they could be "bought" — that he started paying attention to their "concerns."
Trillions of misspent tax-payer dollars later, not much social progress has been made. Nor can progress be made, if the sitting president of the United States finds his best recourse is to be in the business of dividing the races....
To me, we Americans are One People, irrespective of the race we were born into.
Will leave it there for now.
Certainly, dearest sister in Christ, "in all things may God's will be done."
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Anyhoot, the Progressives have a very ambitious schedule to implement. "Ambitious," because it flies in the face of actual, cumulative historical human experience in so very many ways.
I just subscribe today to conservative review which ranks candidates according to their conservative credentials.
Mike Enzi receives a “C” grade of 76. He is described as follows:
He has consistently voted with conservatives on social issues, guns, education, immigration, bailouts, and national defense. However, he has rarely led or served as an effective voice on any conservative issue. To the extent that he has publicly led on an issue, it unfortunately has been to promote the internet sales tax. As the Ranking Member of the Finance panel overseeing taxation, Enzi has generally been more receptive to tax increases and raising revenue than other Republicans. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/300041#1
In 2005, Enzi became the Ranking Member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) opposite Chairman Ted Kennedy. Conservatives felt Enzi would be a good counter balance to Kennedy’s liberal agenda, yet Enzi and his staff began almost immediately working with the “liberal lion” at the expense of conservative reform in education, pensions and entitlements. Unfortunately, during his stint on the HELP Committee, Enzi has consistently supported liberal federal involvement in education. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/300041#1
Senator Enzi contributed $10,000 to Thad Cochran’s Senate primary in 2014[6] liberal position
Many of Enzi’s conservative votes occurred during 2013 when he racked up a perfect record under pressure from a temporary primary challenge from Liz Cheney
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/300041#1
In October 2011, Enzi co-sponsored a bill with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to rewrite No Child Left Behind. The bill was criticized by conservatives for making the law even worse with new federal mandates and interventions.[2] - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/300041#1
All of these criticisms of Enzi’s conservatism echo what I had said on these threads which I intuited but now find documented. The concluding paragraph makes me feel that Eric Erickson has been reading my mail:
“Mike Enzi is a fine Republican, but he is not putting points on the board for conservatives. We need more like Ted Cruz and less like . . . well . . . Mike Enzi.” – Erick Erickson[1] - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/300041#1
So you admit to having no principles?
The dividing line for whether a candidate is acceptably conservative is set by the conscience of the voter. There are many who have come to realize that a simple R after the name is not a reliable enough indicator of conservatism.
You appear to wish that such voters not have the free will to demand an acceptable level of conservatism in their candidates.
I cannot understand that position as a conservative one, no matter your explanation for it.
If Enzi is “C”, I guess Mark Kirk must be “Q” huh? Enzi is a solid A-/B+ conservative.
Seriously, Erick Erickson can kiss my @$$. Anyone who targeted the SEVENTH most “liberal” Republican up for reelection, aiming to replace him with someone MUCH WORSE ie Liz Cheney, is a FOOL. And meanwhile Erick, Marky Mark Levin, and crew, let #1 (Collins) off the hook completely and ignored a VIABLE, EXCELLENT challenger to #2 (Alexander) until it was too late. Fools. And don’t even get me started on the campaign to replace the EIGHTH “worst” guy up (Roberts) with some random loser. Fools.
And screw repealing the 17th amendment, give the job of selecting a Senator to a bunch of politicians? Are you friggin kidding me? That is insanity.
Ulysses S. Grant
Yeah, if we permitted conservative state legislatures to elect senators we would probably end up with a C rated weak sister posing as a real conservative from one of the safest, most conservative states in the union who likes to get into bed with Ted Kennedy and sellout conservatism wherever he thought he could get away with it.
We would never get any real change in America that way, better to stick with what we are doing because it is working so well.
You’d agree Texas has a “Conservative” state legislature, right ? They’d have handily elected liberal RINO David Dewhurst had they the right to elect a Senator (over Ted Cruz). This fantasy that repeal of the 17th would result in better Senators continues to amaze.
I am not naïve enough to believe that state legislators would be less corrupt than federal legislators, I simply maintain that they would be corrupt in a different way. After all, I am a conservative and I have a very negative view of human nature just as did the Founders and I would adhere to the Founders' solution which was separation of powers. Certainly, empowering state legislatures would go a long way toward accomplishing that proven method.
I say again, what we're doing now is not working and, even in Texas if it is broke, it should be fixed
A century ago, the people discovered, and rightfully so, that the system of the legislatures electing Senators wasn’t working. The Founding Fathers plan for their election ceased to work before the mid-19th century. It had become a corrupt and out-of-touch body and a thoroughgoing joke by the turn of the 20th.
For whatever flaws we have now, I’d rather have my right to elect a Senator not be taken from me and given away to empower politicians, for whom are already far too powerful.
As I've told you and you ilk maybe 500 times over the past few years, TEXAS would have elected DEWHURST over CRUZ. DEWHURST (big boss of the State Senate) was endorsed by almost every Republican in the legislature. You see that works, General? The corrupt boss gets himself elected to the Senate. The PEOPLE chose Ted Cruz.
UTAH, ostensibly our most conservative state, would have reelected BENNETT over the more conservative LEE. The Republican convention saw fit to relegate BENNETT (someone who UNLIKE ROBERTS AND ENZI actually WAS a "weak sister" who needed to be defeated) to THIRD PLACE!!!
You see your scheme would have had the exact OPPOSITE effect that you want. Put Mark Levin's book down.
People > Politicians
The 17th was passed for VERY good reasons, and ratified BY THE LEGISLATURES after the public demanded an end to the fetid corruption that infected the process. Thank God the founders, in their wisdom, saw fit to make the constitution amendable.
Actually it is not my scheme the credit belongs to a group of extraordinary fellows who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and devised the "scheme," people like James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, you know the type.
Schemers all I suppose, at any rate I'm glad they are my "ilk."
Nothing to refute my factual claims RE: CRUZ and LEE, you people never can.
Tupelo!!! Tupelo!!!!
So you side with the Progressives over the Founders.
See reply 111.
The founders were men of great commons sense, they 100% would have supported the 17th amendment when it was proposed if they still lived. Despite what he may think, Mark Levin is NOT a founding father.
Which was addressed in post #112.
Isn’t Levin’s face on Mount Rushmore, next to Glenn Beck’s ? ;-)
The founders who certainly knew about direct representation having vested it in the House of Representatives consciously declined to do so in the Senate. They were fully aware of the vices as well as the virtues of popular representation. They were also fully aware of the virtues of federalism and the need to maintain the states as a separate power from the federal government rather than it supplicants as they now have become.
Anyone who without further proof asserts second sight about the intention of the framers at the turn of the 20th century must concede, to be logically consistent, that the framers would also have supported the prohibition amendment. And since your second sight extends to knowing that they would not today seek to repeal the 17th amendment, you must also concede that they would have opposed repealing the prohibition amendment. Anyone who knows how much George Washington spent buying booze on election day, knows how absurd it is to impute such motives to our founders.
I suppose when we're in the business of making sweeping pronouncements it doesn't matter overmuch what the state of our knowledge is. If you're going to assert future knowledge for the founders you might as well go whole hog, as you did, and assert that "100%" would support your position. Funny, not 100% of them supported their own Constitution.
I prefer to rest on the Constitution they actually wrote when I am in the business of telling the world what they actually meant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.