Posts

Conformity Of Thought Continues To Erode America’s Fundamental Freedoms Unabated

Pope Benedict XVI said during an Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2010, “that we need to be more critical of the information we get from the Web … that Net surfers ought to be wary of the “dangers of conformity, of control, of moral and intellectual relativism, which can already be recognized in the decline of critical spirit.” Was he ever speaking the truth on that.

After the most recent dust-up over the recorded conversation of the Owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, that may cost him not only banishment from the league, over $2 million in fines, but being forced to sale his team, that he has owned since 1981. All because he made some extremely insensitive and bigoted remarks regarding Black-Americans and their relationship with his “girlfriend”, that were made very public. Though I am certainly not condoning or defending Mr. Sterling, what I am questioning seriously is the circumstances surrounding all the commotion. I too question the extreme rush of public persecution, via the 24 hr Media complex, of someone who made statements that were meant to be private, that did not directly hurt anyone, threaten their lives, liberties, nor property, that which he is being accused. But yet, it is an emotionally charge public, whipped-up by the Establishment Media, that seeks to threaten his property-the L.A Clippers. As indefensible as what he was recorded to have said, was this the first time that he has uttered such remarks, displayed such actions or mannerism? Public records say no. Is he the only owner of an American sports team who may harbor such views or opinions? I bet you not. So even the most passive observer should question, why him? Why now? And why in such a public manner? And why is there no effort to comprehensively educate not only him and people like him with similar views, but the public at large, of the real underline issues that causes such mistrust and fear of people who may be of a different ethnic, political, gender, or philosophical persuasion. There seems to be a rush to public crucify anyone of a particular sect in our society who simply have a different point of view and or opinion.

Just as in other recent emotionally charged public executions of individuals for simply what they say or have said or expressions such as, Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, Ex Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, and in even less publicized suppression of seemingly intolerable expression such as, American students not being allowed to wear the Stars and Strips during Cinco De Mayo…in California, a bakery was forced to close for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, and most of all any expression of displeasure or indifference with Mr. Obama or his policies its racist. There are just some actions, speech, and expressions that just will not be tolerated. But interestingly, it only seems to favor the politically liberal progressive ideology. It’s similar to Pavlov’s Dog Experiment, where we as a nation are being conditioned to react to certain stimuli strictly based on emotional triggers.

Van Jones has admitted to being an out-right communist, he gets appointed as a “Czar” for Mr. Obama and then gets a job on CNN and Al Sharpton has called Caucasians “Crackers”, he gets several jobs on MSNBC. No one in the Media says anything. Mr. Obama hangs an ornament of former Communist China leader Mao on the nation’s Christmas Tree his first year in. Barely a peep is heard. A lesbian JUDGE refuses to officiate a heterosexual marriage. No 24 hr uproar by the Establishment Media. Senator Reid in 2008 said, that Mr. Obama was electable because he was “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” The Media was on snooze. And lets not forget Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the longtime pastor and mentor of Mr. Obama for many years, has said some very insensitive and some would say bigoted things towards America and Caucasians. Yet the Media shows no interest in learning more about his rational, and even more important his relationship with the man who is now in the seat of the Presidency of the United States?. Huumm… Really? Do we as a nation now only view morality and right and wrong through the prism of political correctness or color of skin, sexual persuasion, and political persuasion, rather than conscious?

Why is it that in today’s America those who have a conservative political and social point of view fear having their views known and expressed?  Why is it that just the mention of Fox News draw laughter and groans from audiences on late nite TV shows?  and why is it that conservative points of view being suppressed from college campuses?

The very disturbing path that this nation now finds itself is now even being voiced by members of the entertainment complex such as comedian Rob Schneider when he said during a recent CBS Chris Stigall interview,“Democracies don’t end well. We are sliding very fast towards fascism. It’s an ugly kind of thing. There’s this kind of mob mentality that we have to be careful of … There’s a polarization that’s happening…I do think you look can look at government and go, ‘Wow, it is out of control now,’ and if you do criticize or tend to be not directly along a liberal stand, you can get murdered.” Wow! If a comedian is boldly voicing such view points imagine what others in the entertainment industry are thinking and saying in private.  Lets keep in mind that we are talking about the actions of the man who sits in the seat of the Presidency of the United States and the future of a nation that was created for free people to never fear expressing opposing points of view regarding the government.

We now live in a nation guided by a man who has since being placed in the Oval Office has truly worked to fundamentally change our country by aggravating our differences and suppressing and demonizing anyone who may oppose his agenda or policies. Under his reign, to have an opposing view of his extreme liberal progressive policies or point of view can no longer be simply graded on the basis of difference of opinion or beliefs, but race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual persuasion. Free expression and speech is being suppressed if it is in any way indifferent to that of the government. This is most disturbing to those who care in the slightest not just for the America of those of us over the ages of 45, but for those that are coming after us.

Just look at what is happening in Great Briton Paul Weston, chairman of Liberty GB, was making a speech that included remarks made by Winston Churchill that was not flattering of Islam.  Someone construed his speech as insensitive and complained causing up to 7 policemen to come and arrest Mr. Weston there on the spot to silence him. The political liberal progressive agenda has made conservative groups in our nation such as the TEA Party, the philosophy of the nation’s Founders, and anyone who dares to share such views, marked for extinction from public view.

It’s not a matter of whether I agree with what someone like Mr. Sterling, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Eich, Rev. Wright, Mr. Jones, or anyone else may say or expressed opinions. But that I am, as an American, is free to disagree with them without fear of being punished due to governmental polices or conformation of the nation’s spirit.  Alexis de Tocqueville said prophetically of the dangers of conformity of thought, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” and 1930’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Evan Hughes said truthfully, “Our institutions were not devised to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had we might well abandon hope. It is important to remember, as has well been said, ‘the essential characteristic of true liberty is that under its shelter many different types of life and character and opinion and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed.”

The choice is ours.

Mozilla’s CEO Firing Due To His Position On Same-Sex Is Further Evidence Of Brown Shirt-Like Silencing Of Opposing Points Of View

The lightening quick resignation/firing of newly hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is only the latest disturbing sign of the Progressive Liberal’s publicly execution of anyone who dares to claim opposition to their point of view.  What was the crime that meant that his head should be put on display to forewarn any others who dare to come down his path of free expression?  He contributed $1000 to California Proposition 8, that dared to declare that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.  Shut da front door!!  Oh by the way, the measure passed overwhelming, and was only rejected by a grossly overreaching Federal Circuit Court declaring that the voices of the people does not matter regarding matters that it [the government] wants to promote.

But this is not the first time in history in which the government sought to silence descending or opposing points of view.  Remember throughout Nazi Germany, with the SS Brown Shirts, and totalitarian/communist nations, such as China and North Korea, where friends, family members, and coworkers are literally turned into government informants, and the citizens are conditioned to self-sensor their actions and words so as not to appear out of step with the conformist population and suffer the wrath of the government.  To the point that hardly anyone dares to speak publicly against the actions or motives of the government or whatever the current politically correct attitude is of the time. Even in the Bible, the story of King Nebuchadnezzar and  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, where the king mandated everyone bow down and willfully submit to his wishes and to be blindly worshiped, or violators would be cast in a burning furnace. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego openly refused his demands, they were arrested and thrown into the burning furnace for all others to take notice if they too dared disobey the kings demands or wishes.

History has shown us that one of the first things that a tyrant, or a government that seeks to rule of its citizens, is to suppress and or control speech and the flow of communication amongst the people.  And the Founders of this great nation were all too conscious of such tragic episodes in history.  So they placed the freedom of speech as the very first Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America.  Ironically, it was placed right along with restraining the government from interfering in the free exercise of a citizen’s religious.  At the end of the day, the free expression of religion, particularly that of Christendom, is what all of this dust up is about.  Just as in the Phil Robertson’s, of the A & E Duck Dynasty Reality TV show, brouhaha  over his personal belief that marriage is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman.  Period!  We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply, i.e., to procreate according to the Bible.  And though I’m not a biology whiz by any measure, two men nor two women can procreate.  But since the end game is to fundamentally transform this nation into something that it was never designed to become, to detach it, and it’s people, from its Christian foundation, any semblance or representation of Christendom has to abolished from public view and of any relevance.

In order to carry out this grand deception, freedom of speech has to be contorted, suppressed, manipulated, and or extracted, except when it promotes the governments needs,and the truth to made into a lie.  If the government says that a woman can correctly raise a child absent a man, than anyone else who says otherwise is now wrong.  If the government says that the Negro people are inferior to Caucasians and should be made subservient to them, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.  If the government says that Christendom should be detached from the lives of the citizenry for the sake of not “offending” someone, than anyone else who says otherwise is wrong.  And if the government mandates that marriage shall now be defined openly to include those of the same sex, than anyone who does not bow to that way of thinking is now wrong.  And the best way to infuse compliance throughout the population is a public lynching, execution, or burning in a furnace for the populace to be warned of the consequences of noncompliance.  It does not matter of what political party’s affiliation that prescribes such policy.  It only matter if such policy is designed to encourage more freedom, or less freedom.

Tyranny does not have to come via direct brute force, but by gentle coercion and the redefining of truth and right.  Today truth and right is being redefined under the guise of “tolerance”.  Particularly during the past 6 years or so, to publicly show favor of anything traditionally American, whether it be our language, our history, our flag, our laws, customs, values, or religious principles, has been redefined as being intolerable in defense of that of anothers.  Conservative political commentator Erick Erickson truthfully stated, “Evil Preaches Tolerance Until It Is Dominant, Then Seeks to Silence Good.”

True freedom is defined, “The quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.”  The Founders knew all too well the crucial importance of the people being able to speak freely amongst each other, to be able to disseminate information without fear of government reprisals, manipulation, coercion, or intimidation.  That is why a free and unadulterated press was also placed in the first Amendment.

If we began to self-censor what we say or how we communicate to each other to the point that we only publicly display actions or say things simply because its what others want to see or hear, it stifles freedom and opens the way for government to come off its leash.  1700’s French author and writer, Voltaire, famously said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  The freedom of speech does not shield you from being offended or having bad things said to you.  I remember back in the day, there was a saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me.”  As an individual though I may not like what you say or do, or the manner by which chose to act, I can not stop you by force for speaking nor acting in any way.  But, the government can, whether it be directly, via standing near you with his hand on his gun, or indirectly, via public policy enactments, laws, or decrees.  So long as one is not infringing upon another’s right to his of her life, liberty, or property/pursuit of happiness, it should not manner.  We have gotten to a disturbing point in this country that we a self-censoring our thoughts so as not to commit a crime.  Founder Ben Franklin so warned us, “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”

The choice is ours.

The Duck Dynasty Brouhaha Brought The Silent War On Christendom In America To The Front Pages

Ok I’m going to get into the Duck Dynasty fiasco as it’s viewed in the rear view mirror. It left me asking some questions mostly. First, Mr. Phil Robertson made it quite clear that he was speaking for himself and his personal point of view. And he quoted directly from the Bible regarding homosexuality. While a MSNBC host publicly, on the air, stating wanting to defecate in the mouth of former governor and presidential candidate Sandra Palin … but that’s a non-issue? If it was truly a matter of discrimination and intolerance, than expressing pride in one’s heterosexualness would be just as viciously defended by the same people. After all it’s about being treated “equally”. Right?

If one were to truly analyze the whole dust-up over what Mr. Robertson said and the context in which he said it you may conclude that his comment wasn’t the main issue. What he said, if said a mere twenty, or even ten years ago would have only gotten scant attention. And it would have been viewed positively more than negative I dare say simply because he would have been stating something based on what the majority of Americans already hold as cautionary fact, Biblical principles.  And it would not have been viewed via such irrational politically correct prisms. He quoted the Bible in public as a prominent celebrity, of one of the most popular cable shows in history. Probably if he had said that women should have as many children as they wanted-without a man-and that they should strive to take more traditionally male roles he probably would have been praised. But he quoted the Bible in a Liberal venue against the exaggerated popularity of homosexuality’s cultural equalization to that of heterosexuality.

But I don’t even see the views on homosexuality as the totality of the gross negative reaction to Mr. Robertson’s statement of his personal views. But that he publicly endorsed and represented old fashion masculinity, both in what he said and his stance that he would not be moved from that position, come what may. In today’s cultural assault on the very idea of what a man is and or should be, in order to turn the very word masculine into hate speech, he made it clear, that based on his interpretation of Biblical scripture, a man should only be with a woman, and a woman only be with a man. The push to equate, or even supplant, heterosexuality with that of homosexuality and to engineer a socially secular society, where there are no societal absolutes, can not succeed with a dominate masculine or a traditionally American family culture or society.

So, what was really the target of the venomous hate?  It was not Mr. Robertson. It certainly had nothing to do with tolerance, intolerance, equality, nor inequality. The real target was Christendom. And why did the advocates and proponents of groups such as GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] lose? Because despite the long fight to abolish Christianity and the tenets of Christendom from the consciousness of the American people, still the majority of which, though too often silent, recognizes the truth behind the very principles upon which this great nation was founded still holds true.

Christianity and Christians are not just catching hell here in America for their principles and beliefs, but too in the Middle East and throughout Europe. Traditional Western Culture is under assault in ways that would have seem unfathomable just a couple of generations ago.  Whether we are being assaulted and persecuted by radical Islamist or radical Secularist, there has been, and is, a silent war being waged against Christendom all over the world. What the firestorm over Mr. Robertson’s comments did, and his subsequent victory, was to put the battle on front street for all to see that there is an eternal effort to suppress and eliminate Christianity in every form from our society.

The tenets and principles of Christianity is woven throughout our nation’s founding principles and documents.  It is our identity.  It too is woven throughout the nations of Europe. That’s why the sudden marriage of the political elites of the Western Powers and the Gay Rights Movement is so confusing and unsettling for many, on both sides of the ocean. To the political elites it is just a matter of politics and their expansion of power. But to many of the silent majority it is a matter of fundamental principles and it is a fight for our view of our civilization and way of life. A fight that we are not yet ready to surrender.