Kings, Queens, Emperors, and Democrats

Modern America is experiencing an escalating negative political environment. The words “king”, “queen”, and “emperor” causes the mind to conjure a picture of superiority and sovereignty. The title of this article communicates the connection and correlating of these words to the political party of the Democrats. Their collective rhetoric eludes to this idea. After reading the book by Kenneth R. Timmerman entitled "Shadow Warriors," he documents with factual liberal behavior the mindset they are superior with their intellect and sovereign in their insistence that it is their natural action to use government power to install their sense of social justice.

As the book documents, it seems their belief system is evidence of a commitment level far beyond nationalism and loyalty to America as a country in need of defense against an abstract enemy. On the surface it looks as though they are carefree concerning the safety of American citizens. Their quick, almost defensive, response to accusations of traitorous actions some make against their adversaries, the Republicans and the person of President Bush, is rationalized as patriotic. Their continued efforts to redefine patriotism to cover their abhorrent rhetoric is growing old and needs to stop. The democratic party, and the members themselves, have to come clean with their corrosive and destructive actions and activities and accept the fact that they are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualists.

Freedom and Oppression

The word “freedom” conjures the soul of images of social grandeur. It also is used to paint both political and religious abstract pictures. The liberal left uses the word to describe a Utopian social dream, while the conservative right conjures a social reality.

From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.

Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”

Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.

What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.

From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”

Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.

Post script:

As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.

Truth and Consequences

While listening to the Dennis Prager radio program today (Feb 22) I had to journal what was going through my mind. The subject matter pertained to the liberal left and conservatism. Specifically, his thesis stated that young people, particularly those older than 18, tend to lean more to the liberal left side of social issues, while older individuals lean more towards being conservative.

His thesis then moved on further to state, generally speaking, or to ask the question, why are there conservatives in the first place? If liberalism is the ideal social issue position for the young to harbor, then it goes to say liberalism should still be held in older individuals as well. What makes older individuals abandon the utopian liberal left ideals for conservative ideals?

Obviously, from the younger liberal left point of view the conservatives are stupid, or more accurate, less wise (given the attitude of the major printed news media). This begs the question, then why do individual humans evolve from young, wise, and having a liberal left state of mind to a lesser and more stupid state of mind?

The correct ideas are as follows.

• The liberal left wallows in the theoretical, while the conservative acknowledges the reality of life. The two cannot mingle.
  
  
• The liberal left feels while the conservative observes.
  
  
• The liberal left peers through rose colored lenses while the conservative cannot afford wear them.
  
  
• The liberal left wishes while the conservative is concrete.
  
  

An example can clarify the above. The liberal left theorizes that humans are basically good and it is the social climate that causes humans to become evil, or commit evil acts. Today’s news (Feb 22) Bill Bennett’s Morning in America) radio program presented that individual male students were charged with rape. These individuals were attending a prestigious school (tuition for attending listed as $32,000 per year). The social climate for these male students was cosseted, yet their act was evil.

The theoretical application of social change (progressive social engineering) comes from feelings rather than intellectual abstract thinking. It is a feel good rhetoric for the liberal left to vocalize the need for income distribution (from those accordingly to those of need), but by applying intellectual abstract thinking money distribution will not fix social problems in the poor rural areas of metropolitans.