- Text smaller
- Text bigger
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Words matter. Labels matter more
A man once told me that his trick to becoming a great baseball player was to become an umpire. He said he was a decent baseball player at first, who became far better when he also became an umpire.
The same advice applies to citizenship.
How engaged can a citizen be without a basic understanding of the rulebook for Americans – the Unites States Constitution? It is precisely the lack of understanding of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, that has allowed an erosion of those rights for generation after generation. We need to take responsibility now, before it is too late. The fundamental process of rejecting imposed labels is Step 1 in that fight.
There is a basic confusion about political ideology that presupposes a fallacy. This assumption has the “left” on one side and the “right” on another, with “moderates” in the middle. None of those labels are correct.
The terms “left” and “right” come from the French monarchy. The idea was, if you were with the king (the centralized/statist government), you sat on the right in parliament. If you opposed the king and stood for liberty, you were on the left.
To suggest that those on the “right” (conservatives) favor a powerful king is derisory. This axiom falls apart. Similarly, to suggest that statists who seek ever-expanding government (who include socialists and communists in their ranks) are for liberty, or on the “left,” is also ridiculous. Where then do we put anarchists? And what is a centrist, under this imposed and impaired presumption of labels?
The better tool is to view political ideology on a continuum, from total government, to no government. On the left, you have communism, statism, dictatorship, monarchy and oligarchy. As you move to the right, you have republics and democracies. And you end with anarchy or no government.
The reality is, if the U.S. Constitution is the basis of this republic (as it is in America), then the moderate, or centrist, should really be the one who believes the most strongly in the U.S. Constitution (as it is the center of the political frame). This point was elucidated recently by a man named Steven Maikoski, who wrote a manual on the matter. I think it resonates.
The statists slap the “right-wing” epithet on those who are really “centrists” when the pervading form of government is a constitutional republic. Those who wish to divorce the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution are guilefully using words and labels to distinguish themselves as the “noble freedom fighters” while eroding the personal freedoms inherent in the founding documents (contracts with citizens).
The reason statist-minded activists begrudge the First Amendment is that it gets in the way of total government. Examples abound. All attacks on the First Amendment do the dirty work of eroding individual liberty, and thus distancing the citizens from their contract with the American government.
A few years ago, in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., the city went after a couple holding a Bible study at their private residence. And now, in that same small Southern California city, newspapers have been banned on government property by the city council after one publication was critical of the council’s actions. More on that story will be released in coming days at WND.com.
I participated in an event Saturday in San Juan Capistrano that helped bring public awareness of the city council’s anti-free-speech actions. This event stands as case-in-point that the labeled “left” is a misnomer, by definition. One speaker at the free-speech event asked for anyone in the crowd who considered themselves on the “left” side of politics to raise their hand. No hands went up. When conservatives were asked to raise their hands, most every hand went up. If those who believe in the First Amendment right to free speech truly exist on the labeled “left,” there would have been hands raised at that moment.
This event was widely publicized, but the logical observer can do the math to deduce that there is no leftist in Southern California who supports free speech enough to show up at an event supporting the Constitution. If there were an issue the labeled “right” and “left” could both defend, wouldn’t it be the First Amendment?
One then has to look at more sinister, clandestine reasons why there was no one, not one soul who considers himself a “leftist” at a rally for free speech.
Southern California is famous for suppressing free speech. Last year, one San Diego student was suspended for sharing his Christian faith with other students. More broadly, the left, in conjunction with the Democratic Party, has been suppressing the expression of conservative ideals in Hollywood for decades now.
We have seen the videos of Obama supporters lining up to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment. They would probably consider themselves “left” or “centrist,” and yet they clearly do not believe in the most central document in the country – the U.S. Constitution. They don’t even believe in their own right to say what they believe, as they are doing in the video. Or worse, and more likely, they don’t understand what they are saying because they have been sold labels and misnomers that pervade their rational ability to even make sense of the most basic information.
The theocracy of political correctness
My co-author, Dr. Dathan Paterno, and I wrote in our book about the re-definition and imposed labeling that has dominated the American vernacular, and the critical need to take a hard look at how we define morality, and what it means to the survival of our republic. The statists preach against “imposing morality” when logically, any rational person can deduce that never in the history of the world, has a law been written that was not based on someone’s version of morality. The oft-feared “theocracy” label, so hackneyed in our culture today, has indeed arrived. The theocracy is not that of the “religious right” or the “moral majority” or the “political fringe” labels that the American public has come to hysterically fear. The theocracy is that of political correctness.
Political correctness is accountable to no contract with the American people, nor will it defend them in a war, persecution, political tyranny or any other situation.
That is why the new theocracy of labels based upon the wishy-washy, constantly changing, statist promulgated definition of political correctness is perhaps the most dangerous lie imposed on America to date.
Concrete definitions based upon political logic
I am issuing a challenge to those who fear morality or the “radical right-wing fringe” (who, as evidenced, isn’t radical, or on the right, or on the fringe at all).
Do you believe in free speech outside the confines of pornography or public perversity? If you do, rise up now and join forces with the constitutional centrists in this country who want to protect it. Stop being deceived by the enslaving snares set for you by those who would have you silenced in a moment.
Who do you suppose would have shown up Saturday if the event were a free-speech rally “for pornography”? The fringe left would have rushed to defend the rights of perverts. Buses would have been funded (astroturfed) to make a good crowd showing. Maybe if the next free-speech rally included the “rights of perverts,” the labeled “left” will actually show up.
Those who have a basic political science competence should throw off the “left” and “right” labels for what they are: imposed labels intended to deceive and undermine your contract with your government – the government “of the people, and by the people.”
Someone who believes in big government is a “statist.” Someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution is a “constitutional centrist” or a “constitutional conservative” – the rest are on the fringe.
Tell the truth while you still have a First Amendment right to do so.