"Progressive to me means...NWO/Illuminati preparation for the Anti-Christ"
Isn't THAT special.
Posted on 07/22/2007 9:59:28 AM PDT by wagglebee
Progressive to me means...NWO/Illuminati preparation for the Anti-Christ
And yes the Communists are just a sub set of the NWO.
With the greatest of respect, no, we're not. We would be were it a real contract. Were our ability to vote, say, contingent upon our defense of the Constitution there would be a lot fewer voters (Hollywood, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, and Ithica would be practically empty of them).
I would agree with a scheme to present the Constitution to young people as a social contract at the age of majority, although I might point out that up to then they will have been the beneficiaries of that contract anyway without the commensurate demands. That isn't quite what Rousseau had in mind but it seems a perquisite of youth, although why current youth should have that luxury based merely on their being born in the right place is another philosophical discussion altogether.
It'll never really be a complete social contract on those bases, although we can certainly do better than we have been at making it so. Just some thoughts.
"Progressive to me means...NWO/Illuminati preparation for the Anti-Christ"
Isn't THAT special.
Bookmark and respond later to this most significant article.
Thanks for posting it Wagglebee.
bttt
I wear my Tin Foil PROUDLY!!!!
;-)
...but you see I know things from personal experience that make this all very real for me.
AND I am delighted to see that there are conservatives that are coming around to my point of view too.
And yes there will be naysayers even up until the frog is boiled.
We have to wait for the NAU for people to wake up
Since the Progressives held that nature gives man little or nothing and that everything of value to human life is made by man, they concluded that there are no permanent standards of right. Dewey spoke of "historical relativity." However, in one sense, the Progressives did believe that human beings are oriented toward freedom, not by nature (which, as the merely primitive, contains nothing human), but by the historical process, which has the character of progressing toward increasing freedom. So the "relativity" in question means that in all times, people have views of right and wrong that are tied to their particular times, but in our time, the views of the most enlightened are true because they are in conformity with where history is going.
So that explains why it was all right to be against homosexuality fifty years ago but not today, and why the elites get to establish the orthodox ethical stands of each generation.
Once again the mischief of all non-Theistic moral/ethical systems is revealed for all to see. On what grounds to atheists see human history as teleological???
The point of my original post was that one can disagree with Congressman Paul's position on individual issues but still respect his uncompromising adherence to Constitutional principles. That observation that it is rare for anyone in the Federal government to adhere to the Constitution is one of the key observations the author of your original post was trying to convey to you. Congressman Paul deserves credit for his uncompromising respect for the Constitutional limits on the scope and power of the Federal government regardless of what you think of his opinion on why the United States are held in such low esteem in that wretched part of the world. That said,
He’s gone off the deep end and made statements that hint at him courting the 911 “truthers”.
This is a common slander that is becoming the conventional wisdom. Please cite for me one comment attributable to Ron Paul that suggests that he has ever said that any group other than Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.
Also, as a congressman in Texas, what has he even done to protect the border?
It is another misconception that Congressional action is required to control the border. No more authority than the requirement that the Federal government protect the States against invasion as specified in Article IV section IV of the Constitution is necessary. The failure to protect the border is an Executive branch failure going back many years. Even with this Ron Paul has always voted to fund measures to protect the border and against all measures to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
We must 'constitutionally insist' on the principle that our rights to life, liberty, or property are self-evident,
[or, - are a gift of a creator, - whether one believes in one or not], - as part of our constitutional social contract.
They may, in fact, be axiomatic, which leads directly toward the notion of a social contract, which has its own difficulties with respect to mysticism.
Our constitutional contract is not 'mysticism' in any aspect. - We are all required to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution, just as we demand that same oath of all officials, fed, state, or local.
With the greatest of respect, no, we're not. We would be were it a real contract.
Our Constitution is a real contract.
Were our ability to vote, say, contingent upon our defense of the Constitution there would be a lot fewer voters (Hollywood, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, and Ithica would be practically empty of them).
As I commented, we would have to amend our voting qualifications to reflect our required duty to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution.
After all, no one is presented, at birth, with a copy of the Constitution and a choice as to whether he or she wishes to accept that as life rules.
We are, in effect, presented with that choice at 18, or at naturalization. - Everyone should read our Oath of Citizenship. - All citizens are bound by its provisions.
It isn't a real contract. Anyone can opt out of its requirements and remain a citizen, and many on the radical Left do precisely that.
Yep, we have always allowed many radicals to opt out of its requirements and remain [voting] citizens. - This is a political judgment call. - One that perhaps should be revisited by Amendment.
I would agree with a scheme to present the Constitution to young people as a social contract at the age of majority, although I might point out that up to then they will have been the beneficiaries of that contract anyway without the commensurate demands.
It'll never really be a complete social contract on those bases, although we can certainly do better than we have been at making it so.
Just some thoughts.
I say we are beyond the point of 'thinking' about whether we can afford to cater to anti-constitutional radicals in this country. They have had over a hundred years now to attempt their destruction of our constitutions principles. -- They are winning.
It's time.
An appropriate quote that "progressives" (socialists) need to take to heart, although, no doubt, will NEVER listen to:
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis
Liberals/progressives/socialists are truly the LEAST progressive.
Thank you for the catch and posting of this. I know numerous Democrats who claim the Progressive mantle but I doubt they realize or understand what they are supporting.
Definitely worth reading!
me too!
What you said.
bump
Ping.
btt
I think Edmund Burke made the point about the family being the central unit in the natural order of human society. "Little platoons," he called them?
Ultimately, none of us has the right to life. We're all gonna go sooner or later. Natural rights are agreed upon by rational people to protect us from each other, not from nature.
But no one has ever "agreed" about any such thing. And who gets to decide which rights exist, hmmm?
I'll take the Biblical G-d, thank you.
“... “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” - C. S. Lewis Liberals/progressives/socialists are truly the LEAST progressive.” ~ 69ConvertibleFirebird
Exactly.
“.. The romantic movement of the early 19th century was actually a reactionary and nostalgic yearning for an idyllic past, answering to the sense of loss of community and oneness with the rhythms of nature. This backward looking movement idealized the primitive, and sought to unleash the subjective and irrational passions (countering the rational and objective detachment of science). (It is ironic that leftists call themselves “progressives,” since the movement is ultimately reactionary and regressive to the core, psychologically, ontologically, epistemologically, and spiritually.) “
“Deconstruction throws all objective meaning into question, so no one has to have the disappointing experience of being wrong or denied tenure, no matter how stupid one’s ideas. “
bttt for More:
Friday, October 14, 2005
Never Make a God of Your Irreligion
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2005/10/never-make-god-of-your-irreligion.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.