Who Do Your Children Belong To?

April 9, 2013 10 Comments

Who do your children belong to? The answer of course is that they belong to God. In fact, we all belong to God as he created us from dust. From here the question is who did God entrust with the raising of children. The answer is families, on the specific issue of education (spiritual and otherwise) the answer is fathers. Remove God from the equation and the question becomes open and debatable. Over at MSNBC, host Melissa Harris Perry wants children raised by the collective. She wants to rid the world of the idea that children belong to their parents, she doesn’t like this sort of individual thinking. Thus we have a debate as to whether children belong to their parents or the collective.

Briefly looking at Perry’s statement, it could have easily been said during the progressive heyday in the early 20th century. The whole point of government education was to separate children from their parents and indoctrinate them at schools which were charged with shifting the nation in a progressive direction. Thomas Dewey and Horace Mann, the fathers of the progressive government school movement were quite up front about what they were doing. Leftists the world over followed their lead. Hitler dismissed opposing ideology by claiming that the Nazi’s already had the children and their parents beliefs would be gone soon. All of the communists banned private education. In Germany today homeschooling remains illegal thanks to laws ordained by Hitler.

The flip to this is the libertarian notion that children belong to their parents. Perhaps more extreme libertarians might argue that children belong to themselves. Either way, we Christians must be careful with this position as well. We are charged with raising children in a Godly manner. While we certainly find more agreement with the libertarian or individualist position, it’s still not one that we should fully embrace. We are only entrusted with raising our children, they don’t belong to us. Having said that, individual families making individual choices for their children is far more preferable than leaving children to be raised by the whim of a collective. (read: government)

Parents know what’s best for their children. Government really ought not have any say over the matter. For the progressives, this position is a threat because they know they can’t change American society without capturing children. Just look at the homosexual marriage issue, 15 years ago the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed homosexual marriage. Today a majority support it. The difference? A generation of young people have been indoctrinated in the virtues of homosexuality at the government schools. It’s the young who support it the most. If government and progressives didn’t have access to the nation’s children support for homosexual marriage would be nowhere near what it is today.

It should hardly come as a surprise when the progressives over at MSNBC push collectivist ideas. What’s interesting is that they did it in a promo so it was a planned statement rather than a spontaneous comment made during a debate. MSNBC is doubling down on their extreme left-wing propaganda. Look for them to feature more collectivist ideas in promos and ads in the future. Miss Perry’s position is wrong of course. Our children don’t belong to a collective, it does not take a village to raise children. It takes a family, with one mother and one father if you want the best odds for children to grow up happy and successful. In the end, our children and we ourselves belong to God. We don’t belong to ourselves or to a collective, we belong to God.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Chicago Teachers Union Fighting A Revolution

September 18, 2012 Leave a comment

The Chicago government school teachers remain on strike. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is seeking a court injunction against the strike, claiming it ‘endangers’ kids safety. Because of course the kids in Chicago were somehow not endangered all summer but suddenly became endangered in September when school didn’t start. One could be cynical and suggest kids might be safer outside of the Chicago government schools, however considering the number of gang murders in the city this year such might not be the case. If Emanuel is to win the lawsuit it’s going to be because the strike isn’t about pay not because kids aren’t safe.

Last week the sides were supposedly “kilometers apart.” It seems the Chicago school teachers haven’t given up on forcing metric down everyone’s throats. The really interesting statement made last week though was from union head Karen Lewis who suggested that “the revolution will not be standardized.” She’s referring to the apparently outrageous notion that teachers be judged based on how their students do on tests. While that itself is an outrageous position to take, the really disturbing part of her comment is that she’s talking about “the revolution.” What revolution is that exactly?

The teachers unions have been fighting a revolution since the National Education Association was created over a hundred years ago. The fact is that the revolution isn’t limited to wild eyed union thugs in the inner city. The revolution is in your local government school, whether you care to see it or not. Government education is the creation of progressives who sought to fundamentally transform an America who largely rejected their big government socialism a century ago. Their goal was to transform society by capturing the next generation through compulsory education laws. They have been wildly successful, forcing government education on the overwhelming majority of students.They’ve taken America from a nation that loves freedom and loves Christ to a nation that looks to government and hates religious faith.

It goes beyond that though. John Dewey and Horace Mann, the leaders of progressive education a century ago, actively sought to dumb down America via the schools. The dumber people are the more servile they will be and the more willing they will be to accept the progressive outlook. An intelligent public wouldn’t accept a break from the Constitution in the way Dewey and Mann wanted but a dumbed  down public would. As such Dewey and Mann sought to revolutionize how children are “educated” beginning with how kids read. They’ve been wildly successful, there are tens of millions of functionally illiterate adults because of these people. There are millions of people who have no idea about the Christian history of America because the progressives have been successful at separating kids from their history.

So while many people may react with shock at Karen Lewis’ dropping lines about a revolution, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Government education is a progressive revolution. Lewis was actually being honest, which is odd for these people because they rarely discuss revolution in such a public forum. These people are educating the next wave of moronic voters who do as they’re told and look to the government for everything in their lives rather than looking to God and their own hard work. They’re growing the seeds of racial and ethnic resentment and breaking Americans even further of their Christian past. These people are fighting a revolution and it is not one that will result in anything good for freedom in the world.

Filed under unions Tagged with , , , , , , ,

NEA Supports Social Justice; Opposes Conservatives & Republicans

July 5, 2012 4 Comments

The National Education Association and its various state surrogates largely control education in this country. The NEA is a progressive organization, founded over a century ago to push government funded education on Americans. Knowing that the progressive vision they wanted could not be achieved at the moment, the NEA focused its attention on the next generation. Thus each generation is taught by increasingly progressive teachers and comes out more progressive than their parents. Conservatives love to claim the government schools aren’t successful at educating children. It is true the government schools have a terrible time teaching reading and writing. But that isn’t their goal, their goal is to produce a more progressive generation. In that, the government schools, controlled by the NEA, have been wildly successful.

The NEA recently held their annual Representative Assembly wherein over 9,000 members attended. Executive Director John Stocks admonished NEA members to be “social justice patriots.” Stocks told NEA members to support Occupy Wall Street, the Dream Act and to fight “voter suppression” via photo ID requirements. He attacked Republicans, corporations and “1 percenters.” He praised NEA members who fought Republicans and encouraged even more confrontation.

Keep in mind, Stocks is speaking to the people educating children at your local public school. Some people will listen to his speech and look at the other stuff at the convention and wonder what any of it has to do with educating children. We cannot forget that the NEA doesn’t care about teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. They’ll pay lip service to it of course but it isn’t their purpose. Their purpose is to feed progressive propaganda to children, turn them against their parents if their parents are conservative and thus influence the next generation. Social justice is their goal, not actual education.

If you are a Christian, conservative or Republican why do you have your children in these evil government schools? Those who pretend like their school is the “good” one are usually the ones most fooled by the NEA’s smoke and mirrors. When you have progressives teaching a progressive agenda, it matters not how many kids go to college or how well the football team is playing. Pretending that a school is amazing because it has a French program doesn’t negate the fact that they are teaching students that a conservative outlook is antiquated, that the Christian faith is dead and that evil is good. If you think that NEA teachers check their politics at the door you’re crazy. Why ever would you think that a group of people who go to conventions to attack Republicans wouldn’t launch such attacks in the classroom?

For the Christians sending their kids to these schools, you’re basically sending them into a den of Satan. Prayer is banned, Christians are persecuted and if you think your 10 year old is going to save his fellow students you’re out of your mind. Our children belong to the Lord, not to the government schools. We must raise them and educate them in a Christian manner. The government schools, run by the NEA, do the opposite. They are attacking your child, all in the name of social justice and the progressive way. Why do so many Christians risk their kids at these schools? It is something that forever baffles me.

The NEA is an evil organization. I strongly encourage everyone to buy a copy (or borrow) of Samuel Blumenfeld’s book NEA Trojan Horse. Blumenfeld details the history of government education in America and the evolution of the National Education Association. The origins and goals of the NEA at its founding ought to shock everyone. Their goal has always been a godless, progressive society focused on socialism and social justice. We conservatives and Christians have to make a stand against government education. We must remove our children from these cesspools of progressivism. If we don’t, we’ll sacrifice our children and the next generation. It isn’t enough to support Scott Walker or various state level legislative reforms. It isn’t enough to run for  a spot on the school board. We need to take control ourselves and that means removing our children from these schools. The battle begins at home.

Filed under Education Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Morality Under Fire From Indulgent Mothers Who Dress Boys As Girls

February 21, 2012 15 Comments

Traditional Christian morality has been under assault in the west for the better part of a century. In the US, it more or less begins with the progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th century. In Europe each country has its own cut off date wherein traditional Christianity began to be replaced with secular humanism. It all gets accelerated after World War One. The latest assault comes in the form of so-called gender identity. The media has spent the past couple of years widely reporting stories of parents who refuse to identify what sex their child is or parents who allow their child to dress and act as the opposite sex. The media reporting of these isolated cases of bad parenting suggest a coordinated assault.

I first became aware of this issue last year when a couple declared they weren’t going to share their baby’s sex with the world. They said:

We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now–a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? …),

Translated, they’re using their child to make cheap, meaningless political points. Their kid is nothing but a prop to confront “society” with their nonsense. We should all feel sorry for this kid, not only does he suffer being a political prop but the pressure of being told he has to decide for himself what sex he is must be awful. These are the sort of decisions children shouldn’t have to make. In fact, none of us should have to make them because we’re either born male or female. From there we have to roll with what God decided we would be.

Another couple waited until their child was 5 before telling the world he’s a boy. Their story is telling, they wouldn’t allow their son to wear any masculine clothes or play with masculine toys. But of course pink, sparkle outfits were acceptable, as were dolls. Their son wears a girl’s blouse to school everyday. The message for this boy was clear, what you are is bad, girls are good. His “decision” to be abnormal was no decision at all. He’s a political prop and his parents are using him to attack Christian morality. That he appears unhappy with it all matters not.

The latest is a little 5 year old boy whose parents indulged his interest in dresses when he was 3. Rather than directing him to not put on girls clothes his mother bought him girls clothing and girls toys and allowed him to grow his hair like a girl. Doctors declared this child has “Gender Identity Disorder” and we’re supposed to melt at the medical diagnosis. It’s reported as a positive. In reality, it isn’t positive at all. This child has one of two problems. Either his parents are forcing this on him and he’s trying to please them by being a girl or he has a serious mental illness. Unfortunately he won’t be diagnosed as having a negative mental illness as these days it’s “normal” for people to want to be the opposite sex.

These people want to turn traditional Christian morality on its head. They want to turn boys into girls and girls into boys, thus destroying the traditional, Biblical positions on what men are and what women are. The media is all to eager to report these stories. Does it strike anyone as odd that the media is treating as news the stories of three sets of bad indulgent parents? The world is full of bad, indulgent parents, why these three? Because they have an agenda which they’re pushing.

This sort of behavior is not acceptable and we should not tolerate it.  It simply isn’t acceptable to have 5 year old boys deciding that they’re girls. We shouldn’t be rejoicing when some nut mother decides to let their son “decide” what sex he is by letting him wear pink sparkles but not male focused clothing. These parents, themselves mentally ill if they aren’t outright evil, are foisting mental illness upon their children. We shouldn’t be rejoicing, we should be outraged.

This is fast becoming a major problem because these stories aren’t isolated cases. The far left is pushing the homosexual agenda in schools very hard. Most of these parents are lesbians. What they’re doing is forcing schools to confront sex identity, in short they’re forcing kindergarteners and first graders to deal with this nonsense. The schools are all to willing to accommodate and turn it all into a propaganda session because the schools have always pushed a left-wing, progressive agenda. Don’t be shocked when your little kids come home talking about the little boy with lesbian mothers who dresses like a girl. It’s coming.

Traditional Christians must not accept this attempt to destroy morality. We must stand to what scripture teaches on the subject, men are men, women are women and we are to dress in the manner that God made us. Any man who says he’s really a woman is first a liar. If we don’t acknowledge this fact first, all is lost. Any adult making such claims should be taught the truth and lovingly encouraged to repent and put this sin behind him. Any child stuck with parents who are using them as political props should be pitied.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Progressives Propose Severe Sugar Regulations

February 2, 2012 5 Comments

A group of progressive scientists want the government to regulate sugar like it regulates alcohol and tobacco. They propose banning sugar sales to those under 18 as well as massive taxes on sugar and products with sugar in them. All of this to save us from some imagined epidemic that will kill us all. Their arguments are eerily similar to the prohibition arguments made in the early 20th century.  The only difference, besides the “evil” product, is that this time progressive scientists are pushing for government regulations rather than progressive Christians.

The world cannot be saved via collective action. Prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol and it didn’t stop the social problems associated with drinking alcohol. Likewise a prohibition on sugar will not stop people from eating sugar and it won’t stop any of the supposed social problems associated with sugar. The problem with progressives is that they’re absolutely convinced that government action can and will save people from themselves.

The history of the prohibition movement is rooted in progressive Christian theology. It has almost nothing to do with traditional Protestant Christian theology, which has never opposed alcohol consumption. (largely because the Bible doesn’t) Progressives however don’t believe in a strict individual salvation, they believe in a collective salvation. If alcohol is causing problems, the collective salvation of the country is threatened and therefore the government must do something in order to protect us. Ultimately they believe that sin can be eradicated from society by government action.

Such is absurd of course when one looks at the sin of mankind through the lens of scripture rather than progressive ideology. What’s interesting is that our nation has moved so far to the left that the progressive Christian ideology of the early 20th century is now called conservative. The Duggar Family, for example, is considered a conservative Christian family. In reality, much of their theology is rooted in early 20th century progressivism. The difference between people like the Duggar’s and modern progressives is that at some point in the mid-20th century people like the Duggar’s had enough of the move away from the Christian faith within the progressive movement. Nevertheless, the Duggar’s are opposed to alcohol sales and believe in a host of regulations that will protect the collective salvation of family and society. Most of which of course has nothing to do with scripture.

Fast forward to today and the Duggar type progressive Christians have done one of two things. They’ve either stopped progressing in the 20th century or they’ve become secular. The secular progressives have staked society’s future progress on science, which is these days the god of the progressive movement. Rather than fighting for an alcohol ban, they’re fighting for strict regulation of sugar.

It’s all to create a better society, so they say. But in doing so, they take away individual freedom for no legitimate reason. People won’t stop using sugar, they’ll simply move to other forms of sweets. Corn sugar, molasses and other products will suddenly replace old fashion white sugar. Even if all sugar was regulated, the fact is that people aren’t going to suddenly get healthy and lose weight. What the progressives don’t understand is that people make choices in life and like it or not most people choose to be unhealthy.

Sugar isn’t the cause of people’s lack of good health, our choices are. If sugar becomes to expensive, then folks will be unhealthy eating potato chips or bacon or name your unhealthy food. No doubt the sugar banning scientists will go from one healthy item to the next, demanding more and more government regulation to the point that the government will decide what we eat for each meal.

Even at that point, the progressive collective salvation will not be reached. Why? Because the black market will thrive with sugary treats, potato chips and all manner of unhealthy food. Just like it did with alcoholic beverages in the 20′s, just like it does today with untaxed cigarettes and drugs. Salvation isn’t realized through government action. We cannot save society from itself by banning alcohol, sugar and tobacco. Salvation is Christ’s and Christ’s alone. We either look to him or there will be no salvation. Secular progressives may reject this but it’s amazing to watch progressive Christian’s (now called conservative) also reject it.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , ,

Progressive Left Seeks To Take Power Away From The People

September 28, 2011 2 Comments

Two Democrats have come out against elected government in the last few days. North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue actually suggested suspending Congressional elections so that Congress can fix the economy. The North Carolina Democrat claims to have been joking but the tone of her voice and the fact that no one laughed suggests she was serious. Former Obama staffer Peter Orszag has taken it a step further. He doesn’t oppose elections but he does want to take the job of governing away from elected officials. Of the two Orszag’s position is the most dangerous.

Governor Perdue’s comments have drawn opposition from throughout the Republican Party. A good number of Democrats have distanced themselves from her. Mrs. Perdue’s claim that she’s joking is just not believable. In a republican government such as the Federal government, it is outrageous to suggest suspending elections. Our nation has never suspended elections, even during civil war and other times of national crisis. Elections have always been held because we are a nation governed by the people.

Elections aren’t going to be suspended because the American people (and the military I suspect) aren’t going to stand for it. So Gov. Perdue’s suggestion can be criticized and generally ignored as a non-starter. It’s Orszag’s position that is more dangerous because it’s more likely to be pushed for by Democrats. Orszag suggests we have too much ‘democracy.’ He suggests that the job of governing should shift away from elected officials towards unelected commissions and “automatic policies.” This is the sort of thing already being pushed for by the Obama administration. In fact, it’s what a lot of Obamacare is made up of: Unelected commissions that will decide how your healthcare will be administered.

The United States already has a number of unelected commissions that are able to create policy without oversight from Congress or elected officials. The best example of this though isn’t here in the US, it’s at the European Union. The EU is largely made up of bureaucrats who set policy for the entire Continent. The people don’t have any direct say in EU policy, it is simply dictated to them from on high. This seems to be what Orszag really wants. It fits in with the socialist mindset of the progressive left. If they cannot win the hearts of the people, they’ll force socialism though commission and declaration.

Orszag would be easy to dismiss if we only looked at the sour grapes aspect of his argument. Now that the Republicans control the House, there’s gridlock and the progressive agenda is mostly dead on arrival. It’s no surprise that the progressive left isn’t happy about that. Interestingly Congress and ‘democracy’ are great according to these people when the progressive left is in control. When they fall out of control Congress becomes a threat that’s destroying our government. Orszag shouldn’t be dismissed as a sour grapes liberal though. His position is serious and it is dangerous because it takes governing away from the people.

The progressives aren’t fools. They know that one day Obama will be out of power and eventually a Republican will be back in the White House. This is why Obamacare in particular included so many unelected boards that would create American healthcare policy. Most of the decisions these boards make aren’t reviewable by the courts and they can only be overturned by a 2/3 majority in Congress according to the Obamacare legislation. For this reason Orszag cannot be dismissed. He isn’t talking in a sour grapes fashion, he’s talking about serious policies that the Obama administration has already backed and signed into law.

The progressive left wants you and I to have less say over government policy. We’re ‘dangerous’ and obstructing to their goal of turning American into a socialist nation. The want to limit the power of the people by limiting the power given to Congress by the Constitution. In fact, not only do they want to limit Congressional power, they even want to limit Presidential power. After all, the President has little say in the decisions these unelected Commissions reach. The progressive left wants to move the country when the country does not wish to be moved left. They’ll try it via elections and if they can’t win elections they’ll write laws that take power away from the people and place that power in the hands of unelected liberal bureaucrats. The left is being very open about this, why aren’t more people paying attention?

Filed under 2012 election, Obama, Politics, socialism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Hillary Clinton Is No Moderate; She’ll Finish What Obama Started

September 21, 2011 3 Comments

We talked yesterday about whether Obama will step aside and give the Democrat nomination to Hillary Clinton. This isn’t going to happen but there are those on the left who are calling for it. The Chicago Tribune ran an op-ed suggesting Obama step aside. Other leftists are openly attacking President Obama, making it clear that he isn’t their guy anymore. Even the mainstream press, which has done little to critique this President through most of his term, have spent the past month nit picking over everything he does from a leftist viewpoint.

Why is this happening? It’s important to step back into history a bit. The progressive movement has long recognized that they can’t get everything they want all at once. For the better part of a century the progressives have been content inching the country toward socialism. In 2008 they saw that the Democrats were going to win the White House, probably no matter who they nominated. As a result, the progressive left got greedy and nominated a radical progressive leftist who also happened to be a political incompetent.

Like it or not Obama does not have great political skills. He doesn’t know how to negotiate, he doesn’t know how to deal with the opposition and he really isn’t very good at leading. He is the opposite of Hillary Clinton. Hillary is almost the leftist that Obama is, we cannot forget that she’s also in bed with George Soros and his Open Society group. Hillary perhaps isn’t as far to the left as Obama is but she’s on the far left of the American political spectrum. Hillary has what Obama doesn’t have, she has terrific political skills. She knows how to deal with Republicans and she knows how to negotiate a Senate deal.

The progressive left is waking up to the fact that Obama isn’t a good politician. As a result, they’re looking at Hillary in a new light. Suddenly she’s the golden one and Obama is yesterday’s news. Hillary also has poll numbers that for Obama are a distant memory. Her approval rating is in the mid to upper 60′s. Among Americans she is viewed not as the radical leftist that she is but as a moderating force. The far left would love to get a phony middle of the road Hillary on the top of the Dem ticket so they can finish what Obama has started.

For those of us on the right or in the Republican Party this should make us very concerned. Make no mistake, Hillary is almost as left-wing and socialist as Obama. She is not her husband. Bill hung every leftist out to dry except the abortion lobby because he wanted to cling to power. Hillary has shown no such moderation during her term as New York’s Senator. She’s learned the Clinton political game but is not the compromiser that her husband was. Hillary will finish what Obama has started and will do a much better job politically. She will not fall into the traps Obama has fallen into.

Obama isn’t going to step aside unless George Soros threatens him. I don’t see that happening. But the fact that the far left is suddenly souring on Obama and looking longingly at Hillary ought to have everyone concerned. That they look at her longingly ought to tell us that she isn’t the great moderate that she’s being made out to be by the media. Mrs. Clinton will finish what Obama has started and she’ll do a better job than he has. She will complete our nation’s decent into socialism. God help us if that should happen.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama, Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Romney More Like Progressive Nixon Than Conservative Reagan

June 10, 2011 4 Comments

Mitt Romney is the 2012 version of Richard Nixon. Not the tricky Dick of Watergate or the paranoid of the media and “enemies” Richard Nixon. But rather Mitt Romney is the modern version of progressive Richard Nixon. Nixon was never a conservative and in fact came from the progressive wing of the Republican Party. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan in 1980 that the GOP became the conservative party that it is today. Prior to that progressives dominated the GOP just like they did the Democrat Party. Nixon comes out of that progressive tradition.

During Nixon’s six years as President he created the EPA, created and enforced wage and price controls and did absolutely nothing to scale back President Johnson’s Great Society welfare programs. He also didn’t do anything on tax cuts and in some cases he raised taxes. As I said, Nixon wasn’t a conservative. The results of his Presidency have been disastrous for the nation, even today. And of course I’m not even talking about Watergate. The EPA costs businesses billions of dollars and costs Americans thousands of jobs. Wage and price controls destroyed the economy into the 80′s and played a key role in destroying Jimmy Carter’s Presidency. (Carter ended up nailing his own coffin shut but Nixon’s policies certainly hurt him)

Mitt Romney isn’t a conservative. He’s talked about cutting taxes but other than that is there any solid conservative position that he holds? He’s flip flopped on abortion, so he doesn’t even have that issue to hang his hat on. He’s responsible for Romneycare in Massachussetts, which like Obamacare is a disaster. He believes in man made global warming/climate change and wants to use government to “fix” it. As Governor of Massachusetts he did little to curb regulations. This guy isn’t a conservative, he’s a progressive from the Nixon wing of the GOP.

How can we nominate a man who cannot even attack Obamacare without being charged as a hypocrite? How can we nominate a man who is just as far left on global warming as Obama is? Obama will have a field day with Romney in the debates when these issues come up. Romney stands with Obama more than he stands with conservatives. Supporting a few tax cuts doesn’t make someone a conservative. Even JFK cut taxes, he was hardly a conservative though. There has to be more to conservative philosophy than tax cuts. Surely big government health care programs, radical environmentalist regulations and the like don’t fit the conservative billing. Romney’s policies are much closer to Nixon’s than they are to Reagan’s or to general conservative philosophy.

The media doesn’t completely hate Mitt Romney, which ought to be a warning signal for conservatives. The left-wing mainstream press will turn on Romney if he gets the nomination but until then they have nothing but glowing things to say about him. That’s because he’s more like them than he is like the Tea Party. All of the conservative candidates are being attacked by the press, including a certain woman who isn’t even in the race. Sarah Palin was attacked for her Paul Revere comment three straight days on NBC’s Nightly News. If that isn’t over the top bias, I don’t know what is. In any event, Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Pawlentey have all come under attack by the mainstream press but not Romney.

We Republicans need to nominate a real conservative this time around. We haven’t since 1984 when Reagan was nominated for re-election. Both Bush’s, Dole and McCain were all from the progressive wing of the party. In varying degrees of course, Dole and McCain more so than President Bush, 43. But they still all came from that wing of the party.

The problem for conservatives is that we’re split up between several candidates and the progressives are locked behind Romney. We need some attrition in our ranks and perhaps Gingrich’s recent troubles will remove one conservative from the ballot. What we cannot do is allow a progressive like Romney to win the nomination. A Romney victory will set conservative, Tea Party politics back 40 years.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

George Soros Has Ties To Over Thirty Mainstream Media Outlets

May 12, 2011 2 Comments

Radical leftist George Soros has connections to over 30 mainstream news outlets, including all of the major American newspapers and the mainstream television networks. This includes supposed journalists Christiane Amanpour, David Gergen, and David Boardman as well as editors of the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and producers and assorted Vice Presidents from CBS, NBC and ABC News. Most Soros organizations are quite up front about their progressive policies and their support for a left-wing “open society.”

It would be one thing if we were talking about editorial writers or news commentators. Cynthia Tucker, for example, is a noted leftist and is the editor of the editorial page at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It’s one thing for her to be part of the Soros funded Journalism Advisory Board because she doesn’t pretend to be objective. It’s another thing however for Jill Abramson, a managing editor at the New York Times to be on such a board. If we were just talking about people who don’t claim to be objective journalists, it would be interesting to note their Soros connections but it wouldn’t be that big a deal.

This issue becomes a big deal when the media claims to be objective and fair. How can journalists be fair when they are associated with organizations that explicitly desire to push a progressive agenda? Christiane Amanpour has said all sorts of nasty things about the Tea Party and has said that tax cuts are “giveaways.” She echos Soros most of the time. That isn’t objective journalism, it’s progressive politics masked as journalistic inquiry. It’s important for Americans to understand how many influential journalists and news organizations fall under the influence of Soros.

George Soros has spent his career earning money by collapsing currencies. For example, he made around $1 billion collapsing the British pound back in the 80′s. He has used his fortune to buy political influence around the world. He’s associated with dozens of progressive organizations that push his so-called Open Society viewpoint. It’s important for Americans to understand that those journalists and news organizations that are part of Soros groups are extremely biased. Once a journalist joins a progressive organization, they can no longer be considered objective. They are peddling an agenda.

There’s a reason why so many conservatives accuse the mainstream press of holding an extreme liberal bias. There are dozens of websites out there that devote themselves to pointing out every example of left-wing bias in the media. But the real proof is in the associations of journalists, editors and top executives within the mainstream press. That so many are associated and part of organizations with an explicit progressive agenda proves media bias. Anyone who believes that these people remain objective in their job is kidding themselves.

Soros wants to fundamentally remake America in his image. He wants to force Americans to live under progressive socialism. He is spending his fortune to make this happen. It includes getting as many journalists as possible under his sphere of influence. The more we know about Soros and the connections he has in the media, the less power he will have. We must let people know that the bias claimed by the right isn’t our imagination. It is proven by their own connections with radical progressives.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi Wants Elections To Mean Nothing

April 13, 2011 Leave a comment

Nancy Pelosi spoke at Tuffs University last week. Normally the Soros backed Congressman speaking at a university wouldn’t be cause for pause. However Pelosi’s statements at the school did prove worthy of discussion. Pelosi doesn’t believe elections should mean anything. She clearly longs for the day when progressives dominated both the Democrat and Republican parties. In other words, she wants a return to a time when the parties were largely indistinguishable and progressive socialists were capable of passing whatever they wanted with ease.

Nancy Pelosi is obviously a far left progressive and desires that her far left policies become law. On elections Pelosi said:

Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now. 

Elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do according to Pelosi. Clearly she longs for the time when progressives dominated both parties. Make no mistake, progressive policies are not historically a purely Democrat Party philosophy. Prior to Ronald Reagan there were conservatives in both the Republican and Democrat Parties. There were also progressives. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Herbert Hoover was a progressive, Richard Nixon was a progressive, Sen. Joe McCarthy was a product of the LaFollete machine of progressive Republicans in Wisconsin. In fact, one reason why the University of Wisconsin is so liberal is because Robert LaFollete used it to push his progressive ideas when he was Governor in the early 20th century.

Until Reagan conservatives were in both parties and were largely muzzled by progressives. Until Gingrich and the GOP revolution of 1994 in Congress conservatives were the vast minority in both parties. We still have the remains of progressive Republicans in the form of Sens. Snowe, Collins and McCain. These days progressive liberals largely reside in the Democrat Party, which has purged most of its conservative elements. So-called blue dog conservative Democrats don’t exist in great numbers, especially after the 2010 election. In the GOP, progressives or so-called RINO’s are becoming harder to come by.

Pelosi longs for the days when members of both parties had shared progressive values and thus could pass progressive bills in a bipartisan fashion. In the 70′s the EPA was created when progressives in both parties pushed for it and a progressive Republican President signed it. Tax increases for much of the 20th century until Reagan were passed in a bipartisan manner. In fact, most progressive policies in the 20th century were passed with bipartisan support. This is because there were progressives in both parties.

Pelsoi wants a return to liberal domination and thus she wants elections to mean less. If there are massive amounts of progressives in both parties, it doesn’t really matter which party controls the Congress or controls the White House. The same progressive bills will become law no matter which party leads the way. In other words, Pelosi wants conservatives muzzled in Congress again. If that were the case it wouldn’t matter if Republicans won the House because the election itself wouldn’t have really meant a whole lot. Progressive laws would still come out of Congress. Instead we have conservatives in control of the GOP and progressive liberals in control of the Democrat Party thus the elections actually matter.

Make no mistake, Pelosi doesn’t want the American people to have a voice in their government. She wants your choice to be between a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat. Such is really no choice at all and thus the election and your voice is rendered meaningless.

Filed under Nancy Pelosi, socialism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers