Free Republic

A discussion of the origin of Separation of Church & State, as well as if The Supreme COurt is empowered to determine it.

I wrote this poem for the fiftietht anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination.

I had wanted to show the multi-faceted dehumanization of the sytem. Yes, the woman has brought most of it on her self but the system subsidizes & encourages it. It is multigenerational. There must be five generations on it now.

It is pitiful. We can all succumb to it.

From the responses, I think I succeeded in stimulating some thought.

DAYCARE

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE COLLECTIVIST WALL

Liberals have no appreciation for mankind & the world. Where a normal person might look and find something to take pride in, liberals will only see problems and troubles. Where others see achievement, liberals see excess.

Where a normal person might go to the market and wonder at the abundance & dazzling panoply of choices before him, a liberal will see American exploitation. While a driver might contemplate the array of cars on the road to transport millions to work in relative comfort, a liberal will see only sources of air pollution. The excesses only apply to others’, not their own, of course. It goes on.

I have never found a set of principles that guide them. Their lives revolve around finding solutions to problems that exist and if there are no problems, they invent them.

Case in point. I well remember Hillary appearing on television, The Today Show I think, during the Clinton presidency hawking her solution to a day care crisis. She told of a ‘silent crisis’ across the country. It was so silent I had never heard of it & I suspect few others had at the time. But nevertheless, Hillary said it was a crisis and we had to solve it. You see, there is no such thing as leaving people to solve their own problems. They might think they don’t need government.

I recently did a web search on daycare and came to a piece in The Washington Post from May of 2016. It spotlighted one of Hillary’s campaign trips to Kentucky. The article mentioned a woman named Jennifer who pays more than $2,500. monthly for day care for her two sons. Further, the article went on, “In every state in the country, child care for two kids now costs more than the average rent.”

There were many more links to articles but I only followed a few. Perhaps Hillary’s warning back twenty years ago alerted all of liberaldom to this emerging disaster but I suspect there’s more to it than that.

My reaction was, “Isn’t this a great entrepreneurial opportunity for someone to develop a cheaper alternative? “ At about $583 a week, that seems to be fertile ground for a free market solution. Get four sets of parents as customers and that’s a decent starter income for a business. And if one hasn’t happened, who’s asleep at the wheel?

And, in this case, doesn’t it become an inverse argument for non-working motherhood or is that too horrifying for the liberal mind to contemplate? Where is the father? Is Jennifer divorced? If so, did she take that into consideration before the divorce and doesn’t that then become an argument for keeping the family intact? And why should taxpayers have to subsidize this whole thing which is, in so many ways, a multitude of voluntary & personal decisions? And it raises similar questions for all those other families across the country.

But there is even more than that. You have to realize that as women moved from the home into the work place, they became wage earners and, more importantly, taxpayers. A new income to tax. They became the source of more funds for the government. A bonanza!

But wait, there was also the cost that the mother or parents had to pay the people who provided the daycare service. The daycare people also had an income to tax. So from no income to tax, there were suddenly two. This was a windfall for the federal government and then windfalls for the states that enacted income taxes. No wonder Hillary & her progressives want to ensure that women remain in the work force! Like everything governmental, it comes down to money.

But there is even more. It is the Marxist goal to make the government the centerpiece of all life. A major obstacle is the family unit which therefore would best be destroyed. By providing government assistance, it makes it even easier. Progressives will never say it directly, that would be a sure fire loser, but they want to replace the family with the government. Remember an original progressive, Benito Mussolini’s adage, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Daycare helps do just that.

Years back, a Swedish socialist stated that it was a goal to eliminate the family dinner as an obstruction to their collectivist goals. Some of the people behind this movement are advocating mandatory schooling beginning at the age of four and even three! Take the child away from the family even earlier. This dovetails with that Marxist goal.

There is a downside to daycare, that neither Hillary nor other progressives will ever discuss. There is mounting evidence that the amount of time the young spend in daycare is directly related to increased anxiety, increased aggression along with poor social skills, poor work habits & impulse control and later more frequent substance abuse! These things are similar to the undeniable problems of the one-parent, poverty stricken children, which also in its turn is directly associated with the progressive welfare state!

Now, apply all of this to the original, granddaddy of all Marxist programs for the destruction of the family unit; namely mandatory education for the young, especially through public tax-supported schools! It’s obvious, that it becomes an argument against it.

Education and its derivative functions, including daycare, school meals, bus service, sex education, etc., were all matters that traditionally lay in the province of the family. It is the goal of progressives to usurp those. In the process, it destroys families. Nothing outside the state.

Those derivative functions were added stepwise. Daycare is just the latest. Lunches were the first school meals. Breakfasts have now been added. All expand and all take the place of the parents.

This entire subject remains taboo & will remain taboo in the liberal dominated media and academic worlds! Inherent in it is the destruction of the family. None of them will say it outright because it would be soundly rejected by the American people and most of the people of the world. Many of them are unaware of it but some are.

It is too much to actually address but it fits right in with Vladimir Ulyanov Lenin’s famous description of various fellow travelers, useful idiots. You see Lenin, like Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler, another progressive idol and Mao Zedong, despised the ordinary man. Today’s progressives still do. For confirmation see Hillary’s description of her opponents as deplorables and Barack Obama’s of rural Pennsylvanians as clinging to their religions and guns. It was a disparaging comment.

It all makes sense when taken as a whole. With daycare, the government winds up with one or two more sources of funds in income taxes and it can destabilize the family, an obstacle to the omnipotent state.

Progressivism is the religion of the state or government. In its ultimate forms, communism, national socialism and fascism, government takes over not just the functions of the family but becomes the people’s God. Daycare is another brick in the wall.

Mission accomplished.

Many of his remarks have bothered me also but he is infallible only when speaking on matters of faith.

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT

THE OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just received an e-mail that claims that “if the Greenland glaciers would melt, …, entirely, then all of New York and Los Angeles and Jacksonville and Miami would be gone.” And this is a reason to STOP global warming?

As Barry Goldwater once said, the best thing to happen to this country would be to saw off the eastern seaboard, float it out into the Atlantic and sink it. Living in the Jacksonville area of Florida, I don’t lump it, nor Savannah nor Charleston and the area south of about Norfolk with the area that Goldwater meant but think what a boon it would be for the country to have the coastal one hundred mile strip from Washington to Boston suddenly under water. In one fell swoop we’d be rid of Andrew Cuomo, Bill DiBlasio, the remainder of the Kennedys, Billary, The New York Times, Washington Post, Chuckles Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Deval Patrick, Jack Reed, etc. Then turning to the West Coast, if they could throw in San Francisco & Seattle, we’d be rid of Dianne Feinstein, Bill Gates, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and the list could go on.

YES!!!!!! YES!!!!!! YES!!!!!! Let’s go Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been astonished at the unanimity and ferocity with which the Left is confronting this issue. I think they sense in it a true test of central government authority.
Harry Reid & his son, Bob Beckel of Fox’s Five, here in Jacksonville, Florida Stan Swart & Andy Johnson, local progressive radio voices, have simply dug in their heels, trumpeting that this has to be faced down & won. They haven’t conceded even a smidgen of logic to the protestors
All are ignoring the constitutional and general history at work here. This could be a crossroads.
We all must remember Mohandas Gandhi’s statement, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then you win. I think we’re in the second phase.

But then also, when you write ‘intelligent life such as our own,’ are you sure we qualify as intelligent life? We elected Barack H. Obama president. (Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!)

So, they come across these ‘exoplanets’ that are in some supposed (what kind of a?) zone that COULD be possible for water and then, of course, life. PLEASE, let me know if anyone has ever demonstrated, conclusively, the spontaneous development of a single amino acid, anywhere.

You see, a lot hangs on this. These ‘scientists’ are desperate to show that we are NOT unique because that helps the anti-theists.

When I was in medical school, our biochem prof said that the chances of life developing in the universe were iffy at best & at that time the estimated age was 17-22 billion years. It is now 13.7 billion + or - .7 billion. That makes the chances far less.

Controlled laboratory experiments have never, to my knowledge, ever been able to induce recombination of all known amino acids into even proteins, let alone RNA & DNA. The operative words here are ‘to my knowledge’.

I would like to know if anyone has contrary evidence.

I’ve put this out on my e-mail list.

I suggest that everyone read this article. http://news.yahoo.com/learned-liberal-talking-head-fox-news-143013301—politics.html. Sally Kohn, the author, used to work at Fox News and has switched now to CNN. She has some very kind words for Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin. She’s found that Republicans, conservatives and libertarians don’t have horns and I don’t think she will be resorting to the usual name calling that characterizes other progressives.

While there is no shortage of name calling on the Right, I think that far & away, it is the armentarium of the Left. Thus, in Jacksonville, Florida, we used to have a Progressive Talk Radio station and regularly I’d hear statements like, “All Republicans are racists,” “right wing nut jobs,” & “Watch out for dangerous right wing extremism” are just three of what were recited on the station.

I thought as ‘liberals,’ the various hosts would be open to hearing opposing views, so I made an e-mail group consisting of the hosts. I must admit that I do enjoy being a provocateur but I try to do it to illustrate inconsistencies in their thoughts. From one, I received a demand to be removed from the mailing list with a broadside saying that I’m nothing but a neo-liberal (I have no idea what a neo-liberal is.). From another I received this as a response, “Look, I give respect where respect is due....You however have earned zero respect from me or my listeners You are pompus, arrogant inconsistant and rude. I recommend you keep trying to call your Idol Limbaugh and see where that gets you. And You can go to hell too!!! btw, consider yourself fortunate if your name is ever mentioned on air. you douchebag!”

I’ll plead guilty to more than my share of arrogance but with this guy, I have a lot to be arrogant about but I’ve never run off a blast like this.

I believe that corporations are immoral because as they limit liability for actions, their potential for profit is infinite. The other reason is that they are government creations and all creatures of government have the potential for unlimited evil.

That is a pretty good description.

That is a pretty good description.

A progressive talk show host this past week did a partial review of Karl Marx’s ten recommendations to establish communist society. He discussed the abolition of rights of inheritance, not completely dismissing it. He also discussed the progressive income tax which he endorsed; of course no self-respecting progressive would ever disagree with that. It is a cornerstone of progressivism. The analog would be that when you go to the grocer’s. The check out clerk would ask for your income statement before determining the charges.

He did admit that Marx wanted to destroy all rights of property; mighty charitable of him. He also stated that Marx, toward the end of his life, said he was not a Marxist, a statement which is pretty much acknowledged but which proves what I’ve been saying for years.

Leftists, whether liberals. Progressives, socialists, communists, fascists or any other persuasion will NEVER accept the consequences of their programs. They will always shift the blame to others, e.g. reactionaries or aberrations. Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Castro all did it. And when a complete butcher like Pol Pot emerges, they are silent.

So let’s throw it out now to all progressives. If you accept income taxes, do you also accept that the IRS abuses are a direct result of them?

And how about the consequences of land use laws, such a zoning laws and their corruptions? Every zoning law change or variance comes with a some kind of a price. Acton’s maxim was correct. Do any of you accept them?

And how about the disruptions to families and the neighborhoods caused by property seizures under eminent domain for the construction of highways? Marx’s goal was the ‘gradual abolition of distinction between town & country.’ You can look it up. What is that but suburban sprawl? Any responsibility on the part of your philosophy? You might try to deny it but it is directly traceable to your planning and zoning boards that are in The Manifesto.

Hundreds of thousands of people have had their homes, even their ancestral homes that had been in their families for decades, condemned. Thriving neighborhoods that had been functioning units were sliced in two and their viability destroyed. The most recent example was the Interstate Highway System. I knew victims and they were devastated after the homes they had worked & saved for were taken from them. They were ‘compensated’ with a supposed fair market value. If you believe it was fair, I have a bridge to sell you. And what about the emotional costs? Do you accept any responsibility?

And how about the speed traps that are the consequence of the government control of our roads and transportation? How about the DHS gauntlet at the airports?

Now how about the failures of the public schools that you so avidly advocate? And their godlessness or do you simply evade that and say, well that’s due to ACLU and not progressives? Well sport, ACLU is a fellow leftist organization.

Do you maintain that our public education system with no moral grounding has no relationship to the fact that ACLU has succeeded in driving all religious principles out of it? And BTW, weren’t the people who did the day to day work at Auschwitz and the Gulag products of public schools?

Our public education system today was laid out by none other than the great progressive educator, John Dewey who stated the goal of education should be to produce functionaries for the state. Don’t worry about people being concerned morality. Just have them obey their superiors. No wonder Adolf Eichmann’s defense was “Befehlen is befehlen.” “Orders are orders.” So will any progressive deny that Dewey was a progressive or not the architect? He is widely regarded as both.

School integration is another example of progressivism run amok and how a good idea can be used to accomplish pandemonium. In 1954, the Supreme Court, Brown vs. The (Kansas) Board of Education, decided that black schools were inherently inferior and thus segregation was unconstitutional; the right decision for the wrong reason.

Just a few years later, there were reports that various civil rights groups would soon agitate for forced bussing to combat de facto racial integration. Parents, black & white, were outraged when their children were shipped for extended periods, miles away from their homes, all aided and abetted by a smug and sanctimonious legal system. It mattered to none of the progressives that the children, the supposed beneficiaries of the entire system, were being used as pawns in a gigantic game of egotism. Few anticipated that the decision would be twisted into this & few agreed with it but it became policy under an out-of-control judicial system that dominates through today.

The Left has a double barreled weapon for its assault on America’s freedom & its traditions. The frontline troops destroy our economic independence and responsibility with its various programs. Schools are a perfect example.

First, the Left gets government to fund education. Then ACLU comes in and drives religion out under the guise of separation of church & state. They have been trying to do it in welfare services and are now leveling their sights on health care. That was why Barack Obama double crossed the Catholic Church with his assurances to then Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Obama also double crossed the American people with various assurances to them. Make no mistake about it. ACLU will do its best to trample on the principles of the Church when it comes to health care services. Mandatory provision of abortions at all Affordable Care Act facilities and forcing of pharmacies to provide abortifacients despite moral objections is already under discussion in many jurisdictions. Much more is to come.

What other legal and logical twistings await the manipulations of progressives as government intrudes even further into our lives? Just read the original Medicare Act wherein it states that no provision of the Act shall interfere with the practice of medicine. Read that to any physicians’ group for a sick laugh.

Are all these things just aberrations? Or are they just examples of why society needs some more of omniscient guidance of progressives? Will they ever step up and accept some responsibility? ANY responsibility? Will they ever stop to examine their assumptions? Probably not. You see, the hearts of your progressives are just so good.

The take home lesson is to never trust the government and never trust a progressive.

I prefer the term free market to capitalism which is a communist pejorative.

I think my original posting didn’t go through the way I anticipated. This was what was supposed to accompany my question.

A member of a group sent this to me in response to a previous posting:
Weird to suggest scripture on your side. Jesus made fun of people who accumulate wealth. Nothing in bible suggests Jesus would oppose inheritance or income tax. So many people pretend to be bible scholars without reading the bible. Bible explains unequivocally that all the early Christians lived as communists. So raise he’ll about the need for no income or inheritance taxes if you want. You might be right. But you are a liar if you claim Jesus is on your side. New pope seems to understand Jesus unlike so many other church leaders.

Roderick T. Beaman (AKA crazylibertarian):
Over the years, many socialists, progressives, liberals, etc. have used this argument as some kind of divine insight into the thoughts of Jesus. I call it sophistry at its basest.

First of all, Jesus never mocked anyone; the wealthy, poor, sinners, the holy, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, doctors, lawyers & Indian chiefs, etc. He warned against devotion to wealth as did Paul who never said, “Money is the root of all evil,” but rather, “The love of money is the root of all evil,” a much different idea. I don’t completely agree with either statement but that is another discussion.

For Jesus’ part, he never took a position against wealth or the wealthy. In fact, among his disciples were Mary Magdalene whom many today consider not a prostitute but a wealthy woman and Matthew, a tax collector, also wealthy and many others .

There’s the story from Mark 10, 17 & Matthew 19, 16: where He told the wealthy young man to sell all he had and give it the poor and then follow him but the man didn’t. Jesus said it would be very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The reader should ponder, who would have a tougher choice to face in giving up all he has, a poor man or a rich man? I suggest this is what He meant.

Like many of Jesus’ messages and illustrative episodes, there is a lot of room for interpretation but it must be done in the context of His entire message & life among which is The Anointing at Bethany, where the woman poured expensive perfumed oil on His head. The apostles grumbled that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus admonishes them and allows her to continue.

Everyone should remember that Jesus and his earthly father, Joseph, were both carpenters, craftsmen. There is no way that they produced all of their needs for life in Nazareth so there is no doubt that they engaged in trade, most likely using the normal historically most common medium - money. Jesus never once spoke against trade! Any kind of free trade is a direct antithesis of socialism and progressivism. You can not have both.

Finally, any assertion ‘that all the early Christians lived as communists’ is demonstrably false. Many of them did elect to live in communes, especially the evangelists, perhaps from necessity, but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that many just absorbed Jesus’ message in living their lives as Jesus’ wished. He even told the tax collector to take nothing more than a fair share. What does that tell you other than that he accepted that people should go on living their lives but guided by His principles?

In fact, you can go through the entire Old Testament and find that scripture never rejected simultaneous wealth and holiness. Just read The Book of Job. The story of Lazarus is an example of someone who didn’t learn the truth about wealth.