Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Left Hates the Ten Commandments
conservativetruth.org ^ | Doug Patton

Posted on 09/01/2003 12:44:40 PM PDT by webber

Why the Left Hates the Ten Commandments

September 1, 2003

by Doug Patton

Do not expect Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to surrender in his fight to display the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state's Supreme Court building. Moore, a principled man whose judicial temperament is guided and molded by his belief that there is a God and that He is watching, is not motivated by what may happen to his career as a judge. He is not moved by the whims of other judges whose rulings are based not in law, but rather in the blowing, drifting opinions of contemporary societal mores.

Most Americans have no idea of the gravity of the drama unfolding at the Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Jaded and numbed by fifty years of abuse by an out-of-control judiciary that usurps the will of the people and their elected representatives by making law from the bench, it seems we no longer have any collective memory of what our precious founding documents say, let alone what they mean.

Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?

Is it Commandment number six ("Thou shalt not kill" – or, more accurately translated, "Thou shalt not commit murder")? Perhaps it is number eight ("Thou shalt not steal").

Or maybe they just can't stand number nine, ("Thou shalt not bear false witness). Is there any thinking person who could look at those three rules and say that society would be better off if they were disregarded? How about number ten ("Thou shalt not covet")?

The truth is that it is the first few commandments that cause apoplectic fits on the Left. Number one especially drives them crazy: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This is followed by, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" and the ever-popular "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."

Add to those the admonition to "Honor thy father and mother" and to hear the Left talk you would think that Ayatollah Roy had set up shop in the Alabama Supreme Court building. John Adams once said that the American Constitution was written for a moral and a religious people, and that it is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.

Today's liberals would scoff at such a sentiment. They would claim that Adams wanted to limit American citizenship exclusively to Christians. Quite the contrary. Adams understood that free people cannot be coerced into believing anything against their will. But he also understood that a free people can recognize the truth when they see it, and that it was only the self-governing man or woman who can truly be free.

Adams and the other Founders possessed a wisdom that comes only to people who know that their rights are granted by their Creator, not by other men, and that government is instituted among men to acknowledge and defend those rights.

The Founders recognized that lawlessness breeds anarchy, which brings the terrible power of tyranny down upon the people. They knew that those who fled to these shores seeking religious and economic freedom did so not for the right simply to do what they wanted to do, but rather for the right to do what they ought to do.

In a perfect America, where the Constitution was revered and God was exalted, we would all know such freedom. Instead, we have traded our birthright for a society filled with self-indulgence and a debate over whether it is appropriate to acknowledge God in public.

May God give us a million more Roy Moores.

© 2002 by Doug Patton


Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a speechwriter and policy advisor to federal, state and local candidates and elected officials. His work is published in newspapers across the country and on various web sites, including GOPUSA.com and AmericasVoices.org. You can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: communistmanifesto; hate; tencommandments; theleft

1 posted on 09/01/2003 12:44:40 PM PDT by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: webber
Why do we continue to call it the 'Left'? Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist". But don't call them leftist. Call them late for dinner if you want but don't call them 'Leftists'. They are not the left wing of our government. They don't really believe in our form of government. They only use it as a means to an end. The end is Socialism at best(see France) or Communism at worst(see life under Hillary).
2 posted on 09/01/2003 1:03:37 PM PDT by daveoverpar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daveoverpar
Read This "1963 communist goals"

http://www.glennbeck.com/hots/printcommunistgoals.htm
3 posted on 09/01/2003 1:12:28 PM PDT by cody32127 (If Democrats are not evil, then evil has no meaning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: daveoverpar
You forgot my all time fanvorite The national scoialist democrat party.
4 posted on 09/01/2003 1:12:34 PM PDT by dts32041 ("moderate Arab" he's the one who detonates his bomb via remote control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: solitonic; ConservativeMan55; Byron_the_Aussie; NewLand; LiteKeeper; daughterofTGSL; TigersEye; ...
May God give us a million more Roy Moores.

Ping!

5 posted on 09/01/2003 1:12:53 PM PDT by Hyacinth Bucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hyacinth Bucket
Thanks for the Ping!!!!!!!
6 posted on 09/01/2003 1:13:25 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: daveoverpar
Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist".

I wholeheartedly agree. We have a bill in the California state senate that effectively gives property rights over to the indian tribes, SB 18. The bill states the indians have a right to in camera court hearings, just like good old Joe Stalin. That is they can call the property owner to court, take away his property, with no trial and no witnesses. The only information or notice the public will get is a transcript of the hearing. This is exactly how the USSR did things. Someone would disappear and they would be executed or sent off to Siberia. Their families would get a copy of the hearing in the mail at a later date, that was all. We have more communists in our state government than any other state, I'll bet.

Here it is in the bill text:
the court shall conduct its proceedings in camera and shall seal records of the proceeding and papers filed with the court.
7 posted on 09/01/2003 1:22:45 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: webber
Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won. After all, the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds. Also he he probably could have gotten a stay until the case was heard.

Instead he deliberately chose to appeal on the grounds that no Federal court has the right to order a state official to violate state law, even if it finds that law counter to the US Constitution. In effect he said the Alabama Constitution outweighs the US Constitution. He totally ignored the 14th Ammednment in his argument as well. Naturally SCOTUS was not about to agree with that line of reasoning. Judge Moore's agenda clearly went beyond the monument itself, and keeping the monument was secondary to that agenda.
8 posted on 09/01/2003 1:36:20 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won.

Winning for the sake of winning does not seem to be Judge Moore's goal. There is a higher principle involved. Judge Moore has stated over and over that the issue has always been about, "Can the state acknowledge (not establish) God?"

77% of Alabamans support the display of the 10 Commandments at the courthouse. Keeping/removing the monument is entirely a states rights matter and FEDERAL Judge Myron Thompson overstepped his authority on this matter. Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made.

9 posted on 09/01/2003 2:11:06 PM PDT by Hyacinth Bucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: webber; Hugin
Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?

You're all wrong: displaying the Decalogue in ANY form violates the liberal's first commandment ("...thou shalt not tell Us what to do - We're supposed to tell you...") and their second commandment ("...thou shalt not make Us feel guilty by rubbing Our Noses in the truth...").

As for Moore: of all the postings I've read, Hugin's post in #8 hits the closest to the truth.

10 posted on 09/01/2003 3:08:23 PM PDT by solitas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
There's one that reads "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?"
11 posted on 09/01/2003 3:17:11 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
Off for mosquitos, garlic for vampires, Ten Commandments for leftists!
12 posted on 09/01/2003 3:19:42 PM PDT by 2nd Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
The left hates the Ten Commandments so they can starve a young woman in Pinellas County Florida who is a disabled woman, not comatose. Please stop by the Terri Schiavo threads for action phone numbers and emails. If you are short on time, here's AG JOHN ASHCROFT'S EMAIL ADDRESS: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov

The Judge in Pinellas is setting the date for Terri's "exit protocol" on September 11, 2003.

FYI: Terri's is feeling better today.

Webber, please ping your friends to help out. This is about everyone, not just Floridians.

13 posted on 09/01/2003 3:21:40 PM PDT by floriduh voter (TO JOIN TERRI PING LIST CONTACT kimmie7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hyacinth Bucket
Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made.

You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Being a later Ammendment, it also supercedes the the 9th and 10th Ammendments when they conflict. That's the basis of Judge Thompson's decision. While I think he is wrong in deciding that the monument constitutes the establishment of a religion, I think Judge Moore was also wrong in his legal argument.

14 posted on 09/01/2003 3:37:15 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
....the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds....

When and where has that been tested?

15 posted on 09/01/2003 3:49:47 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: webber
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=434

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order." Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

...A. The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
......1. Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
......2. Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
......3. Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
......4. Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)

...B. Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
......1. The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
......2. When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism

...C. Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
......1. Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
......2. Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
......3. Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
......4. Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
......5. Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
......6. Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons

...D. Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"

...E. Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
......1. Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
.........a. Terror will only drive Religion underground
.........b. Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
.........c. So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
......2. Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
.........a. Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
.........b. Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
............(1) Cause financial and sexual scandals
............(2) See that this is given a high profile in the news
............(3) Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
......3. Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church
...F. When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
......1. National Consensus
......2. Popular Mandate
......3. National Pacification
......4. Pluralism
......5. Global Community
......6. Economic Justice
......7. Economic Democracy
......8. Liberation Theology
......9. Direct Action
...G. Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."

16 posted on 09/01/2003 3:53:02 PM PDT by steplock (www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
SCOTUS ruled a while back that having "In God We Trust" on the money was not a First Amendment violation, because it was a cultural expression, and not the establishment of a religion. Various SCOTUS justices have stated in interviews when asked about the 10 Commandments displayed in their building, along with Hamurabi's code and the Greek goddess of Justice, that the display is justified on the same grounds.
17 posted on 09/01/2003 4:41:31 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Excerpt of the 14th amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So you agree then that Federal Judge Thompson should have practiced judicial restraint and is the one who violated the law by mis-using and abusing the 14th Amendment even when it clearly did not apply in this case. The display of the monument, in no shape or form, impinged on anyone's constitutional rights. The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right.

18 posted on 09/01/2003 4:43:20 PM PDT by Hyacinth Bucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well.

Ask for a jury trial on a traffic ticket.

19 posted on 09/01/2003 4:47:51 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hyacinth Bucket
The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right.

Didn't ya know? Thompson and crew are free to invent constitutional "rights" at will.

20 posted on 09/01/2003 4:49:29 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
Read This "1963 communist goals"

http://www.glennbeck.com/hots/printcommunistgoals.htm

What is this? Do you have anymore information on it? As far as I know this could have been written yesterday as some propiganda trick

21 posted on 09/01/2003 4:50:26 PM PDT by MetalMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
>> You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Being a later Ammendment, it also supercedes the the 9th and 10th Ammendments when they conflict. That's the basis of Judge Thompson's decision.


Wrong. Even if "incorporation" was valid judicial doctrine, neither the congress nor the Alabama state legislature passed any laws whatsoever on this matter. The federal judge usuped power to render this ruling.
22 posted on 09/01/2003 4:57:48 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hyacinth Bucket
Yes, I agree that the display does not violate anyone's rights, because I don't think it constitutes the establishment of a (state) religion, based on the fact that the 10 Commandments are a part of our heretige on which our laws are founded. I wish Judge Moore had made his argument on those grounds. I don't know if I would go so far as to say Judge Thompson "violated the law by mis-using and abusing the 14th Amendment", but I think his ruling was mistaken.
23 posted on 09/01/2003 4:59:36 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MetalMan
What is this? Do you have anymore information on it? As far as I know this could have been written yesterday as some propiganda trick

Nope, it is in the Congressional Record, January 10th, 1963, look it up.

24 posted on 09/01/2003 5:17:55 PM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: webber
"For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U. S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains -- as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like 'separation of church and state,' to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state." --Roy S. Moore, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama

25 posted on 09/01/2003 5:20:16 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
"There are those who think Judge Moore is an extremist and he may be but it should be pointed out that moderates never accomplish anything; it is the extremists on either end of the spectrum who change the world. The American Revolution was won by extremists. ... Extremism, as Barry Goldwater pointed out, is no vice when it is exercised in defense of liberty. Judge Moore apparently agrees with that assertion. He may lose this battle but in the process he may rally enough troops, persons who ordinarily sit on their hands, to win the war. It wouldn't be the first time." --Lyn Nofziger

26 posted on 09/01/2003 5:21:04 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
"...[T]he unelected, unaccountable judiciary, who are appointed for life, have become so powerful that no one can rein them in or challenge their determination to recast this country, except the Congress. In July, they declared sodomy to be a right protected by the Constitution, ruling out morality as a basis for law, and making it likely that the definition of marriage is about to include same-sex 'marriage' and then, by natural progression, marriage for any number of participants and both genders. ...[T]he federal judiciary is out of control. It is not subject to checks and balances, intended by the Framers. The Congress has the Constitutional right to limit the power of the court, and it must do so. Senators must be urged to confirm conservative nominees to the bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not create these 'court-made laws.' Specifically, in this instance, Congress should pass legislation immediately to protect the Ten Commandments from any and all assaults by the Court, and to guarantee the right of children to say the Pledge of Allegiance, among other protections of faith. If we fail at this moment of destiny, we will become a secularized nation like Canada or the continent of Europe, whose laws are based on secular humanism, or worse, on post-modernism, which holds that there is no truth, no basic right or wrong, nothing good or bad, nothing evil or noble, nothing moral or immoral. Law then will be a whimsical standard that shifts with the sands of time." --James C. Dobson
27 posted on 09/01/2003 5:22:06 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
..various SCOTUS justices have stated in interviews when asked about the 10 Commandments displayed in their building, along with Hamurabi's code and the Greek goddess of Justice, that the display is justified on the same grounds....

That's no test at all. Why did the ACLU move against Judge Moore's Ten Commandments, and give SCOTUS' a pass?

This goes to the heart of what this issue is about. Maybe it's the perspective that being 12000 miles away supplies, but I see a very strong strain of anti-white Christian southerner, in all this. It comes through in many of the articles that are posted about the Moore case on FR, it comes through in many of the replies made to those threads...there's a double standard involved, where there is a deference to the office rather than the actions of SCOTUS, and barely-concealed sneers, that a bunch of Christian hicks in Montgomery should dare to kick up a fuss about this.

28 posted on 09/01/2003 5:24:44 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
..I wish Judge Moore had made his argument on those grounds...

Both sides acknowledge that his lawyer is one of the foremost Constitutional experts in the country, so there's probably a very good reason why he didn't. I think you ought to explore those reasons further, instead of repeating this refrain ad infinitum.

29 posted on 09/01/2003 5:27:26 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steplock; webber
I'm re-reading the books surrounding the Communist penetration of American government starting in the 1920s and especially during Roosevelt's New Deal years beginning in 1932.

Whittaker Chambers' "Witness" gives a detailed account of his espionage activities and "Seeds of Treason" by Ralph de Toledano investigates the Chambers/Hiss trials from a slightly different angle. I just happened to be reading the following about Harold Ware's Communist infiltration when I came across your Gramsci references:

"...along with other Comintern [Communist International]agents he [Harold Ware] was given the order to begin the systematic creation of Communist cells wherever possible. Some of these agents were assigned to the colleges, some to the banks, some to industry...The idea was -- at first -- not espionage but infiltration. Edna Lonigan in 'Human Events' has skillfully described this process:

'Each cell [was to divide] and breed others. Directors of the NKVD sat with their maps of the 'terrain' of the Federal government and moved their followers to one key position after another. Communists in government and the colleges were ordered to recommend their comrades for all desirable openings. They were told to locate the key jobs, to know when they would be vacant, and to pull the strings. Their people always had the 'best' recommendations.

'First the network placed its economists and lawyers...Then it moved its men into public relations. As the leaders learned more about the workings of the bureaucracy, they put their people into jobs as personnel directors. Assistant directors proved even better for the purpose. These officials were never in the headlines. But they saw the incoming applications; they could weed out those with anti-Communist records or 'expedite' those with key names and key experience to identify them...

'The duty of the ablest Soviet agents [in those days] was not espionage. It was to win the confidence of those who directed policy. Their job was to attach themselves to higher officials or the wives of these officials; to be ready day or night to take on more responsibility.

'So, each year, the network moved its men into higher and higher positions. When war came the veterans of eight years of conspiracy reached the highest policy levels. Always an invisible force was pushing the favored higher.'

It's my contention that this system is still very much in operation, not only in government but in the media and the academic world. The only difference is that the public calls them "liberals" instead of the Communist traitors they are. The Democrat Party is, as it always has been, the haven for Communism.

30 posted on 09/01/2003 5:58:10 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
The problem is that if Judge Moore had merely argued his case on the grounds that the 10 Commandments display is constitutional because it is "a part of our heritage on which our laws are founded", then the victory would have ultimately been hollow and meaningless.

Judge Moore (and I) truly believes and wants to acknowledge that God and his 10 Commandments are the basis of our laws. Saying that we are acknowledging God only because he has been part of our heritage is merely paying lip service to the fact. Then the atheist groups putting forth these lawsuits have really won in that if they cannot remove all references to God in society, for now they'll settle for rendering Him to be just another historical or cultural symbol.

31 posted on 09/01/2003 6:05:41 PM PDT by Hyacinth Bucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
"Both sides acknowledge that his lawyer is one of the foremost Constitutional experts in the country, so there's probably a very good reason why he didn't. I think you ought to explore those reasons further, instead of repeating this refrain ad infinitum.

Check it out yourself below...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973677/posts
32 posted on 09/01/2003 6:14:41 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hyacinth Bucket
May God give us a million more Roy Moores

Thanks for the PING HB!

God gave us Ten Commandments and One Saviour...and so many people cannot handle that small task yet!

Somebody here in the thread stated 'the right NOT to be offended is not protected by The Constitution' summed it up nice and neat.

Unfortunately, The Left makes their living on the opposite end of that statement...and occasionally, well intentioned but misled conservatives enable their agenda...like in this case.

33 posted on 09/01/2003 6:28:22 PM PDT by NewLand (The truth can't be ignored...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
"It's my contention that this system is still very much in operation, not only in government but in the media and the academic world. The only difference is that the public calls them "liberals" instead of the Communist traitors they are. The Democrat Party is, as it always has been, the haven for Communism. "

Very well said. I am also convinced this is what is happening.

Al qaeda is a much lesser threat than 'progressives'.

To me, the most important question of the day is, "Why are Republican politicians ignoring this, pretending the problem does not exist, and basically hiding it from the people whom they represent?
34 posted on 09/01/2003 7:31:10 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (If Hillary ever takes the oath of office, she will be the last President the US will ever have. -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daveoverpar
Why do we continue to call it the 'Left'?

//////////
Exactly. We have our on sizeable contingent of them here in FR!

Sadly.
35 posted on 09/01/2003 8:40:53 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won.

///////////
He never argued that it WAS an establishment of religion. Get your facts straight.

He argued that, in keeping with the both the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Federal and Alabama State Constitutions, he was recognizing the historical fact that both this country and his state were founded in the acknowledgement that God was the Sovereign Ruler of the universe.

What is the problem with that?
36 posted on 09/01/2003 8:43:29 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenR2
Yes, and a lot of them are actually American citizens who pay taxes and serve in the military. Awful, ain't it?
37 posted on 09/01/2003 8:45:00 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Yes, and a lot of them are actually American citizens who pay taxes and serve in the military. Awful, ain't it?

//////////
Actually, yes. It shows how successful the dumbing down in public education has been.

Virtually no one would have challenged Judge Moore 50 years ago.
38 posted on 09/01/2003 8:49:34 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
Thanks for your comments. I think I know why Republicans are terrified of meeting this problem head-on. The Communists and Fellow Travelers were so successful at smearing the anti-Communists of the McCarthy Era, the relationship between "Progressivism" and "Communism" is one of an increasingly large number of topics that simply can't be mentioned. To do so is to unleash the full ferocity of the embedded traitors within our system. In true Marxist-Leninist fashion they stop at nothing to destroy their enemies. They virtually destroyed Chambers and they did destroy Nixon.
39 posted on 09/01/2003 9:18:46 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
They are so emboldened now because their infiltration and subversion is at peak levels. They will begin to exercise power by now in these ways, to name a few.


By usurping more state power (now that they are in control its finally safe to do so) and removing individual rights and minimalizing the middle class as well as the US through globalism and oppresive laws.

They must already wield massive power, because the Republicans are playing ball, even after the 2002 mandate that should have enabled the party to advance our agenda. That mandate meant 0. That is scary...
40 posted on 09/01/2003 10:31:35 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (If Hillary ever takes the oath of office, she will be the last President the US will ever have. -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson