Category: John Steinreich

Why the Left Loves Marx and Ignores Douglass


Two hundred years have passed since Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass, a pair of important 19th-century historical figures, were born.  Marx’s collectivist ideas are surging among America’s young, while Douglass, a champion of civil rights and the first black man to receive a nominating vote for president of the United States, sits largely unnoticed in pop culture.  The admiration lavished on Marx – whose communist ideology has led to hunger, misery, and tyranny wherever it has been implemented – should be accorded to Douglass, an iconic American scion of liberty.

Marx was born May 5, 1818 to a middle-class family in the old Germanic kingdom of Prussia.  His father was an attorney, and his mother came from a prosperous business family.  Marx grew up in a ten-room home, received a private education, and married a wealthy heiress.  He never held a real job, living off his benefactors (those being his wife Jenny, writing partner Friedrich Engels, and wealthy uncle Benjamin Philips).  Despite residing in posh European capitals, Marx raised his family in a dirty flat, languishing in poverty until he died of pleurisy in 1883.  His governmental and economic theories, published in his books Manifesto of the Communist Party and Das Kapital, were not broadly adopted during his lifetime.  

Douglass was born a slave in Maryland, likely in February 1818; because of scanty birth records, he did not know the exact date.  He never knew his father, and his mother died sometime in the 1820s.  Douglass had no formal education, and his mistress was excoriated by his slavemaster for teaching him to read.  He experienced extreme deprivation, abandonment, hunger, beatings, false imprisonment, betrayal, and dehumanization until he completed a fantastic escape from bondage on September 3, 1838.  Douglass eked out a living as a day laborer and was a fugitive until the mid-1840s, when sympathetic British supporters purchased his freedom.  Thereafter, Douglass grew into the most prominent antebellum abolitionist orator, met thrice with Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, published three widely read autobiographies, and received federal appointments as marshal of the District of Columbia and ambassador to Haiti.  In spite of his achievements, Douglass faced ridicule and racism from his opponents until his death in 1895.

Despite these résumés, the modern left, with its mainstream media mouthpiece, lionizes Marx and engages in willful blindness of Douglass.  How is it that the smart set in our country today largely ignores the life lessons of a self-made ex-slave who rose to the height of international acclaim while glorifying the teachings of an obscure, slovenly grifter who left his offspring impoverished? 

The left abhors the concept of republicanism, so it is easy for leftists to praise Marx, who did not subscribe to republican governing principles.  Furthermore, as a European, Marx had nothing to do with the Republican Party.  As feckless as the GOP has been in many eras of its existence, of the two major American parties, the Republicans have been better than the Democrats regarding the historical advance of freedom and representation.  In Douglass’s day, they were the anti-slavery party and were in favor of civil rights and the nascent women’s suffrage movement.  The left cannot permit any recitation of these facts, and, because Democrat journalists significantly outnumber Republicans, the media bury this information.  To be a Republican today means constant media antipathy unless one is willing to criticize other Republicans.  It would thus be quite inconvenient for America’s journalistic Jacobins to praise Frederick Douglass – having grown up a slave under a tyrannical Democratic regime in the 1820s and 1830s – who explicitly labeled the Democrats the enemy of black Americans:

There was no path out of the Republican Party that did not lead directly into the Democratic Party – away from our friends and directly to our enemies.

And, famously:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Leftists romanticize violent agitators and are enamored of pie-in-the-sky utopianism, so they exalt Marx – a dreamer who advocated the use of force to create his socialist nirvana.  As he wrote:

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

The left must be reluctant to acknowledge Douglass in this regard because he shunned “revolutionary terror.”  Douglass declined when John Brown invited him to participate in his raid on the federal armory in 1859; thus, he lived to fight the political battle against slavery while Brown was captured and executed.  He spent his post-Civil War career promoting the constitutional principles that “man’s rights rest in three boxes … the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box,” yet Douglass was circumspect about government interventionism to address the problems of the freedmen.  In 1865, Douglass proclaimed:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice[.] … Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”  I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us[.] … [I]f the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!

The modern left rails against the “1 percent” and uses taxation to confiscate the private property of individuals for collectivist ends.  This amounts to legalized theft – a soft form of slavery in which the output of one man’s labor is legally taken from him for consumption by another.  The use of government force to impose this seizure of economic liberty would be fine and dandy with Marx, whose “theory … may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[i]  Douglass as a bondsman had the fruit of his labors stolen from him with legal imprimatur, until he managed to reach free soil.  Taking his first job as a free man, Douglass described the joy of keeping his own pay:

[T]he dear lady put into my hand two silver half-dollars.  To understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this money, realizing that I had no master who could take it from me – that it was mine – that my hands were my own, and could earn more of the precious coin – one must have been in some sense himself a slave.[ii]  

Finally, and most potently, the left cannot possibly tolerate raising awareness of the man for whom H.R. 2989 was signed into law.  Not only does this 2017 act intend to bring the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass to the fore, but it was authorized by leftists’ most hated enemy in presidential history: Donald Trump.  The left cannot allow the American people to positively associate President Trump with an entrepreneurial, free-thinking black civil rights hero.  Instead, they uplift Marxist acolytes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and publish puff pieces on the old wannabe despot (such as fashion magazine Teen Vogue’s glowing profile) in order to keep the grubby Karl Marx in the limelight. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? and A Great Cloud of Witnesses.  His works are also on Lulu Press.  He is currently developing a stage production on the life of Frederick Douglass: www.facebook.com/freementheater.


[i] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000, 2010, 22.

[ii] Douglass, Frederick.  The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.  The Online Library of Liberty, 2011, 130.

Two hundred years have passed since Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass, a pair of important 19th-century historical figures, were born.  Marx’s collectivist ideas are surging among America’s young, while Douglass, a champion of civil rights and the first black man to receive a nominating vote for president of the United States, sits largely unnoticed in pop culture.  The admiration lavished on Marx – whose communist ideology has led to hunger, misery, and tyranny wherever it has been implemented – should be accorded to Douglass, an iconic American scion of liberty.

Marx was born May 5, 1818 to a middle-class family in the old Germanic kingdom of Prussia.  His father was an attorney, and his mother came from a prosperous business family.  Marx grew up in a ten-room home, received a private education, and married a wealthy heiress.  He never held a real job, living off his benefactors (those being his wife Jenny, writing partner Friedrich Engels, and wealthy uncle Benjamin Philips).  Despite residing in posh European capitals, Marx raised his family in a dirty flat, languishing in poverty until he died of pleurisy in 1883.  His governmental and economic theories, published in his books Manifesto of the Communist Party and Das Kapital, were not broadly adopted during his lifetime.  

Douglass was born a slave in Maryland, likely in February 1818; because of scanty birth records, he did not know the exact date.  He never knew his father, and his mother died sometime in the 1820s.  Douglass had no formal education, and his mistress was excoriated by his slavemaster for teaching him to read.  He experienced extreme deprivation, abandonment, hunger, beatings, false imprisonment, betrayal, and dehumanization until he completed a fantastic escape from bondage on September 3, 1838.  Douglass eked out a living as a day laborer and was a fugitive until the mid-1840s, when sympathetic British supporters purchased his freedom.  Thereafter, Douglass grew into the most prominent antebellum abolitionist orator, met thrice with Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, published three widely read autobiographies, and received federal appointments as marshal of the District of Columbia and ambassador to Haiti.  In spite of his achievements, Douglass faced ridicule and racism from his opponents until his death in 1895.

Despite these résumés, the modern left, with its mainstream media mouthpiece, lionizes Marx and engages in willful blindness of Douglass.  How is it that the smart set in our country today largely ignores the life lessons of a self-made ex-slave who rose to the height of international acclaim while glorifying the teachings of an obscure, slovenly grifter who left his offspring impoverished? 

The left abhors the concept of republicanism, so it is easy for leftists to praise Marx, who did not subscribe to republican governing principles.  Furthermore, as a European, Marx had nothing to do with the Republican Party.  As feckless as the GOP has been in many eras of its existence, of the two major American parties, the Republicans have been better than the Democrats regarding the historical advance of freedom and representation.  In Douglass’s day, they were the anti-slavery party and were in favor of civil rights and the nascent women’s suffrage movement.  The left cannot permit any recitation of these facts, and, because Democrat journalists significantly outnumber Republicans, the media bury this information.  To be a Republican today means constant media antipathy unless one is willing to criticize other Republicans.  It would thus be quite inconvenient for America’s journalistic Jacobins to praise Frederick Douglass – having grown up a slave under a tyrannical Democratic regime in the 1820s and 1830s – who explicitly labeled the Democrats the enemy of black Americans:

There was no path out of the Republican Party that did not lead directly into the Democratic Party – away from our friends and directly to our enemies.

And, famously:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Leftists romanticize violent agitators and are enamored of pie-in-the-sky utopianism, so they exalt Marx – a dreamer who advocated the use of force to create his socialist nirvana.  As he wrote:

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

The left must be reluctant to acknowledge Douglass in this regard because he shunned “revolutionary terror.”  Douglass declined when John Brown invited him to participate in his raid on the federal armory in 1859; thus, he lived to fight the political battle against slavery while Brown was captured and executed.  He spent his post-Civil War career promoting the constitutional principles that “man’s rights rest in three boxes … the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box,” yet Douglass was circumspect about government interventionism to address the problems of the freedmen.  In 1865, Douglass proclaimed:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice[.] … Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”  I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us[.] … [I]f the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!

The modern left rails against the “1 percent” and uses taxation to confiscate the private property of individuals for collectivist ends.  This amounts to legalized theft – a soft form of slavery in which the output of one man’s labor is legally taken from him for consumption by another.  The use of government force to impose this seizure of economic liberty would be fine and dandy with Marx, whose “theory … may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[i]  Douglass as a bondsman had the fruit of his labors stolen from him with legal imprimatur, until he managed to reach free soil.  Taking his first job as a free man, Douglass described the joy of keeping his own pay:

[T]he dear lady put into my hand two silver half-dollars.  To understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this money, realizing that I had no master who could take it from me – that it was mine – that my hands were my own, and could earn more of the precious coin – one must have been in some sense himself a slave.[ii]  

Finally, and most potently, the left cannot possibly tolerate raising awareness of the man for whom H.R. 2989 was signed into law.  Not only does this 2017 act intend to bring the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass to the fore, but it was authorized by leftists’ most hated enemy in presidential history: Donald Trump.  The left cannot allow the American people to positively associate President Trump with an entrepreneurial, free-thinking black civil rights hero.  Instead, they uplift Marxist acolytes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and publish puff pieces on the old wannabe despot (such as fashion magazine Teen Vogue’s glowing profile) in order to keep the grubby Karl Marx in the limelight. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? and A Great Cloud of Witnesses.  His works are also on Lulu Press.  He is currently developing a stage production on the life of Frederick Douglass: www.facebook.com/freementheater.


[i] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000, 2010, 22.

[ii] Douglass, Frederick.  The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.  The Online Library of Liberty, 2011, 130.



Source link

Defending the Indefensible


The false narrative of Operation Trump-Russia is the latest in a long train of episodes wherein Democrats have actively defended the indefensible.  Emerging in the 1820s to counter the Whigs in favor of Andrew Jackson in 1828, the Democratic Party has had an age-old tradition of fighting to advance every bad idea in American history. 

To their limited credit, Old Hickory’s political team have had brief spurts of decency.  In their early days, the Jacksonians opposed centralized government, particularly as related to economics.  A late 19th-century faction called the Bourbon Democrats, among whom was President Grover Cleveland, championed fiscal responsibility.  Cleveland famously vetoed the 1887 Texas Seed Bill, which would have appropriated $10,000 to farmers in the Lone Star State for drought relief.  Cleveland upheld constitutionalism with this veto, expressing the following:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit[.] … Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

In the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, despite his admiration for European socialism, resolved to fight the Axis powers until America won total victory.  John Kennedy espoused policies of economic expansion predicated on lowering taxes.  Jimmy Carter was visibly pained that he failed in his mission to rescue the hostages in Iran.  Even Bill Clinton argued for border security and signed welfare reform into being.

Having listed the few examples of the donkey party’s positive contributions, let us now review the broader body of their work, which is nothing less than a noxious litany of bigotry, sexism, hysterics, and hedonism.

The 19th century showcased the Democrats’ greatest wickedness in their aggressive promotion of slavery.  John Calhoun asserted that, despite the grotesque inhumanity of this “peculiar institution” as practiced in the American South, slavery was a “positive good” for both master and slave.  Two feckless antebellum presidents, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, allowed the expansion of involuntary servitude into the Western territories.  George McClellan, a Democrat who was the first Union commander, failed to prosecute the Civil War properly.  He ran against Lincoln in 1864 on a conciliation platform that would have ended the war with Northern capitulation and the continuation of slavery.

Heading into the 20th century, the Democrats moved on from slavery to a hundred years of Jim Crow.  Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal workforce and screened the KKK propaganda film Birth of a Nation in the White House.  After a confrontation with the NAACP’s W.E.B. Dubois and William Monroe Trotter about his racist policies (implemented in spite of the fact that Dubois’s endorsement during the 1912 election helped him garner a greater percentage of black votes than any previous Democrat), Wilson callously told the New York Times, “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.”  The 1924 Democratic National Convention is colloquially labeled the “Klanbake” since the KKK dominated the event, leading to the nomination of John W. Davis, who favored poll taxes and opposed women’s voting rights and anti-discrimination legislation.  The insulting and violent segregationism of the Democratic Party lasted all the way to cynical presidency of Lyndon Johnson, who supported civil rights for black Americans only when he saw an opening to buy their votes through redistributive government programs.   

In the midst of their career of oppressing blacks, the Democrats also found a way to mistreat other groups of people.  The women’s suffrage movement got its legislative start when Republican Senator A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878, and this bill was voted down by congressional Democrats.  It did not pass until four decades hence:

[T]he Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats – including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”

In 1939, FDR rejected nearly a thousand Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany on the S.S. St. Louis, forcing them back to Europe, where it was by divine intervention that they succeeded in securing asylum in Belgium, France, Holland, and England.  He then violated the constitutional rights of some 100,000 Japanese-Americans by seizing their property and imprisoning them as a war powers measure.  The SCOTUS’s ensuing Korematsu decision endorsed Roosevelt’s oppression of these Americans, the majority opinion being authored by Justice Hugo Black, a Democrat who in the 1920s had been a Klansman and who had filibustered an anti-lynching bill in the Senate in 1935.

The Democrats moved away from tyrannizing women and minorities sometime in the mid-1960s as they embraced open immorality and lies.  Since the Great Society, Democrats have championed endless welfare programs funded by the immoral theft of tax dollars from hardworking Americans.  This Democrat policy of wealth redistribution encourages millions of our fellow citizens to practice the sin of sloth, trapping them in sheeplike dependency on the outstretched hand of Big Brother, who drops just enough crumbs to keep them fed and voting D each election cycle.  According to DNC chairman Tom Perez, abortion (i.e., the murder of babies) is a sacrament that no Democrat is permitted to oppose.  Illegal immigration does not receive condemnation like what Harry Reid and Bill Clinton heaped upon it back in the 1990s; today it is honored as some sort of humanitarian cause célèbre among Democrats.  The biological reality of binary gender is rejected by modern Democrats, who are on a crusade to have grown men relieve themselves in bathroom stalls next to little girls.  The Democrats’ open hatred of Christianity has put a septuagenarian grandmother into bankruptcy because her religious beliefs prevent her from willingly doing floral arrangements for a same-sex couple’s ceremony.  The party of Schumer and Pelosi promotes apocalyptic hysteria and imposes draconian regulations on industries of all kinds to force compliance with their ideological fanaticism over the mendacious climate change phenomenon.  

Democrats upended one sixth of the economy through Obamacare.  By forcing citizens to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the most onerous government collection agency, they subverted America’s beloved founding principle of individual liberty.  They have covered up the Clinton family’s crimes for decades and slandered anyone who suggests that Hillary endangered our national security by her email misconduct.  They poured out praise on Barack Obama while preventing him from being held accountable for running illegal guns into Mexico, paying cash ransom to Iran for hostages, and violating immigration law through executive amnesty.  And now they want to impeach Donald Trump because of a baseless allegation about election shenanigans.

Concerned Americans are infuriated by the Democrats’ obsession with the nonexistent scandal of Operation Trump-Russia, but we recognize that these latest histrionics are a historical continuation of their defense of everything contemptible, tyrannical, and false.  They ought to change their mascot from a donkey to a zebra – neither Democrats nor zebras can change their stripes. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? – the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses – Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History.  His works are also on Lulu Press.

The false narrative of Operation Trump-Russia is the latest in a long train of episodes wherein Democrats have actively defended the indefensible.  Emerging in the 1820s to counter the Whigs in favor of Andrew Jackson in 1828, the Democratic Party has had an age-old tradition of fighting to advance every bad idea in American history. 

To their limited credit, Old Hickory’s political team have had brief spurts of decency.  In their early days, the Jacksonians opposed centralized government, particularly as related to economics.  A late 19th-century faction called the Bourbon Democrats, among whom was President Grover Cleveland, championed fiscal responsibility.  Cleveland famously vetoed the 1887 Texas Seed Bill, which would have appropriated $10,000 to farmers in the Lone Star State for drought relief.  Cleveland upheld constitutionalism with this veto, expressing the following:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit[.] … Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

In the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, despite his admiration for European socialism, resolved to fight the Axis powers until America won total victory.  John Kennedy espoused policies of economic expansion predicated on lowering taxes.  Jimmy Carter was visibly pained that he failed in his mission to rescue the hostages in Iran.  Even Bill Clinton argued for border security and signed welfare reform into being.

Having listed the few examples of the donkey party’s positive contributions, let us now review the broader body of their work, which is nothing less than a noxious litany of bigotry, sexism, hysterics, and hedonism.

The 19th century showcased the Democrats’ greatest wickedness in their aggressive promotion of slavery.  John Calhoun asserted that, despite the grotesque inhumanity of this “peculiar institution” as practiced in the American South, slavery was a “positive good” for both master and slave.  Two feckless antebellum presidents, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, allowed the expansion of involuntary servitude into the Western territories.  George McClellan, a Democrat who was the first Union commander, failed to prosecute the Civil War properly.  He ran against Lincoln in 1864 on a conciliation platform that would have ended the war with Northern capitulation and the continuation of slavery.

Heading into the 20th century, the Democrats moved on from slavery to a hundred years of Jim Crow.  Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal workforce and screened the KKK propaganda film Birth of a Nation in the White House.  After a confrontation with the NAACP’s W.E.B. Dubois and William Monroe Trotter about his racist policies (implemented in spite of the fact that Dubois’s endorsement during the 1912 election helped him garner a greater percentage of black votes than any previous Democrat), Wilson callously told the New York Times, “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.”  The 1924 Democratic National Convention is colloquially labeled the “Klanbake” since the KKK dominated the event, leading to the nomination of John W. Davis, who favored poll taxes and opposed women’s voting rights and anti-discrimination legislation.  The insulting and violent segregationism of the Democratic Party lasted all the way to cynical presidency of Lyndon Johnson, who supported civil rights for black Americans only when he saw an opening to buy their votes through redistributive government programs.   

In the midst of their career of oppressing blacks, the Democrats also found a way to mistreat other groups of people.  The women’s suffrage movement got its legislative start when Republican Senator A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878, and this bill was voted down by congressional Democrats.  It did not pass until four decades hence:

[T]he Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats – including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”

In 1939, FDR rejected nearly a thousand Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany on the S.S. St. Louis, forcing them back to Europe, where it was by divine intervention that they succeeded in securing asylum in Belgium, France, Holland, and England.  He then violated the constitutional rights of some 100,000 Japanese-Americans by seizing their property and imprisoning them as a war powers measure.  The SCOTUS’s ensuing Korematsu decision endorsed Roosevelt’s oppression of these Americans, the majority opinion being authored by Justice Hugo Black, a Democrat who in the 1920s had been a Klansman and who had filibustered an anti-lynching bill in the Senate in 1935.

The Democrats moved away from tyrannizing women and minorities sometime in the mid-1960s as they embraced open immorality and lies.  Since the Great Society, Democrats have championed endless welfare programs funded by the immoral theft of tax dollars from hardworking Americans.  This Democrat policy of wealth redistribution encourages millions of our fellow citizens to practice the sin of sloth, trapping them in sheeplike dependency on the outstretched hand of Big Brother, who drops just enough crumbs to keep them fed and voting D each election cycle.  According to DNC chairman Tom Perez, abortion (i.e., the murder of babies) is a sacrament that no Democrat is permitted to oppose.  Illegal immigration does not receive condemnation like what Harry Reid and Bill Clinton heaped upon it back in the 1990s; today it is honored as some sort of humanitarian cause célèbre among Democrats.  The biological reality of binary gender is rejected by modern Democrats, who are on a crusade to have grown men relieve themselves in bathroom stalls next to little girls.  The Democrats’ open hatred of Christianity has put a septuagenarian grandmother into bankruptcy because her religious beliefs prevent her from willingly doing floral arrangements for a same-sex couple’s ceremony.  The party of Schumer and Pelosi promotes apocalyptic hysteria and imposes draconian regulations on industries of all kinds to force compliance with their ideological fanaticism over the mendacious climate change phenomenon.  

Democrats upended one sixth of the economy through Obamacare.  By forcing citizens to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the most onerous government collection agency, they subverted America’s beloved founding principle of individual liberty.  They have covered up the Clinton family’s crimes for decades and slandered anyone who suggests that Hillary endangered our national security by her email misconduct.  They poured out praise on Barack Obama while preventing him from being held accountable for running illegal guns into Mexico, paying cash ransom to Iran for hostages, and violating immigration law through executive amnesty.  And now they want to impeach Donald Trump because of a baseless allegation about election shenanigans.

Concerned Americans are infuriated by the Democrats’ obsession with the nonexistent scandal of Operation Trump-Russia, but we recognize that these latest histrionics are a historical continuation of their defense of everything contemptible, tyrannical, and false.  They ought to change their mascot from a donkey to a zebra – neither Democrats nor zebras can change their stripes. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? – the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses – Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History.  His works are also on Lulu Press.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

The Left Needs Operation Trump-Russia


Without hard evidence to support it, the accusation that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with nefarious Kremlinites to win the 2016 election is gaining momentum at an unnervingly fast pace.  This fact-free story has now led to the Deputy Attorney General’s appointment of a Special Counselor to investigate it.

What use is such special counsel when the theory of an electoral love connection between Messrs. Trump and Putin has been repeatedly debunked? For an operation of this nature to successfully throw the election to Trump, he and Vlad would have specifically needed to target the swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida) and the “blue wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — those three being exceptionally difficult to alter, all having gone Democratic for President since 1992. Then, the colluders would have needed to influence the ballot toward Trump in potentially thousands of voting districts in multiple states in order to shift sufficient numbers away from Hillary. Hacking and publishing John Podesta’s electronic correspondence in order to demonstrate the Democratic Party’s low opinion of minorities, Catholics, and Bernie Sanders seems hardly a great way of motivating unemployed Rust Belt workers or transplanted, Northeastern retirees in Boca Raton to rush out to the polls to vote solidly GOP.

This is not to exonerate the Russians from the allegation that they may have engaged in cyberattacking American targets during the 2016 campaign. Nevertheless, even Newsweek had to admit that

To put it in simpler terms, no one stuffed any ballot boxes here, but someone did do the equivalent of breaking into campaign offices and rifling through their confidential files and paperwork, stealing information and files that could be portrayed as damaging, and then selectively leaking that information… This did not falsify the election results.

To understand how this tall tale has risen to a dangerously overblown level, one must first review its origins. The Trump-Russia conspiracy emerged accidentally with the Donald himself, whose blue-collar humor sounds to Anglophone leftists as if he were speaking Greek. Riffing sarcastically on 7/26/16 regarding Mrs. Clinton’s lost government-related emails, Mr. Trump told the press gaggle:

Russia, if you are listening… I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Reasonable persons laughed at his witticism. Throughout the campaign, the left had proved itself to be woefully incurious about Mrs. Clinton’s clandestine server and her cat-and-mouse answers to inquiries regarding her on-the-job email habits. Thus Mr. Trump’s barb hit both his rival and the broadsides of the left’s megaphone (i.e. the mainstream media). It also reassured millions of deplorable Americans who disliked Mrs. Clinton’s questionable conduct that they had a political champion against her duplicity.

Given his comedic sensibility and the media’s blockheaded inability to interpret his banter, Mr. Trump clarified the next day that his comments were made in sarcasm. He likely forgot his joke shortly thereafter as he moved on to the next phase of his campaign. Leftists, conversely, clutched their pearls, interpreting Trump’s statement as a signal to his KGB buddy to launch a psy-ops attack against the Clinton campaign.

The MSM’s vapors over this issue subsided somewhat as Trump struggled through the summer and fall of 2016. The press had at their disposal plenty of alternative anti-Trump fodder including, but not limited to, the Khan family kerfuffle, his meandering performance in the first presidential debate, and the Access Hollywood tape; this all pointed to an impending Hillary victory. But shortly after Trump won the Electoral College, the epic gasp of the left gave way to a crusade against the vulgarian who had bested their queen. To bolster the resistance movement, Operation Trump-Russia had to be revived, irrespective of the facts.

The lack of credible evidence of a Trumpian conspiracy does nothing to diminish the left’s hysterics. That Trump joked about Russia and suggested that he would like to have a cordial relationship with Putin is enough for the left to believe in the collusion theory. They will not be convinced otherwise because of their continuing unwillingness to process the outcome of the presidential election in an emotionally healthy way.

Their swift rejection of fact and rapid adoption of fiction has precedent in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. Despite Jack Ruby’s deadly interference and the Warren Commission’s rush job, the genuinely vetted evidence pointed to Oswald as the lone gunman. But the facts alone provided no solace to countless grieving Americans struggling with the awful truth that the handsome and popular JFK was felled by Lee Harvey Oswald, a poorly educated, traitorous, wife-beating defector. In a 1992 interview with the New York Times, the historian William Manchester described it this way:

Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic principle here. If you put six million dead Jews on one side of a scale and on the other side put the Nazi regime — the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state — you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals. But if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn’t balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President’s death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one.

A pathetic “waif” killing a virile Commander-in-Chief made for such an imbalanced historical equation that the conspiracy cult provided many mourners with a more evenly distributed (albeit fantastical) and therefore more palatable explanation for their loss.

Diehard leftists treat politics as religion, so Hillary’s 2016 election loss caused them an existential crisis reminiscent of the fright and outrage after JFK’s murder. On one side, Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, flush with campaign cash, supported by Barack Obama, America’s soon-to-be first female POTUS. On the other side, an orange-skinned, thrice-married, trash-talking playboy best known for his reality television career, with not a minute of elective experience. There was no balance in this contest; Hillary should have won in a colossal landslide. When that didn’t happen, the bottom dropped out for the left. The only way they could cope with this catastrophe was to do what many did after Dallas in November 1963: Discard empiricism in favor of wild theory. For some, a conspiracy by John Birchers, Cubans, or Mafiosi to kill Kennedy imbued his death with more raison d’être than the impulsive target practice of a paranoid shipping clerk with a mail-order rifle. Similarly, if a shirtless Soviet ghoul and an oddly coiffed Montgomery Burns conspired to create 100,000 Republican votes in Janesville, Pittsburgh, and Flint, only then can the left emotionally process Hillary’s defeat. Thus, the left needs Operation Trump-Russia; without it, progressives must contend with the undigestible reality that they are responsible for their 2016 election failure given their nomination of a condescending, corrupt harridan who could not appeal to an electorate tired of preening, establishmentarian grandees.

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church History from Colorado Theological Seminary. He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God?– the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses — Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History. His works are also on Lulu Press. 

Without hard evidence to support it, the accusation that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with nefarious Kremlinites to win the 2016 election is gaining momentum at an unnervingly fast pace.  This fact-free story has now led to the Deputy Attorney General’s appointment of a Special Counselor to investigate it.

What use is such special counsel when the theory of an electoral love connection between Messrs. Trump and Putin has been repeatedly debunked? For an operation of this nature to successfully throw the election to Trump, he and Vlad would have specifically needed to target the swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida) and the “blue wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — those three being exceptionally difficult to alter, all having gone Democratic for President since 1992. Then, the colluders would have needed to influence the ballot toward Trump in potentially thousands of voting districts in multiple states in order to shift sufficient numbers away from Hillary. Hacking and publishing John Podesta’s electronic correspondence in order to demonstrate the Democratic Party’s low opinion of minorities, Catholics, and Bernie Sanders seems hardly a great way of motivating unemployed Rust Belt workers or transplanted, Northeastern retirees in Boca Raton to rush out to the polls to vote solidly GOP.

This is not to exonerate the Russians from the allegation that they may have engaged in cyberattacking American targets during the 2016 campaign. Nevertheless, even Newsweek had to admit that

To put it in simpler terms, no one stuffed any ballot boxes here, but someone did do the equivalent of breaking into campaign offices and rifling through their confidential files and paperwork, stealing information and files that could be portrayed as damaging, and then selectively leaking that information… This did not falsify the election results.

To understand how this tall tale has risen to a dangerously overblown level, one must first review its origins. The Trump-Russia conspiracy emerged accidentally with the Donald himself, whose blue-collar humor sounds to Anglophone leftists as if he were speaking Greek. Riffing sarcastically on 7/26/16 regarding Mrs. Clinton’s lost government-related emails, Mr. Trump told the press gaggle:

Russia, if you are listening… I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Reasonable persons laughed at his witticism. Throughout the campaign, the left had proved itself to be woefully incurious about Mrs. Clinton’s clandestine server and her cat-and-mouse answers to inquiries regarding her on-the-job email habits. Thus Mr. Trump’s barb hit both his rival and the broadsides of the left’s megaphone (i.e. the mainstream media). It also reassured millions of deplorable Americans who disliked Mrs. Clinton’s questionable conduct that they had a political champion against her duplicity.

Given his comedic sensibility and the media’s blockheaded inability to interpret his banter, Mr. Trump clarified the next day that his comments were made in sarcasm. He likely forgot his joke shortly thereafter as he moved on to the next phase of his campaign. Leftists, conversely, clutched their pearls, interpreting Trump’s statement as a signal to his KGB buddy to launch a psy-ops attack against the Clinton campaign.

The MSM’s vapors over this issue subsided somewhat as Trump struggled through the summer and fall of 2016. The press had at their disposal plenty of alternative anti-Trump fodder including, but not limited to, the Khan family kerfuffle, his meandering performance in the first presidential debate, and the Access Hollywood tape; this all pointed to an impending Hillary victory. But shortly after Trump won the Electoral College, the epic gasp of the left gave way to a crusade against the vulgarian who had bested their queen. To bolster the resistance movement, Operation Trump-Russia had to be revived, irrespective of the facts.

The lack of credible evidence of a Trumpian conspiracy does nothing to diminish the left’s hysterics. That Trump joked about Russia and suggested that he would like to have a cordial relationship with Putin is enough for the left to believe in the collusion theory. They will not be convinced otherwise because of their continuing unwillingness to process the outcome of the presidential election in an emotionally healthy way.

Their swift rejection of fact and rapid adoption of fiction has precedent in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. Despite Jack Ruby’s deadly interference and the Warren Commission’s rush job, the genuinely vetted evidence pointed to Oswald as the lone gunman. But the facts alone provided no solace to countless grieving Americans struggling with the awful truth that the handsome and popular JFK was felled by Lee Harvey Oswald, a poorly educated, traitorous, wife-beating defector. In a 1992 interview with the New York Times, the historian William Manchester described it this way:

Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic principle here. If you put six million dead Jews on one side of a scale and on the other side put the Nazi regime — the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state — you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals. But if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn’t balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President’s death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one.

A pathetic “waif” killing a virile Commander-in-Chief made for such an imbalanced historical equation that the conspiracy cult provided many mourners with a more evenly distributed (albeit fantastical) and therefore more palatable explanation for their loss.

Diehard leftists treat politics as religion, so Hillary’s 2016 election loss caused them an existential crisis reminiscent of the fright and outrage after JFK’s murder. On one side, Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, flush with campaign cash, supported by Barack Obama, America’s soon-to-be first female POTUS. On the other side, an orange-skinned, thrice-married, trash-talking playboy best known for his reality television career, with not a minute of elective experience. There was no balance in this contest; Hillary should have won in a colossal landslide. When that didn’t happen, the bottom dropped out for the left. The only way they could cope with this catastrophe was to do what many did after Dallas in November 1963: Discard empiricism in favor of wild theory. For some, a conspiracy by John Birchers, Cubans, or Mafiosi to kill Kennedy imbued his death with more raison d’être than the impulsive target practice of a paranoid shipping clerk with a mail-order rifle. Similarly, if a shirtless Soviet ghoul and an oddly coiffed Montgomery Burns conspired to create 100,000 Republican votes in Janesville, Pittsburgh, and Flint, only then can the left emotionally process Hillary’s defeat. Thus, the left needs Operation Trump-Russia; without it, progressives must contend with the undigestible reality that they are responsible for their 2016 election failure given their nomination of a condescending, corrupt harridan who could not appeal to an electorate tired of preening, establishmentarian grandees.

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church History from Colorado Theological Seminary. He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God?– the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses — Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History. His works are also on Lulu Press. 



Source link

Leftists, Ask Yourselves: ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go?'


Since the left views Donald Trump as Hitler and the Republican Party – currently dominant in Congress and the majority of statehouses­ – as accomplices in his fascist tyranny, the existential question each liberal-progressive ought to be asking himself is the very question a punk rock band made famous as the refrain of their most popular tune.

The lyrics of The Clash’s 1982 song “Should I Stay or Should I Go” reflect the singer’s indecisiveness about whether he should remain in a relationship with a woman who today entices him and tomorrow plays hard to get.  “One day it’s fine, and next it’s black,” sings Mick Jones of his mercurial muse, “so if you want me off your back, well, come on and let me know: should I stay or should I go?”  Considering founding member Joe Strummer’s overtly leftist politics, the band could hardly have anticipated that their song, whose content is no more serious than an adolescent romance, would now serve as a metaphor for progressives and their love-hate relationship with the United States. 

The question as to why liberals simply do not pack up and leave the United States has been on my mind, particularly after a recent conversation with a self-proclaimed “bleeding heart” fellow congregant at my church, who looked at me venomously when I told him I consider myself a constitutionalist.  His offense was all the greater because my wife is black.

“The Founding Fathers presided over one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history,” said the chap regarding American slavery, and “the Constitution made blacks three fifths of a person.”  With these arguments, he intended to shame me into rejecting my affinity for the Constitution because, in his view, anyone sympathetic to the plight of blacks in this country – particularly a white man married to a black woman – would surely look on the founding of the USA with disgust.

My immediate response was that America’s transcendent, foundational ideas – that all people are created equal with natural rights and that limited government with separated powers is the best means devised by mankind so far of protecting those rights – could not be invalidated either by my wife’s ethnicity or the fact that among the Founders were slaveholders.  Then I began to explain the Three-Fifths Clause as a device to curb the power of the slaveholding states, but my interlocutor’s brief tolerance for such political incorrectness wore out before I could conclude my thoughts.  He cut me off, self-righteously saying: “I’m an attorney, and I’ve heard all these arguments.  I don’t need you to tell me anything more.”  The possibility of productive dialogue between us thus ended.

My nagging thought after this conversation was, if my co-religionist has so much disdain for the U.S. Constitution and so little interest in hearing opinions in favor of it, why in the world would he – and by extension, so many like-minded statists – want to continue living in so hellish a place, governed by a corrupt document and populated by tens of millions who actually cherish it? 

Perhaps America’s Jacobins stay in this country because they enjoy the freedom of speech protected in the very Constitution they vigorously disdain.  Yet instead of expressing gratitude for this liberty, they use it to shout down opposing viewpoints.  They contemplate aloud bombing the Trump White House, make constant counter-factual pronouncements that Islam is a religion of peace, and linguistically manipulate people into believing that individuals with male genitalia ought to be allowed unimpeded opportunities to relieve themselves in the women’s restroom.  Conversely, they detest any idea that does not jibe with their worldview, and they have little self-control in their heavy-handed efforts to stop their opposition from exercising their free speech rights.

The left wants unrestricted free choice regarding whether a baby in the womb lives or dies, but it reviles anyone who wishes to have the freedom of choice to select his own health insurance or where to send his children to school.  Leftists express consternation at the plight of the poor, but they give far less charitably to the indigent than do conservatives, and in fact, they prefer to have the strong arm of the government steal from the taxpayers to redistribute money to those whom they themselves do precious little to assist.  The Tenth Amendment has wonderful appeal to the neo-Confederates in the sanctuary jurisdictions that reject federal immigration law, but when Arizona attempted to follow that law, as in the case of S.B. 1070 some years ago, the left developed a selective amnesia about the Bill of Rights and fought the Grand Canyon State all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

One can only wonder why progressives bother to stay in a country where they have lost thousands of legislative seats nationally since 2010 and have seen their presidential messiah replaced not by their exalted female demigod, but by an openly flawed, crude, Caucasian, heterosexual, and pro-Christian capitalist with no political experience.  Progressives see inequality, injustice, anti-minority racism, misogyny, and oppression of LGBTQ persons every day, all the time in the United States, and they make their disgust with these perceived offenses known loudly through protests, riots, civil unrest, and unhinged interviews with an incredulous Tucker Carlson

To our geographic north lies a European-style welfare state that spends about 35 percent of its federal budget annually on elderly programs, children’s services, and health care, and to the south one encounters a Latin American kleptocrat paradise where the only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be found are tourists spending their filthy lucre at beach resorts staffed by the downtrodden brown people of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.  What exactly is keeping American lefties from thumbing a ride to Toronto or Tijuana and asking the nice socialists across the border for political asylum?

Progressives have patience only with those who share their opinions, and in their haughtiness, they believe themselves justified in employing the heckler’s veto and in thrusting their ideas on everyone around them.  Yet despite having cultural control through the universities, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media for more than half a century, they have been unable to convert enough Americans to give them a lasting majority in the Electoral College.

The White House was occupied by America’s first social justice warrior president from 2009 to 2017; his bureaucratic acolytes continue in stealth to do  the yeoman’s work of stifling traditional American values, but the left is still unable to silence the opposition.  Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, and others command the attention of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and the Tea Party, Convention of States, and State of Jefferson movements are examples of the grassroots of American patriots who refuse to be subjugated by the collectivist mandarins in the District of Columbia and the various state capitals.

With so much resistance against big government simmering from sea to shining sea, it seems high time for the statists among us start asking themselves if they should pack their Birkenstocks and head off to any number of socialists utopias, from San Salvador to Stockholm, where they can have all the government-run equality they can stomach.

John Steinreich has an M.A. in church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed non-fiction books: The Words of God? – the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses – Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History.  His works are available on Lulu Press and on Kindle.

Since the left views Donald Trump as Hitler and the Republican Party – currently dominant in Congress and the majority of statehouses­ – as accomplices in his fascist tyranny, the existential question each liberal-progressive ought to be asking himself is the very question a punk rock band made famous as the refrain of their most popular tune.

The lyrics of The Clash’s 1982 song “Should I Stay or Should I Go” reflect the singer’s indecisiveness about whether he should remain in a relationship with a woman who today entices him and tomorrow plays hard to get.  “One day it’s fine, and next it’s black,” sings Mick Jones of his mercurial muse, “so if you want me off your back, well, come on and let me know: should I stay or should I go?”  Considering founding member Joe Strummer’s overtly leftist politics, the band could hardly have anticipated that their song, whose content is no more serious than an adolescent romance, would now serve as a metaphor for progressives and their love-hate relationship with the United States. 

The question as to why liberals simply do not pack up and leave the United States has been on my mind, particularly after a recent conversation with a self-proclaimed “bleeding heart” fellow congregant at my church, who looked at me venomously when I told him I consider myself a constitutionalist.  His offense was all the greater because my wife is black.

“The Founding Fathers presided over one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history,” said the chap regarding American slavery, and “the Constitution made blacks three fifths of a person.”  With these arguments, he intended to shame me into rejecting my affinity for the Constitution because, in his view, anyone sympathetic to the plight of blacks in this country – particularly a white man married to a black woman – would surely look on the founding of the USA with disgust.

My immediate response was that America’s transcendent, foundational ideas – that all people are created equal with natural rights and that limited government with separated powers is the best means devised by mankind so far of protecting those rights – could not be invalidated either by my wife’s ethnicity or the fact that among the Founders were slaveholders.  Then I began to explain the Three-Fifths Clause as a device to curb the power of the slaveholding states, but my interlocutor’s brief tolerance for such political incorrectness wore out before I could conclude my thoughts.  He cut me off, self-righteously saying: “I’m an attorney, and I’ve heard all these arguments.  I don’t need you to tell me anything more.”  The possibility of productive dialogue between us thus ended.

My nagging thought after this conversation was, if my co-religionist has so much disdain for the U.S. Constitution and so little interest in hearing opinions in favor of it, why in the world would he – and by extension, so many like-minded statists – want to continue living in so hellish a place, governed by a corrupt document and populated by tens of millions who actually cherish it? 

Perhaps America’s Jacobins stay in this country because they enjoy the freedom of speech protected in the very Constitution they vigorously disdain.  Yet instead of expressing gratitude for this liberty, they use it to shout down opposing viewpoints.  They contemplate aloud bombing the Trump White House, make constant counter-factual pronouncements that Islam is a religion of peace, and linguistically manipulate people into believing that individuals with male genitalia ought to be allowed unimpeded opportunities to relieve themselves in the women’s restroom.  Conversely, they detest any idea that does not jibe with their worldview, and they have little self-control in their heavy-handed efforts to stop their opposition from exercising their free speech rights.

The left wants unrestricted free choice regarding whether a baby in the womb lives or dies, but it reviles anyone who wishes to have the freedom of choice to select his own health insurance or where to send his children to school.  Leftists express consternation at the plight of the poor, but they give far less charitably to the indigent than do conservatives, and in fact, they prefer to have the strong arm of the government steal from the taxpayers to redistribute money to those whom they themselves do precious little to assist.  The Tenth Amendment has wonderful appeal to the neo-Confederates in the sanctuary jurisdictions that reject federal immigration law, but when Arizona attempted to follow that law, as in the case of S.B. 1070 some years ago, the left developed a selective amnesia about the Bill of Rights and fought the Grand Canyon State all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

One can only wonder why progressives bother to stay in a country where they have lost thousands of legislative seats nationally since 2010 and have seen their presidential messiah replaced not by their exalted female demigod, but by an openly flawed, crude, Caucasian, heterosexual, and pro-Christian capitalist with no political experience.  Progressives see inequality, injustice, anti-minority racism, misogyny, and oppression of LGBTQ persons every day, all the time in the United States, and they make their disgust with these perceived offenses known loudly through protests, riots, civil unrest, and unhinged interviews with an incredulous Tucker Carlson

To our geographic north lies a European-style welfare state that spends about 35 percent of its federal budget annually on elderly programs, children’s services, and health care, and to the south one encounters a Latin American kleptocrat paradise where the only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be found are tourists spending their filthy lucre at beach resorts staffed by the downtrodden brown people of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.  What exactly is keeping American lefties from thumbing a ride to Toronto or Tijuana and asking the nice socialists across the border for political asylum?

Progressives have patience only with those who share their opinions, and in their haughtiness, they believe themselves justified in employing the heckler’s veto and in thrusting their ideas on everyone around them.  Yet despite having cultural control through the universities, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media for more than half a century, they have been unable to convert enough Americans to give them a lasting majority in the Electoral College.

The White House was occupied by America’s first social justice warrior president from 2009 to 2017; his bureaucratic acolytes continue in stealth to do  the yeoman’s work of stifling traditional American values, but the left is still unable to silence the opposition.  Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, and others command the attention of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and the Tea Party, Convention of States, and State of Jefferson movements are examples of the grassroots of American patriots who refuse to be subjugated by the collectivist mandarins in the District of Columbia and the various state capitals.

With so much resistance against big government simmering from sea to shining sea, it seems high time for the statists among us start asking themselves if they should pack their Birkenstocks and head off to any number of socialists utopias, from San Salvador to Stockholm, where they can have all the government-run equality they can stomach.

John Steinreich has an M.A. in church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed non-fiction books: The Words of God? – the Bible, the Qur’an and How They Are Lived in the Post-9/11 World and A Great Cloud of Witnesses – Lessons for Modern Day Christians from Church History.  His works are available on Lulu Press and on Kindle.



Source link