Progressivism In These United States
It is often necessary to provide strong contrasts in order to clearly define things in our minds. For example, it is much easier to understand the definition of the word “something” if you first have a grasp of the reality of “nothing.” It would be more difficult to appreciate just how terrible a 4th grade disharmonic elementary brass orchestra truly is without having enjoyed the mesmeric wonder of a professional orchestra like the New York Philharmonic. If the best food your palate has ever sampled was served on a paper plate supported by a rectangular orange plastic tray whilst meandering through the public school lunch line, you won’t fully understand how poor the quality is until you’ve tasted the magnificent cuisine served by Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. There is likely no greater contrast in the universe than that proposed by Heaven and Hell, but since none of those reading could have possibly experienced either literal location, please allow me, instead, to elucidate the next best example on this side of the grave: the stark contrasts between Americanism and Progressivism in these United States.
There are essentially three types of people in the United States (and the world): 1) Those who believe individuals give permission for the government to exist; 2) Those who believe government gives permission for the individual to exist; 3) Confused “moderates” who pretend both of those contradictory galaxies can exist at the same time.
Americanism is exclusively connected to the type 1 citizen described above. Americanism is the belief that every single sacredly-created human being is of great worth and uniqueness and that they are each awarded with priceless rights exclusively bestowed from Heaven by their Creator. Therefore, the individual (who is granted rights by God) gives permission for the government to exist. The Constitution merely organizes power granted it by the permission of “we, the people.” The power the people have is borrowed from the Creator of those same people, who then supply the Constitution with limited jurisdiction in order for it to organize the power it receives. Let me break this down. Don’t miss this. Paper and ink has no innate power. Paper and ink only binds us to the reality of how that power was originally organized for the defense of legitimate human liberties. Proper authority flows from God to individual citizens, through the Declaration of Independence, and is finally limited and distributed through the Constitution. The Creator shares His authority with “we, the people,” and “we, the people” supply the Declaration which supplies the Constitution with limited organizational controls. God granted power to us; we granted limited power to the government. Just because you’re a secular humanist or an atheist doesn’t give you the legal or moral right to ignore or reject the organic law of these United States. You must abide this legal principle whether you agree with it or not, else you self-identify by your contempt for these truths to be a progressive usurper of classic Americanism.
Americanism accepts the existence of legal and moral absolutes. It realizes that powers granted from God to individuals must comport with His creative laws. These laws are enshrined within nature and clarified by the written revelation of His own laws (the Bible). They flow, under borrowed authority, into the man-created ordinances of our legislative, judicial, and executive arenas.
From this point of reference, the following terms used in the organic law of the United States, known as the Declaration of Independence, were produced: 1) “Nature and nature’s God;” 2) “Creator;” 3) “Supreme Judge of the World;” and 4) “Divine Providence.” These are four deliberate references to the inflexible Source of the knowable standard of both legal and moral absolutes. Judging by these unyielding standards, the signers of the Declaration deemed the wicked King George III morally and legally “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Therefore, both then and today, if a silly man-created ordinance does not comport with natural law realities, it is always bad law that is harmful to the public good. (Think budgets that defy the natural law of mathematics or building codes that ignore the inflexible natural law of gravity. Think property, inheritance, divorce and custody laws that refuse to comport with the natural law realities of male and female sex as it relates to pregnancy, birth-rates, property rights, inheritances, child-custody and divorce.)
The Federalist Papers attest to these precise powers coming from our Declaration and flowing into our Constitution, as the authors (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) teach and defend the whys and hows of the limited organizational purpose for the Constitution. It is implicit in the Declaration that people out of harmony with the Source of their borrowed authority (the Creator, Nature and Nature’s God, Divine Providence, Supreme Judge of the World) are makers of bad law and will harm the nation. Why? They are similarly situated with King George III – “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
The Federalist Papers remind the nation of this by citing the record of similar calamities (like those caused by King George III) and abuses of power that have already occurred throughout the world’s political histories.[i] Ultimately, the Federalist Papers were reaching for brains, pleading with the people to consent to the Constitution being ratified with their authoritative permission and upon the foundation of the celebrated and understood authority of the Declaration, the organic law of these United States.
In opposition to Americanism, Progressivism is the belief that every single evolved (not created) human is of no particular significance outside of the Shangri-la of a glorious collective and that only by joining the collective and making a contribution to it can he or she achieve true worth. Progressive individuals are to the government as the honey bee is to the swarm. Therefore, the government gives permission for the individual to exist. (It isn’t hard to imagine from whence abortion, euthanasia, and fascist acts of genocide stem.) Like a pot of water left unattended on a hot stove, the water will eventually boil over. Progressivism, if permitted to fester in a nation’s history long enough to reach its logical end, will also “boil over” into a fresh, new Auschwitz. Progressivism is the modern moniker of all the isms (except American…ism). It embraces Social-ism, Marx-ism, Commun-ism. Progressivism is the sum total of them all, reemerging and conquering America from within the souls of its own deceived, and at times, utterly foolish citizenry.
Between 1890 and 1920, progressivism swept through the minds of city-dwelling Americans, finally reaching its crescendo in the election of three progressive presidents (Republican Theodore Roosevelt, Republican William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson). A historical repeat seems to be reasserting itself between our years of 1990 and 2020. Was Ronald Reagan the final spark of Americanism ever to be enjoyed by a free people? That, my friends, is entirely up to you. Every President since Reagan has been a progressive, in some varying degree, regardless of their party affiliation, similar to the period between 1890 and 1920, and I’m convinced there is only one way to repair our nation.
Karl Marx knew very well what many Republicans and Democrats today refuse to admit. Marx, the political “Prince of Darkness,” once described by Dean Clarence Manion of the University of Notre Dame School of Law as a “prophet of the modern Socialist-Communist political and economic dispensation,” knew that the origin of “individualism” was Christianity. Marx wrote:
“The democratic concept of man is false, because it is Christian. The democratic concept holds that each man is a sovereign being. This is the illusion, dream and postulate of Christianity.”[ii]
Adolf Hitler also knew very well what many Republicans and Democrats today refuse to acknowledge. Dr. Manion wrote, “One hundred years after Karl Marx thus wrote off the importance of the individual human personality in that derisive condemnation of Christianity, Adolf Hitler made his decisive bid for the control of Europe on what he represented to be a drive against Communism. Nevertheless, this is what Hitler said about the inalienable rights of the individual man:
“To the Christian doctrine of infinite significance of the individual human soul, I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and insignificance of the human being.”[iii]
Since we have simplified the world at the outset of this article by placing all men into one of three definable categories, it is clear that while various brands and flavors of Statism may war with others when failing to be identical to themselves, all Statists essentially agree at this foundational level: individuals mean nothing outside the collective, and government gives permission to the individual to exist. Hitler’s brand of Statism was willing to violently oppose the Statism of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, they both agreed at this level. No one today resents being compared to the Nazi movement and the Soviet communists quite like those progressives in our midst who happen agree with them at this same level, but the comparison is valid nonetheless. If one does not like the comparison, one should stop agreeing with history’s villains, no?
In addition to diminishing the innate value of the individual soul, modern progressivism further holds in contempt any effort to anchor human life to legal or moral absolutes. In America, progressives verbally patronize the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, but by their actions we know both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are hated obstacles hindering what they sinfully and deceitfully refer to as “progress.” We arrive at a crossroads in this discussion where three truths intersect:
- Progressivism is incompatible with Americanism.
- Progressivism is a cancer in BOTH political parties.
- Progressivism must be unmasked and defeated in BOTH political parties.
It is essential that we learn to identify the markers of progressivism in both parties, expose it, confront it, reject it, defeat it, and destroy it. Did you catch that? Progressivism is alive and well in BOTH parties.
Democrats display their progressive cancer in a similar way as Republicans. Verbally, they are careful to be patronizing and very complimentary when discussing the Constitution and “God-given rights.” But if you watch their actions (as opposed to their weightless words), they hold the Constitution in contempt and emphatically reject legal and moral absolutes.
Republicans display their progressive cancer in like fashion. Verbally, they are careful to be patronizing and very complimentary when discussing the Constitution and “God-given rights.” But if you watch their actions (as opposed to their weightless words), they hold their party platform in contempt, emphatically rejecting legal and moral absolutes.
This disdain for absolute moral and legal truth, particularly as it applies to the Constitution, is called by the progressives, “living Constitution theory.” Sounds attractive, doesn’t it? It is a form of treachery, and it is pervasive throughout the United States court system, in particular.
Careful dissection of history reveals both the contrasts and similarities between the Democrat and Republican Party’s shared cancer of progressivism. This conclusion makes it possible for me, with the assistance of thousands, perhaps millions of readers, to quickly expose it, confront it, reject it, defeat it and destroy it. Here is how to identify progressives in both political parties:
- Democrat progressives are somewhat respectful to their own party platform, but contemptuous in their treatment of the rule of law.
- Republican progressives are somewhat respectful to the rule of law, but contemptuous in their treatment of their own party platform.
Progressivism hates moral and legal absolutes (whether those absolutes be the intended anchor of a political party’s platform or the intended anchor of a nation’s Constitution). If absolutes were accepted by the public, progressives would not be able to easily masquerade as friends and admirers of an alleged “living Constitution.” Instead, they would be seen for who they truly are: treacherous enemies usurping the Constitution’s original, inflexible, stated purposes expressed in, but not limited to, the Federalist Papers.
Moral and legal absolutes (honored by Americanism and dishonored by progressivism) are inescapable realities of natural law that will inevitably bring pain upon those who defy them. This truth is best illustrated by imagining a construction site where there are nine different tradesmen working at the same time on the same project: electricians, plumbers, steel-erectors, insulators, roofers, structural engineers, third-party inspectors, concrete layers, and a window installation company. Imagine them all rejecting moral, legal, and natural absolutes, which means they refused to abide by a standard held in common. Contemplate each of the nine tradesmen privately defining their own length of a foot, which varies from every other tradesman represented on the same construction site. The structure will be unsound. The building will collapse. People will die. Now transfer that lack of an absolute and inflexible standard to the workings of a civil government, where moral and legal absolutes are “progressivized” today, and you can see why such a government as ours becomes structurally unsound, must eventually collapse, and will kill the people beneath its terrible weight.
I shall opine and offer a bit of truth to those offended by my cartoons that were recently released to the public in what was called “an early fair warning to the Republican establishment.” These video shorts detail the ultimate response that is necessary in order to defeat progressive candidates hiding behind the brand name “Republican” once they are identified as the unfortunate victors after a primary battle. If you have not taken the time to carefully watch this free presentation, you should. Thousands of people already have in 49 states (within only a week of its release), and many are saying things like, “This absolutely blew my mind! I get it! I really understand what to do now!”
Here’s a lesson in situational ethics as it relates to your ever-diminishing freedoms. If, for example, you’re one of those 2nd Amendment supporters (like me) infuriated when some in our faltering Republican Party quickly begin waving a white flag of “compromise” on federal/universal background checks (which is a known precursor to confiscation that NEVER stops crime), I would like to bluster a little parable for a moment, assuming the law of averages is at play. You trained them to think this way. That’s right. How, you ask? Here’s how:
- You rewarded them when they caved on spending. You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- You rewarded them when they caved on tax hikes. You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- You rewarded them when they caved on centralizing education. You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- You rewarded them when they caved on protecting marriage and changed the term to “civil unions” (which was the same thing). You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- You rewarded them when they gave lip-service to ending abortion. You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- You rewarded them when they completely surrendered on prayer and Bible-reading in schools. You voted for them using the disclaimer, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils.”
- Shall I go on? Tarp 1? Tarp 2? Auto industry bailouts? Murdering children because of how they were conceived? Shall I go on? Nah.
So now the chickens have come home to roost. Many of your own duly elected “Republican” (who is really a progressive hiding in plain sight) congressmen begin preparing to concede your “inalienable” right to armed defense against tyranny every time the wind blows favorably in that direction. Let me make this prediction the next time you go to confront one of them. When you confront him he’s going to say, “Hey, it’s the lesser of two evils!” Then he’ll turn his back on you and help progressives destroy your country right in front of you, disregarding the legal and moral absolutes of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
What? You don’t own a gun and, therefore, don’t care? The cases for all freedoms rise and fall together! A host of gun lovers have never prioritized the “social issues,” never processing that the seeds of situational ethics they planted will eventually bear fruit. Single-issue 2nd Amendment voters act like everything is fine until THEIR big issue (guns) comes up. How short-sighted and reckless of them.
Maybe the secular humanist half of the Republican Party will someday come to terms with the reality that the cases for all freedoms rise and fall together. Maybe if we all showed the same rigor and passion for the whole Republican platform as we did for one or two lines in it…we’d stay free? (Which reminds me of that very important little-known secret I shared earlier in this writing concerning how to identify the progressive hiding in your local Republican Party. Nudge nudge, wink wink.) Perhaps now you can appreciate how God must feel nearly every time a self-identified Christian votes and puts a party brand ahead of divine law. Surely He says to Himself, “They partner with evil to destroy themselves by ignoring Me.”
Will you join me? I’ll be fighting hard to protect the 2nd Amendment from Democrats AND “lesser-of-two-evil Republicans” (the useful idiots of the progressives who are hiding in plain sight). I hope you’ll wake up to all my “religious,” “social” issues real soon. It is the ONLY way you’ll ever get your country back. Did you hear me, Libertarians and Conservatives? Help me help you. Repent before God if you have aided and abetted progressivism in the country while there is still time to heal from the pain of your sins.
[i] For one example among hundreds offered throughout the Federalist Papers, in Federalist no. 18 alone, the following ancients are cited as examples of what not to do while forging ahead as Americans: the Amphictyonic Confederacy, the Achaeans, Grecians, Macedonians, Spartans, Athenians, Kings of Egypt, Kings of Syria, Alexander, the Aetolians and Romans. Moreover, in Federalist no. 19 the list of examples continues with mentions of the Franks, the Gauls, Charlemagne, the Emperor of the Suabian, the emperor of the Austrian lines, the Germanic Empire, the Elector of Saxony, the King of Prussia, the Duke of Bavaria, etc. etc. [ii]Clarence Manion, Americanism: The Key to Peace (Chicago, IL: The Heritage Foundation, Inc., 1951; republished by PeaceMakers Press, 2011), 57; www.peacemakersinstitute.com. [iii] Ibid.
