Tomi Lahren is just another quasi-Conservative charlatan

Tomi Lahren epitomizes everything wrong with the present day Republican party. Though she had rebuked Trump at one point during his campaign for his superficiality, she is more like him than she'd like to believe, in that she's more obnoxious loud mouth than genuine Conservative. And this was evinced by her going on The View and stating she was pro-choice, because she's a "Constitutional," which I assume means Constitutionalist/Conservative. Except you're not if you support infanticide.

The problem for Tomi is that she's explicitly renounced the inalienable right to life proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are [...] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Which is reaffirmed and codified in the U.S. Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to [...] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any "Constitutionalist" would understand the foundational, Constitutional precept that our rights are derived from God, and meant not merely for personal enjoyment exclusively, but a blessing held in trust to be conveyed intact to our progeny.

"Being influenced from a regard to liberty [...] to transmit to our posterity those blessings of freedom which our ancestors have handed down to us; and to contribute to the support of the common liberties of America." - Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York, December 15, 1773.

"I charge (my sons) on a father's blessing never to let the motives of private interest or ambition induce them to betray, nor the terrors of poverty and disgrace, or the fear of danger or of death, deter them from asserting the liberty of their country and endeavoring to transmit to their posterity those sacred rights to which themselves were born." - Last will and testament of George Mason, drafted the first constitution of Virginia from which Jefferson borrowed wording for Declaration of Independence, delegate to the Constitutional Convention (which he refused to sign because it did not sufficiently protect states rights), and largely responsible for the addition of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, 1773. 

"It (liberty) is a sacred deposit bestowed by the great Parent of the universe on our ancestors, entrusted by their venerable hands to our care, to be preserved and transmitted by us to posterity pure and uncontaminated." - Brutus, To the Printer of the New York Gazetteer, May 12, 1774. 

"Resolved, That this town will heartily join with the Province of the Massachusetts Bay and the other Colonies, in such measures as shall be generally agreed on by the Colonies, for the protecting and securing their invaluable natural rights and privileges, and transmitting the same to the latest posterity." - Town meeting held at Providence, Rhode Island, May 17th, 1774.

"And wherefore is the virtuous struggle yet kept alive against the tyranny of the British Parliament? For no other ends surely than to retain our freedom and transmit it unimpaired to posterity." - Notice published and distributed in handbills in New York, May 19, 1774. 

"It is an indispensable duty [...] to maintain, defend and preserve, these our rights and liberties, and to transmit them entire and inviolate to the latest generations; and that it is our fixed, determined, and unalterable resolution, faithfully to discharge this our duty." - Resolutions unanimously adopted by the House of Representatives of the English Colony of Connecticut, on the second Thursday of May, 1774. 

"Think of your posterity, and transmit to them the fair inheritance of liberty, handed down from your glorious progenitors." - To the inhabitants of the Province of South Carolina, about to assemble on the 6th of July, Charlestown, July 4, 1774.

"Honour, justice, and humanity, call upon us to hold, and to transmit to our posterity, that liberty which we received from our ancestors. It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children: But it is our duty to leave liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them; the experience of all states mournfully demonstrating to us, that when arbitrary power has been established over them, even the wisest and bravest Nations, that ever flourished, have in a few years, degenerated into abject and wretched vassals." - Instructions From the Committee to the Representatives (of Pennsylvania) in Assembly met, July 1774. 

"It it is our fixed, determined, and unalterable resolution [...] to maintain, defend, and preserve our before mentioned rights and liberties, and that we will transmit them entire and inviolate to our posterity." - Meeting of the Convention of the Representatives of the Freemen of the Government of the Counties of New-Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware, on the 2nd day of August, 1774. 

"Resolved, That liberty is the spirit of the British Constitution, and that it is the duty, and will be the endeavor of us as British Americans, to transmit this [...] to our posterity in a state, if possible, better than we found it; and that to suffer it to undergo a change which may impair that invaluable blessing, would be to disgrace those ancestors, who, at the expense of their blood, purchased those privileges which their degenerate posterity are too weak or too wicked to maintain inviolate. - Journal of the Proceedings of the first Provincial Convention of North Carolina, held at Newbern, on the twenty-fourth day of August, 1774.  

"The just and sacred rights of our native lands, which were not the gift of Kings, but were purchased solely with the toil, the blood and treasure of our worthy and revered ancestors; and which we look upon ourselves as under the most sacred and inviolable obligations, to maintain, and to transmit, whole and entire, to our posterity." - County of Suffolk, Boston, August 30, 1774. 

"Our fathers left a fair inheritance to us, purchased by a waste of blood and treasure; this we are resolved to transmit equally fair to our children after us; no danger shall affright, no difficulties intimidate us; and if in support of our rights, we are called to encounter even death, we are yet undaunted, sensible that he can never die too soon, who lays down his life in support of the laws and liberties of his country." - A meeting of the Committees from every town and district, in the County of Middlesex, and Province of Massachusetts Bay, held at Concord, in the said county, on the 30th and 31st of August, 1774. 

"Purchased by the toil and treasure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our venerable progenitors; to us they bequeathed the dear bought inheritance; to our care and protection they consigned it; and the most sacred obligations are upon us to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved offspring." - A Meeting of the Delegates of every Town and District of the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts), on Tuesday, the 6th of September, 1774. 

"This Colony was settled by English subjects; by a people from England herself; a people who brought over with them, who planted in this Colony, and who transmitted to posterity the invaluable rights of Englishmen—rights which no time, no contract, no climate can diminish." - Charge of the Honorable William Henry Drayton, Esquire, delivered to the several Grand Juries and by them ordered to he published, for the Districts of Camden and Cheraws, in South Carolina, on the fifth and fifteenth days of November, 1774. 

"Threatened with the destruction of our ancient Laws and Liberty, and the loss of all that is dear to British subjects and freemen, justly alarmed with the prospect of impending ruin,—firmly determined at the hazard of our lives, to transmit to our children and posterity those sacred rights to which ourselves were born." - Extracts from the Proceedings of the Committee of Fairfax County (Virginia), on the 17th of January, 1775. 

"Supported by the pleasing hope of enjoying those rights and liberties which had been granted to Virginians, and were denied us in our native country, and of transmitting them inviolate to our posterity." - A meeting of the Freeholders of Fincastle County, in Virginia, held on the 20th day of January, 1775. 

"Shall we, knowing the value of freedom, and nursed in the arms of Liberty, make a base and ignominious surrender of our rights, thereby consigning succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which, perhaps, all human efforts will be insufficient to extricate them? Duty to ourselves, and regard for our country, should induce us to defend our liberties, and to transmit the fair inheritance unimpaired to posterity." - Province of New Hampshire, At the Convention of Deputies, appointed by the several Towns in the Province aforesaid, held at Exeter, on the 25th day of January, 1775. 

"The free and undisturbed exercise of all those rights and privileges, for the enjoyment of which our pious and virtuous ancestors braved every danger, and transmitted the fair possession down to their children, to be by them handed down entire to the latest posterity." - Massachusetts Provincial Congress, Thursday, February 16th, 1775. 

"Honor, justice and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us." - John Dickinson's Composition Draft, 1775.

"Whereas the honorable Continental Congress have appointed and earnestly recommend 'that the 17th inst. (being tomorrow) be observed by the United Colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer, that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions against God.... that it may please the Lord of hosts, the God of armies [....] that this continent may be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity." - Civil Government of New York, May, 1776. 

"While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. How necessary then is it for those who are determined to transmit the blessings of liberty as a fair Inheritance to posterity, to associate on public principles in support of public virtue." - Samuel Adams, to James Warren on February 12, 1779.

"The contest in which the United States are engaged appeals for its support to every motive that can animate an uncorrupted and enlightened people--to the love of country; to the pride of liberty; to an emulation of the glorious founders of their independence [....] to the sacred obligation of transmitting entire to future generations that precious patrimony of national rights and independence which is held in trust by the present from the goodness of divine providence." - President James Madison, Special Session Message, May 25, 1813. 

"We owe these blessings under Heaven, to the happy Constitution and Government which were bequeathed to us by our fathers, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit in all their integrity to our children." - President Millard Fillmore, State of the Union Address, December 6, 1851. 

"Every man's heart swells within him; every man's port and bearing become somewhat more proud and lofty as he remembers that seventy-five years have rolled away and that the great inheritance of liberty is still his [...] undiminished and unimpaired, his, in all its original glory, his to enjoy, his to protect, and his to transmit to future generations." - Daniel Webster, Secretary or State, July 4th, 1851. 

"Remembering the devoted lives of our fathers, the precious inheritance of freedom received at their hands, the weight of glory which awaits the faithful, and the infinity of blessing which it is our privilege, if we will, to transmit to the countless generations of the future." - Proclamation of Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, for November, 21, 1861. 

"Government whose institutions, under the blessing of God, have secured to us the privileges of civil and religious liberty and given us a career of prosperity unparalleled in the history of nations [...] God, who has given up in sacred trust his blessings which are thus threatened, our obligations to coming generations to transmit to them the privileges we have received [...] call on us to resist these attacks." - Miami Conference of the Christian Denomination of Ohio, 1861.  

"This Consociation here makes devout acknowledgment to Almighty God for his mercies [...] that he will animate the hearts of all military governors and generals with the true spirit of liberty and humanity [...] and enable us to transmit them with blessings and benedictions to the generations following." - The Congregational Association of Rhode Island, June, 1862.

Etc., etc., etc.

That principle remains codified in the U.S Constitution, and still lingers in state constitutions to this day.

"To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution." - Preamble to the Constitution of Georgia.

But hey, Tomi who's ostentatiously abandoned Founding (i.e., actual Constitutional) principle, in favor of a non-existent right fabricated out of thin air by an activist court 184 years after the Constitution was established, is a "Constitutionalist." Such are the frauds and imbeciles that now throng the Socialist GoP and call themselves "Conservatives."

This is becoming more and more common within a Republican party that reveres "progressive" ignoramuses like Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which have ostentatiously abandoned their sacred duty to transmit the liberty they received to posterity undiminished (one through infanticide and the other sodomy), for their perceived shared antipathy for Democrats as opposed to correct principles. Again I ask, with apostate Socialist Republicans like this, who the hell needs Democrats? These two are utter proof that the GoP, which ever more defines itself upon being anti-Democrat as opposed to pro-Constitution, is much like the latter now hopelessly lost. 

The Crusades were called in self-defense

Due to a public education system which now deliberately omits the truth regarding our religious history, a complicit entertainment industry that deliberately seeks to mislead the populace about such, and a church egregiously derelict in rectifying such ignorance, proper edification of those near me becomes incumbent upon my person. It is a common, fallacious assertion from secularists and Muslims, that the Crusades were a Christian war of aggression waged against Islamic victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the days of Muhammad, a murderer who raided caravans slaying and robbing those he found, Islam has been expanding through assiduous brutality.

Contrary to the Crusades being called to forcibly convert Muslim lands to Christianity (which is precisely what Islam had done to get them), it was a war of self-defense in response to centuries of Muslim aggression. The first time European Christians had any significant exposure to Islam was some three hundred years prior to the first Crusade; when Muslims invaded Christian Spain and France (about 711 A.D.). This was the true beginning of the war on terror, which has been ongoing ever since. They were halted in France, but Spain would spend many centuries (until 1492) repelling Muslim invaders.

Long before the first Crusade Muhammad had demanded conversion from the Christian Byzantine Empire (the eastern remnants of the Roman Empire) as the price of safety (i.e. not being attacked). The result of the Byzantine's declination was centuries of attack from Muslim armies (to compel conversion), until a beleaguered Byzantine Emperor finally appealed to the Pope for help. This, was the cause of the first Crusade; the first of numerous efforts to repel Muslim invaders and reclaim Christian lands lost to Islamic conquest.

"For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them." - Pope Urban II, Calling the first Crusade, 1095 A.D.

Notice Pope Urban states that the consequence of deference in the face of Islamic aggression is more Islamic aggression.

The whole notion that Christianity was the aggressor against Islam, which did not exist until well over 500 years after Christ walked the earth, is absurd. Damascus, a once mostly Christian city in Syria, to which Paul was heading when he encountered Christ, was conquered by Muslim invaders who demolished the Basilica of Saint John the Baptist and built a mosque upon it. Damascus is unsafe for "infidels" like Paul today.

"The armed Islamist Opposition in Syria has murdered more than 200 Christians in the city of Homs, including entire families with young children. These Islamic gangs kidnapped Christians and demanded high ransoms. In two cases, after the ransoms were paid, the men's bodies were found." - Arabisouri.wordpress.com, Syria: Armed gangs of mercenaries kill Christians, February 9, 2012.

All the lands now held by Muslims in the middle east are lands they stole from other peoples, which they subsequently eradicated, if not by force, then by imposition of the "dhimmitude;" measures which render "kafirs" (non-Muslims) second class citizens, impose a tax upon kafirs, and enact rigid statutes which proscribe kafirs from disseminating their faith to others (even their own children). Intended to compel the conversion of conquered subjects, who ultimately acquiesce to escape the onerous conditions of life as a dhimmi, it gradually extirpates different faiths from lands conquered by Islam.

Getting back to Pope Urban's call to arms. The Byzantine Empire ultimately fell to Muslim forces, and the Hagia Sophia, a beautiful church in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople (much like the Byzantine Basilica in Damascus), was converted into a mosque by the invading Muslims. (Supplanting a conquered peoples' houses of worship with mosques is an expression of dominance over the vanquished foe.) With this a large portion of once Christian land became Islamic; and is erroneously viewed, along with many others, as always having been such by most today.

Every Christian in America needs to understand some things.

• If not for the crusades which impeded islamic expansion across Europe, there would be no Europe, nor consequently America as we know it. Period. (One need simply observe the condition of islamic states, which are spectacles of barbarism and oppression, to see how much we owe to the Crusades.)

• Our conflict with Islam is not the result of any thing we do, per se, or any "foreign policy" we currently have. It is the result of Islamic dictum, from Muhammad, which states "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle,... so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me." (1)

• The only thing your well intended "civility" will accomplish is the facilitation of the Islamic conquest of the west, with far less trouble than those middle eastern lands they took only after violent resistance, and the negation of the sacrifice of countless lives lost in defense of Christian civilization against centuries of Islamic aggression.

The notion that groups like ISIS are something new, the worst manifestation of Islamic aggression or violence ever seen, or a byproduct of American foreign policy is a result of profound historical ignorance. The conduct of groups like ISIS literally stems back to Muhammad himself, and history is replete with similar examples of such from that time unto the present day. The town of Otranto (Italy) for example, was invaded and conquered by Muslims in 1480, and over 800 men were massacred for refusing to convert to Islam. The archbishop was decapitated at the alter, two Bishops were sawn in half while still alive, the hundreds of remaining men were likewise decapitated and the women and children enslaved. The remains of those murdered are ensconced within the walls of the town cathedral.

Much like Islam began attacking the Christian Byzantine Empire without provocation, Muslims also began attacking the Untied States without provocation during the administration of its first president, when the still infant nation had no substantial foreign policy and long before it ever dropped bombs on or "invaded" Muslim lands. We didn't even have a navy at the time. George Washington laments our nation's inability to defend itself from this Islamic aggression in a letter to Lafayette.

"How is it possible the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary? Would to heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence." - George Washington, to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786. 

This Islamic aggression was a primary catalyst for the reestablishment of the United States Navy (which had been disbanded after the Revolutionary War) via the Naval Act of 1794.

The "annual tribute" to which Washington alludes was basically a system of widespread extortion being perpetrated by Muslim pirates operating under the auspices of Islamic states such as Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, et al., who were attacking European and eventually American vessels, and capturing the crews and selling them into slavery. The Islamic states demanded large sums of money, and various other forms of "tribute" (e.g., ships), to halt this practice. This was a very lucrative arrangement for the Muslim perpetrators. In 1795 at least 16% of the United States federal budget was allocated to extortion fees to Islamic terrorist states. By 1800 20% (one fifth) of the United States federal budget was dedicated to these extortion fees, which had no discernible point of cessation and would conceivably need to be paid forever, proving that peace with Islamic terrorist states is arguably more expensive than warfare.

It cannot be emphasized enough that people who believe and claim that Islamic aggression today is a result of invasive European and American foreign policy or military action are simply clueless. Indeed, these things are the only reason Islam didn't conquer the entire world. To allow Islam to subsume the west today is an abject betrayal of your faith and the sacrifice of your ancestors. So stop being manipulated into feeling guilty for your faith, and be grateful for those Christian warriors who saved the western world from Islamic tyranny. They're the only reason your way of life exists. And they're needed now as much as ever.

(Originally posted 2012.)

1. Hadith

The origin and nature of the American secular movement

"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be." - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 6, 1816.

One of my biggest grievances with the right for many years, has been their abject inability to recognize things for what they are, and label them accordingly. Stop calling Socialists "liberals." Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal. Hillary Clinton is not. 

Washington provides us with insight into the nature of true "liberalism," i.e., equal application of the law to all upstanding citizens, in his response to American Catholics and likewise to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport in 1790.

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

It cannot be emphasized enough that, though those who call themselves liberals today share this (use identical) rhetoric, they do not share the values of Washington or early (genuine) American liberals. Neither Washington, any other Founder, or government at any level during the establishment would have even conceived, much less conceded, this notion of equality under the law was applicable to the practice of sodomy, or transvestism for example. (Jefferson personally authored a Virginian bill that punished sodomy with castration.) In this same letter (response to Catholics) just prior Washington explicitly states that America, "under the smiles of Divine Providence (God)" and through the cultivation of "morals and piety," would become more liberal and flourish. The Founder's liberalism was achieved through Christian principle, whereas the modern left's faux liberalism is achieved through the extirpation of such. The former sought greater freedom through a limited government. The latter seeks greater licentiousness, under the pretext of freedom, as a means of facilitating a centralized totalitarian government. Civil rights were superseded by natural rights with the former. Natural rights are superseded, if not effaced, by civil rights with the latter. They're utterly antithetical to one another. 

People often respond that it's no big deal; it's only words. Words have meaning however. The diagnosis determines the treatment. So when you refer to Socialist subversives, who want to supplant our Constitutional Republican form of government (treason) with a secular democracy as "liberals," it significantly impacts how they're perceived and treated by others. It's a political misdiagnosis with pernicious socio-political ramifications.

Why leftists do this should be obvious (even had they not explained it in the past).

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it. [...] Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. [...] There is no use attacking [...] by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them." - Upton Sinclair, a congressional and gubernatorial candidate, recounting in 1951 how he garnered more support by changing his rhetoric and party affiliation from Socialist to Democrat.

Something that immediately struck me when I began studying history so many years ago, was the conspicuous similarities between Socialist/Marxist ideology, and the values professed by modern "liberals." 

"The struggle against religion is a struggle for Socialism." - Slogan of the League of the Militant Godless (an anti-religious organization of the Soviet Communist Party).

Bolshevik rhetoric from a century ago is often indistinguishable from modern liberal rhetoric. If you didn't know it was from the past you'd not be skeptical at all if it was misattributed to a present day American leftist.

"One of the first decrees of the Soviet Power in Russia was the decree concerning the separation of the church from the State. All its landed estates were taken away from the church and handed over to the working population. All the capital of the church became the property of the workers. [...] The Soviet Power rejects all thoughts of using the church in any way whatever as a means for strengthening the proletarian State. 

The separation of the school from the church aroused and continues to arouse protest from the backward elements among the workers and peasants. Many of the older generation persist in demanding that religion should still be taught in the schools as an optional subject. The Communist Party fights resolutely against all such attempts to turn back. [....] The decree whereby the school is separated from the church must be rigidly enforced, and the proletarian State must not make the slightest concession to medievalism. What has already been done to throw off the yoke of religion is all too little, for it still remains within the power of ignorant parents to cripple the minds of their children by teaching them religious fables.  

One of the most important tasks of the proletarian State is to liberate children from the reactionary influence exercised by their parents. The really radical way of doing this is the social education of the children, carried to its logical conclusion. As far as the immediate future is concerned, we must not rest content with the expulsion of religious propaganda from the school. We must see to it that the school assumes the offensive against religious propaganda in the home, so that from the very outset the children's minds shall be rendered immune to all those religious fairy tales which many grown-ups continue to regard as truth. It has been comparatively easy for the proletarian authority to effect the separation of the church from the State and of the school from the church, and these changes have been almost painlessly achieved. 

The organization and strengthening of the socialist system, will deal religion an irrecoverable blow. The transition from Socialism to Communism, the transition from the society which makes an end of capitalism to the society which is completely freed from all traces of class division and class struggle, will bring about the natural death of all religion and superstition. But this must by no means be taken to imply that we can sit down at our ease, satisfied with having prophesied the decay of religion at some future date. It is essential at the present time to wage with the utmost vigour the war against religious prejudices, for the church has now definitely become a counter-revolutionary organization, and endeavours to use its religious influence over the masses in order to marshal them for the political struggle against the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

But the campaign against the backwardness of the masses in this matter of religion, must be conducted with patience and considerateness, as well as with energy and perseverance." - The ABC of Communism, Why religion and communism are incompatible, Separation of the church from the state, Separation of the school from the church, Struggle with the religious prejudice of the masses, 1920.

In these excerpts are conveyed the fervently anti-religious ethos inherent to Socialism. And this "struggle against religion" and zealous pursuit of the secularization of society, is no less prominently on display and even openly asserted by present day Socialists, with the Socialist Party USA declaring in it's current platform "We support secular democratic states." It is a common thing to hear an American leftist assert the belief that religion and government must be kept entirely separate, and that the former should not guide the latter to any degree, just as the Bolsheviks believed.

The discerning reader will immediately recognize that the abject antipathy for religion, the purging of religious instruction and values from the government and schools, the assiduous efforts to diminish the influence of the church and religion on all aspects of American life, and the belief that religion is rooted in prejudice and inferior to science above, are all on constant display in present day American leftists. You will constantly hear leftists calling Republicans or Conservatives "authoritarians," yet it is they more than anyone plainly seeking a centralized authoritarian government, and following the model of the Russian Socialists illustrated above to achieve it. The rise of a people with utter loyalty to their party, who place their utter faith in science, and the believe the duty of the party is to mitigate or eradicate religious "bigotry" and "prejudice" is nothing new.

"The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda... because it (the party) stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science." - Joseph Stalin, September 15, 1927.

Indeed, atheists are so consistently Socialists, and Socialists so consistently atheists, whenever you encounter a person who is one, you may with great confidence assume they are the other as well.

When speaking of the ways modern leftists mirror the Socialist worldview, Hillary Clinton's caucus victory speech in which she espouses significant portions of the Socialist party's platform, always comes to mind.

• "Universal Health Care."

"The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Climate Change."

The U.S. must immediately return to participation in international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, limiting carbon emissions, and accept a major role in worldwide efforts to control global warming. - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "College affordable" and eliminate "student debt." 

"We demand equal access to higher education for all people and support publicly funded higher education. We call for the forgiveness of all outstanding federal student loans and believe that students should not be saddled with decades of debt simply because they pursue higher education." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Womens' rights."

"The Socialist Party is a socialist feminist organization that recognizes that a struggle against habitual male dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism. Therefore, we pledge our opposition to all forms of sexism, and demand equality in all aspects of life." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Gay rights."

"The Socialist Party recognizes the human and civil rights of all, without regard to sexual orientation. We call for the end of all anti-gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBTQ) restrictions in law and the work place, the repeal of all sodomy laws, and the legalization of same-sex marriage." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Voting rights." (Who's being denied the right to vote exactly?)

"We call for full funding for a network of support for people with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities, including home assistance, recreation centers, guaranteed income, voting access, and quality control in residential facilities; and for the inclusion of people with disabilities on all local and state governing boards and commissions. [....] We call for the lowering of the voting age to 15. [....] We call for the elimination of the Electoral College and support instant run-off voting of all elected officials. [....] We call for the automatic restoration of voting rights for current convicted felons, end the revocation of civil rights for anyone convicted of a felony." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Immigrant rights."

"The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose. [...] We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. [...] We call for... a ban on all immigration detentions, and... an end to police raids in areas where immigrants congregate." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Workers' rights."

"The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace, for the social ownership of the means of production and distribution." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

The pursuit of "workers' rights" is a traditional staple of Socialist rhetoric, and the term "worker" in reference to the proletariat, is still a fixture of Socialist rhetoric to this day.

While there's nothing wrong with supporting "workers," the tell tale sign of the Socialist is ostensibly seeking to support one group (conveyed as disadvantaged) at the expense of another (portrayed as "privileged), e.g., the working class (proletariat) at the expense of the rich (bourgeois) which they relentlessly vilify (as people who don't pay their "fair share" for example).

• Common sense gun safety measures."

"We support federal buyout programs for arms, (and) federal safety standards and licensing for arms." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

Her post caucus speech may as well have been written by a member of the Socialist party, because it proclaims their platform with a conspicuous conformity, and makes no substantive effort to conceal that whatsoever. She would go on to specifically pledge the Democrat party's commitment to advancing the rights of all these proletarian groups again in her concession speech.

As illustrated in a previous installment the Founders believed that the only way for American liberty to be sustained was to root it in the unchanging morality of God.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were [...] the general principles of Christianity. [...] I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." - John Adams, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

Socialists do not share this belief.

From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal! We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. - Friedrich Engels, Co-Author of the Communist Manifesto, Anti-Duhring, 1878.

Socialists believe they can eliminate the motivation to steal through wealth redistribution, i.e., the equal division of property, which would abolish "all traces of class division and class struggle" and therefore any desire for one person to steal from another. This is why you consistently see leftists in America attacking "economic inequality" and calling for "equal pay," etc. By redistributing wealth from one person/entity (the rich, large corporations, etc.) to another, they believe a society can be created that's free of hunger or the need to steal, etc. This is of course a psychotic fantasy utterly antithetical to the pragmatic (religiously derived) principles upon which America was Founded.

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. [...] If all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.

Madison likewise denounces the foundational precepts of Socialism.  

"Theoretic politicians [...] have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions." - James Madison, Federalist #10. 

Madison subsequently calls "a rage for an abolition of debts" and "equal division of property" an "improper" and "wicked project." Socialism isn't just wrong, it's anti-American, as are the feminist, "LGBQT," and speciously "anti-racist/fascist" "rights" movements that stem from it.

"There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. [...] The revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity. [...] They (Americans) hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The United States.

It must be understood that one cannot be both a Christian and a Socialist. As the sentiments of Adams and Engels illustrate, Christianity and American liberty are based upon the belief that private property is an "inviolable" right derived from God, whereas Socialism is a relativistic secular ideology that denies any moral precept is inviolable, seeks the abolition of private property, and is in fact the sin of covetousness masquerading as altruism. Socialism is the renunciation of the Judeo-Christian ethos.

"Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.' This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically. [....] In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. [....] In most cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the principles of communist tactics and the commandments of religion. A communist who rejects the commandments of religion and acts in accordance with the directions of the party, ceases to be one of the faithful. On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party, ceases thereby to be a communist." - The ABC of Communism, Why religion and communism are incompatible, 1920.

It simply cannot be emphasized enough that Socialists are profoundly devious or deluded human beings. There are two kinds of Socialist. The lucid subversive that knows Socialism is organized theft and exploits it to his advantage. And the gullible halfwit true believer, who takes the rhetoric at face value and actually believes that if you just steal enough money from one group of people and give it to another group of people, the latter will be transformed into angels who no longer have any impulse to exploit or abuse their fellow man.

"The living standards of workers and the natural environment on which life depends are under constant attack due to the drive for maximum profits inherent in capitalism. Our party fights for jobs and economic security, a decent and rising standard of living, peace, justice, equality, a sustainable environment, gay rights, health care, education, affordable housing, the needs of seniors, democracy, and a fulfilling life for everyone, with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society can exploitation of human beings by others, and the evils of oppression, war, racism, environmental degradation, and poverty be ended. We seek to build a socialist society which puts people and nature before profits." - Communist Party USA, 2001.

The marriage of anti-Capitalist rhetoric with womens' rights, opposition to racism, etc., is a staple of the Socialist platform, and flagrant indication you're a dealing with a Socialist.

Anyone whose head isn't buried in the sand will have noticed a sharply increasing instance of "feminist/black," "anti-misogyny/racism" activists, blaming "capitalism" for "patriarchy" and the oppression of ethnic minorities in America.

It's becoming more and more pervasive with each passing day it seems.

I've even seen leftists blaming capitalism for white supremacy and slavery, which is both ridiculous and false. (Never mind that white supremacist Germans were Socialists.) Slavery and racism were state imposed and perpetuated practices in the United States. Capitalism was one of the major driving forces working against the perpetuation of slavery. Alexis De Tocqueville described in detail his observations upon the Ohio river in the 1830s, on which one side existed a free state and on the other side a slave state. The free state he observed was a spectacle of industry, while on the slave side he saw but sparse and lethargic labor, as the latter had no personal incentive to labor harder or better (and were a perpetual expense to their owner).

"On the left the state that follows the thousand curves made by the Ohio in its course is called Kentucky; the other borrowed the name of the river itself. The two states differ only on one single point: Kentucky allowed slaves, the state of Ohio cast all of them out. 

So the traveler who, placed in the middle of the Ohio, allows himself to be carried along by the current until the river flows [...] between liberty and servitude; and he has only to glance around him to judge in an instant which one is most favorable to humanity. 

On the left bank of the river, the population is scattered; from time to time you see a gang of slaves with a carefree air crossing fields half deserted; the primeval forest constantly reappears; you would say that society is asleep; man seems idle; it is nature that offers the image of activity and life. 

From the right bank arises, in contrast, a confused murmur that proclaims from afar the presence of industry; rich crops cover the fields; elegant dwellings announce the taste and the attentions of the plowman; on all sides comfort is revealed; man seems rich and content: he is working." - Tocqueville, IBID.

There's also the clenched fist salute that's a common feature of leftist "rights" activists in America. This is likewise nothing new. The clenched fist salute was given by Socialist Lee Harvey Oswald after being arrested for the murder of JFK.

"I was looking for a key to my environment, and then I discovered socialist literature. [....] I am a true Karl Marxist. I've read just about everything by or about Karl Marx." - Lee Harvey Oswald, entry in personal diary, followed by response during interrogation (Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy).

This salute is a Socialist tradition and racist black activist groups like the Black Panthers, for example, were Founded by Socialists. 

"The clenched-fist salute has been used among revolutionaries for many centuries as a symbol of defiance, comradeship, and solidarity. [....] Since the Third International, the Comintern begun at Moscow in 1919, it has been the official salute of all Communist Parties throughout the world." - John Lautner, Communist Party USA, 1970.

What the falsely labeled "progressive" left in America represents must be recognized and addressed. The pervasive, intentionally induced ignorance, among the general populace must be remedied lest we lose everything our Forefathers established.