Earth for the Unbalanced
So my communist junior college teacher, Professor Bill, assigned communist propaganda books to read and I have to read Earth in the Balance with Al Gore.
I am up to page 187. This is the largest, squarest looking sleeping pill I have ever taken. BORING! Besides that, he just makes crap up, and also makes statements with no support. Read the Cato Institute info on global warming. It is accurate and supported.
www.cato.org
posted by Ruslfish @ 12:50 PM
3 Comments:
Bill:
I am using the "communist propaganda" term more as a touchstone, and in no way literally. If anything, the best way to describe class (or lack of it) with Professor Bill is socialist indoctrination. He acts like a Communist Party member more than a communist. He brings up the plight of the worker, and how the worker is being robbed by plutocrats, but then suggests the answer is to install government as the owner of all profitable enterprises and redistribute wealth regardless of effort or ingenuity. That’s not communism. Where’s the estate-less estate? Where’s the decentralized rule? What’s with the money and the government controlling everything? Sure, now private industry is gone and not employing people…but socialism only trades one totalitarian for another.
Professor Bill is a Totalitarian in Communist clothing…but aren’t they all?
The thing is...if I say the professor is spreading socialist propaganda, I don't think it stirs up visions of the fallen Soviet Union or Fidel or Red China like the word "communist" does.
So no, I'm not really talking Marx except the initial plight he and the Sadler Report and Prince Kropotkin define, which socialists use to manipulate the worker into falling for overpowering government controls.
For me, many ideas of a more liberal agenda make strong sense, and there would be no right without a left to balance the argument and make one strong outcome in our country.
My only concern is that our nation is losing an important principle. The U.S. was founded with the idea that individuals have rights granted by a higher authority than man. We only lend these rights for a short time to a government of our choosing. We basically create a democratically elected fascist state every election to take care the drudgery of running the government. A secular agenda drives with it the idea that there is no higher authority and therefore rights can be granted and denied by the state. This is a strong idea that socialists use as a tool.
Too often, people blur the line between liberal ideas and secular ones. I do not. I do, however, fear the ramifications of a secular agenda.
Does that help clarify?
I believe "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is translated to mean "A New Order of the Ages". You can review the following URL for data regarding this:
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html
I do not believe a secular nation was any of the founding fathers' intent. They wanted freedom of worship, not erasure of God in our lives, and in fact embraced the idea that a higher power (like God) gave us our rights so that no man can take them away.
If you read some of John Locke, which is a major inspiration of Jefferson's works, he talks about natural rights. His "The Second Treatise on Government" would do a much better job of explaining it than I would. Better yet, read a little something-something Jefferson kicked out about 230 years ago.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed….”
This is part of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
As for the separation of church and state, it is not in the constitution, or for that matter any law passed by the legislature and signed by the executive branch. That little secular slogan is an unconstitutional interpretation by the judicial branch only. People throw the term around like Jefferson wrote that in the Constitution somewhere. Nope. Check out your First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof…”
To me, that means the legislative branch cannot pass laws saying one religion is better than another, and it cannot say one religion sucks more than another. They only need to put this in to keep the Congress in check because
a) the executive branch does nothing more than enforce the law that are provided by the legislature
b) the judicial branch is only supposed to verify the intent of the law is being followed and that it does not go against the constitution or any of the ammendments.
Does it mean a courthouse cannot have a 10 commandments statue in its foyer? Does it say a government office building cannot put up Christmas decorations?
You tell me.
What separation of church and state? No document claims it. No legislature voted it into law. No President signed that bill. An incorrect judge blurted out this catch phrase and the atheists cling to it like a life preserver. They believe it gives them power over Locke's natural rights, and allows them to impose their disbelief over another's belief. The state is created through the rights granted by the Creator. If it were simply a church versus state question, then I would be 100% with you. It is not.
Secularists take the idea that a national church will not be established (like in the U.K. [Anglican] and France [Catholic] right now) and twist it into saying that Jesus has no historical value as a philosopher of peace, that the ten commandments cannot be shown even though they are part of the foundation of modern law, etc. They jump on this PC theological-normative rant and do what they are claiming they want to stop.
My quote from the first amendment does protect us from a theocracy, you are correct. It also asserts our free expression of our faith, which the secularists wish to destroy. You see, belief in God means God created the world and us and our rights. If our rights come from God than no man can legally take them away without consent. With God in the picture, the secularist cannot claim that the government gives you your rights. Atheism as a political concept is horrifying if you realize this.
Regarding your New World Order stuff: read over the excellent website I found. I bet you didn’t even look at it, you snob!
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html
-Russ
Post a Comment
<< Home