One of the problems with Statist Liberalism is that the Ideology isn’t fact based, but faith based, making it more of a religion than a political philosophy.
Liberalism requires belief by faith like Christianity and other religions. Since there’s no empirical evidence to support the conclusions of Liberalism and its propositions contradict themselves at every turn, then simply as a matter of the rules of propositional logic we’re forced to conclude that Liberalism as a belief system must be irrational (therefore false) by default.
And so it is but that doesn’t stop both classic and modern Liberals from believing it.
Now becomes a problem. Belief by faith cannot be rationally argued, i.e., the modern Liberal, at least in the past, has been unable to convince any but a small minority to believe the “religion”, so the modern Liberal must ask, “How can we implement Liberalism in a society that has the option to choose or reject us?”
Historically, modern Liberal’s addressed this problem in two major ways; by fear and by force (as an aside, there’s now a third component, education, more on that later). As to fear, we’re all too familiar with the ad hominem fallacies modern Liberals typically employ to scare unsuspecting and ignorant sheep into becoming compliant subjects of the State and there’s no reason to go over them again.
For some time this nation had only to deal with the fear tactic. You remember the 70’s…global cooling was going to freeze us to death by the 90’s? It used to be funny when modern Liberals waxed so eloquently about this or that nonsensical notion, e.g., global cooling. But to some degree the tactic has worked and we gradually began to accept the premises of Liberalism such that we as a people allowed them to govern.
Oops. Big mistake. Modern Liberals are funny when they speak, but dangerous when they’re allowed to govern.
Now keep in mind modern Liberals never told us outright what they wanted to do. They couldn’t tell us and they knew it. If the modern Liberal had told the truth about what he wished to do, i.e., to centralize all means of economic production into a single entity, the command and control State (Socialism, Communism, etc.), the people would’ve not only raised an eyebrow but stood their ground against them. So they kept it from us, as modern Liberals are wont to do. Reference Jonathan Gruber and his admittance that in order to pass Obamacare the nation had to be lied to.
Conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for decades that Liberalism was dangerous but few listened and we the people have continued to vote for them, to allow them to govern, pass laws and push our society more and more into compliance with Leftist Ideals.
We’re now reaping what we’ve sown. Modern Liberals can see the light at the end of the tunnel and they’re getting bolder and bolder in their anxiousness to finally get there. It is no longer the case that fear alone is employed, now we’re seeing Liberalism forced upon us by the direct actions of the Executive Branch of the United States government. And this in most cases completely contra-Constitution, i.e., without the legal authority according to the founding document; the document that restricts and defines the various powers of the 3 Branches.
The rule of law is anathema to modern Liberals, at least when that rule is limited in light of our Constitution. If you vote for the modern Liberal which will he choose do you think? The Constitution that limits his power or Liberalism that does not? The Constitution and Liberalism are at odds, the evidence of which is clearly demonstrated in how the Executive Branch, with the assistance and rubber-stamping of the Judicial has skirted the Legislative at every turn to implement its policies for the last 8 years and especially during the final 4.
Does not the evidence before us, i.e., the actions and behavior of the current administration give us clarity about our choices? Isn’t a vote for modern Liberals a vote to reject our Constitutional Republic? If not, why not? If the modern Liberal is willing to ignore the rule of law as it pleases him, what other conclusion is there?
Unfortunately, we’re living in one of those historic times where Liberals don’t have to bother with even attempting to convince anyone of their arguments, nay rather, right now they simply force their will upon their political enemies (i.e., anyone who disagrees with their objectives) via the full faith and power of the United States Department of Liberalism…err…Justice.
Make no mistake friends, brethren and countrymen. Statism as a “religion” requires domination. It requires full compliance and It will have full compliance or it’s Apostles will punish you.
Senators to Loretta Lynch: No, You Cannot Punish Climate Change “Deniers”
Two months ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted during congressional testimony that Justice Department attorneys were looking into punishment for the fossil fuel industry and certain individuals, including academics and researchers. Their crime? Rejection or denial of climate change and therefore being opposed to President Obama’s agenda on the issue.
Today, five Republican Senators have sent a letter to Lynch reminding her that in America, we don’t have thought police and the Justice Department doesn’t have the power or authority to punish an entire industry because the people in it they think differently than the progressives in charge of the government.
“We write today to demand that the Department of Justice immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time — climate change,” the letter states. “As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”
The letter also notes that Democrat Attorney Generals around the country have been issuing subpoenas to private companies, scientists and academic researchers demanding any and all documents referring to “climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon tax, or climate science.”
“These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change,” the letter states.
The Senators have asked the Department to end all investigations and inquiries into climate changes “deniers” within 14 days.