PROGRESS TOWARD WHAT?

Many Americans sense that something is wrong about the President, but actually putting a name on it remains elusive.  They suspect the President isn’t a Christian; that he is a secret Muslim;  that the he is a closet socialist or some other kind of radical.  A surprisingly large number of Americans feel there is something amiss here and that the President just doesn’t seem to be one of “us.”

All of these ideas are quickly ridiculed by the press whenever they surface and the liberal universal defense to all criticisms; “racism’ is applied.  In reality, the media, who are part of the team, are well aware of the grand unifying theory which they strive diligently to conceal.   The suspicions of most Americans are quite true, something is amiss; and, once one knows the historical context of our current leaders ideology, the truth comes into focus.  Our President, and a significant number of our most influential leaders,  included, are members of an ideology that is quite well known in America, but unfortunately not as well understood as it should be.  The President, Vice President (questionable here as to whether Joe Biden is capable of anything quite so complex as an ideology) Secretary of State, leader of the Senate, the majority of the majority party in the senate, the minority leader in the house, most of the minority party in the house and four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices are committed Secular Progressives.

Secular Progressivism is an ideology that was born out of the Utopian movements of the mid-nineteenth century and came to be a powerful force in American politics at the turn of the twentieth century.  It lost favor when the horrors of communism began to be well known.  In response, progressives went underground and changed their name to “liberals.”  Progressivism is, as the name implies, a movement toward something, but what; that is the question.

The answer is in fact quite shocking to most.  The identifying unifying characteristic of true secular progressives is that they do not believe in the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.  It is not that Secular progressives do not believe in human rights; it is that none of the rights which they do believe in are in the constitution as we know it.  As importantly, they see the rights that are in the constitution as impediments to the ideal government.  Progressives understand that this thought would be quite offensive to Americans if they simply put the truth on the table, thus they spend a lot of time in denial and explaining how their new ideas are, in fact, in accord with the original constitution even though on first blush it seems the opposite.

Our constitution gives freedoms to the people which are guaranteed to the individual and which essentially prevent government intrusion into these freedoms.  They are freedoms of personal liberty which convey great power to the individual.   Secular Progressives call these "negative liberties", i.e. freedoms from government intrusions.  SP’s, including our President, do not believe in these rights.  On the other hand they believe the government has a duty to deliver, not freedoms, but rather entitlements to the individual, which they call affirmative rights.  The President has been recorded in interviews before becoming President, and in his writings, referring to these very classic secular progressive ideas that essentially the county must get beyond individual negative liberties and progress toward the affirmative liberties.  This concept rests on the bedrock idea of "spreading the wealth" or, stated another way, "each according to his ability and each according to his need."

            The Soviet Communist Constitution was a constitution of affirmative rights, much like what the President espouses. It did not quarantine personal freedoms; it guaranteed what the individual was entitled to receive and what must be delivered by the government.  Recently, on a trip to Egypt to spur the fledgling democracy movement, secular progressive Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, recommended in an Al Jazera television interview, that Egypt not adopt a constitution modeled on the US constitution, but rather to model its new constitution after the South African Constitution.  That document has limited personal freedoms, there is no right to bear arms in South Africa, one of the most dangerous and crime ridden states in the world, but includes other affirmative rights like a right to health care, women’s reproductive rights, the right to an education, a job, a house, etc.  One could not get a more clear statement by a sitting Supreme Court justice, that this is not a mere matter of interpretation, but rather, she does not believe in, but rather has contempt for the document that she is sworn to defend, uphold and protect.  

Our Harvard educated constitutional lawyer President was not confused about the limits of federal power under the constitution when he pushed for and obtained passage of Obama-care, which contains an unconstitutional mandate to purchase health insurance.   He knew the interstate commerce clause does not authorize this kind of power, but he simply did not care about it.   If the mandate is  held constitutional the ruling will essentially grant limitless power to the Federal government to control any aspect of our lives.   He’s counting on his secular progressive justices on the Court, who similarly do not care about limited federal power to justify the law, thereby effectively overruling the constitution as originally written.  That’s the point.   Obama himself has spoken in interviews pre-presidency about the unnecessary limitation of the existing constitution and the need for a constitution of affirmative rights and economic freedoms, i.e. what conservatives would call, “entitlements”.

I know this is at first hard to believe that the President and many of our highest leaders is a fundamentally deceptive person who does not believe in the constitution as we know it.  I’m sure I’ve already lost the centrists out there, who just know we’re all on the same side and we just need to try to get along.  But that’s the point, we’re not on the same side.  Most rational Americans perceive this. There is a clash of fundamental ideologies going on in this country, which is not just a matter of finding a compromise.  It is essential that we understand the true nature of the secular progressive movement, what they believe and where they want us to go, to understand there is no longer room for compromise.  

If we are to effectively fight this movement and ultimately defeat it, we must first understand it.