Tuesday, May 6, 2014

What Do These Three Things Have in Common?

There is a board game called TriBond that gives you three subjects or clues, and you must figure out (or guess) what is the common denominator among them. I read three articles today at PJ Media that seems to fit well into this type of game:

First, Michael Walsh writes about why Benghazi matters. There are, of course, the personal tragedy to what happened to the Americans killed and injured in the attack, and the movie producer scapegoat being jailed, but there is also something larger:
Benghazi matters because it was and is a matter of national honor. And the men and women currently in charge in Washington have no honor. 
Honorable people do not let American diplomats twist slowly in the wind while they attend “debate prep” and rest up for a shakedown meeting with the One Percent. Honorable people do not suddenly go AWOL while American soil is under attack. Honorable people do not fail to mobilize the formidable resources of the American military, even if it might not be possible for them to get there in time. Honorable people, under questioning by Congress, do not lose their temper and start shouting. Honorable people do not look the bereaved in the eye and lie about who and what killed their loved ones. 
Further: honorable people do not go before the public on the Sunday talk shows and knowingly transmit a bald-faced lie. Honorable people do not continue to lie about what took place. Honorable people do not say “We are Americans; we hold our head high,” and then hang their heads in shame as they cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Honorable people do not continue to reward the dishonorable with ever-higher posts. Honorable people resign. 
And until honorable people are restored to Washington — not credentialed Ivy League lawyers with high name recognition steeped in cheap Marxism and fashionable anti-American contempt, but genuine patriots who understand that something has gone terribly wrong with America and needs to be redressed — there will be no justice for the victims of Benghazi.
Second, Paul Diamond writes about the erosion of religious freedom for Jews and Christians in the UK and USA:
The new liberal dogma says that a Jew or Christian is a bigot if they do not believe in the homosexual agenda. Consequently, a marriage counselor cannot discharge his functions correctly, a housing worker will discriminate against homosexual applicants, and a Christian law school will teach its lawyers to be bigots. Christians are told that their belief that marriage is between a man and woman is, in fact, not their true belief. Rather, they really believe that homosexuals are wicked sinners; and why, it is asked, should such beliefs be protected by the First Amendment?

Surprisingly, I am not pessimistic because I believe that this latest attempt to dismantle the rule of law for political purposes will ultimately fail. It will fail because the brutality that lawlessness engenders will create such a climate of insecurity that even the elites will feel endangered. As they seek to protect themselves, the privileged position of some groups in society (I would submit that homosexual and Muslim groups fit into this category) will disappear.

But the resulting damage may be lasting. The current brutality against Christians has the potential to develop into wider lawlessness and it is, simply, frightening. It is elite- and court-led; and in both the U.S. and UK, Congress and Parliament must re-assert their democratic authority.
Third, Janine Turner writes about the erosion of the separation of powers and the legislative branch in the United States:
Our founders knew firsthand how the lust for power corrupted human rights. They knew that, to quote James Madison, “men are not angels.” Thus, they created a government of checks and balances that would keep tyranny at bay. According to the Constitution, one branch of government can never usurp the other and no one branch can be autonomous.

There has been, and is, a faction amongst us that wants to change the fundamental structure of these checks — the progressives. The progressives don’t want a multi-tiered, self-checking and self-limiting government. They want an all-powerful, singular nexus of decision-making in the executive branch, free from checks and balances.

American progressives are savvy and cunning. They know that Americans will never willfully accept tyranny or a lustful tyrant. Thus, the progressives set forth, over one hundred years ago, to accomplish their goals in an underhanded manner – slowly, steadily, stealthily. Their mission is a progression away from three branches of government to one autonomous branch — in other words, tyranny/big government.

It is interesting to note how they have already managed to accomplish this and how they are continuing to do so with exactly the same tactics. Their mission is to eradicate the potency of the U.S. Congress, thus eliminating the utterly crucial check on executive power. They accomplish this by diminishing the reputation of the legislative branch and thus crippling its power and effectiveness. ...

Progressives had astonishing results in 1912 and 1913 with the 17th Amendment. Progressives managed to convince the state legislatures and the U.S senators that they were, themselves, corrupt. They convinced them to vote for their own demise. ...

They manipulated a masterful coup in the Senate, denying states’ rights, with a simple message – “The Senate is corrupted by special interest groups.” Sound familiar? It was simply stunning. Henceforth, the senators would no longer be appointed by the state legislators, but by the people. With this singular, monumental sweep of states’ rights, the Constitution, which they conveniently believe to be outdated, was thrown off-kilter.

Be aware: the progressive are not finished. They are enacting the same campaign today. Now instead of the Senate, the entire legislative branch is the problem. “The legislative branch prevents all good from taking place.” “The legislative branch is corrupt.” “The legislative branch is a bother.” “The legislative branch never gets anything done.” “The legislative branch is corrupted by special interest groups.” By beating down the legislative branch, the executive branch rises.

What is their goal? The progressives want the legislative branch to be beholden to the executive branch. ....
There are several correct answers to what is in common. Some require only a one-word answer: liberals, progressives, elitism, tyranny. Some are a little longer: lust for power, abandonment of values. But when it is all said and done, it is that our political, economic and cultural elite crave power so badly that they will not tolerate anything or anyone--God, the Constitution, freedom--stand in their way.

No comments:

Post a Comment