Regular readers will note that I often start a post by focusing on the definition of a word or term that is going to be discussed.  This is because the meaning assigned to a word is usually the foundation to whatever argument is being made.  However, that meaning can often be the strongest defense or weakest link in an argument.  This is why the ‘definition’ of a word or term is so important.

There are several types of definitions.  All have their purposes, and at least one is fallacious.  For those who are interested, this is an excellent summary of the different forms and functions of ‘definition:’

Logic: The Importance of Definitions

There are two important points about ‘definition’ that we need to keep in mind when we are evaluating an argument.  The first is that, if a definition is clearly explained and properly used, then it cannot be broken.  This means, if a person clearly and thoroughly defines the term(s) they are using in an argument, and they apply them properly throughout their argument, there is no way around the meaning of that word or term.  For example:

If I say something that ‘exists‘ is in a state of actual being (a state where I can prove that is has substance that can be perceived and understood), and I use this meaning for this ‘definition’ consistently in any argument where I have defined it, then there is no way around the definition.  Whatever meets the conditions of this definition must exist.

A very famous argument actually uses this same idea:

“I think, therefore I am.”

— Rene Descartes

The act of thinking is proof that the person known as Descartes exists.  Descartes may not know the full extent or objective nature of his existence, but this is not necessary to prove that he exists.  All that is necessary for Descartes to know he exists is to know that he can perceive his own thoughts.  Therefore, we can say that Descartes exists “by definition.”  This means it is not possible for Descartes to not exist because the definition demands that he must.

This brings us to the next important point we need to understand about ‘definition,’ and that is the concept of ‘logical extension.’  In short, this means that, if A is true, then B is either true because it is a part of A, or because it naturally follows from A.  Here are two examples:

If I say Descartes exists, then — by logical extension — there must be a single, unique entity defined or identified by the term (i.e. name), ‘Descartes.’  In this case, this is true because the unique individual identified as ‘Descartes’ is part of the existence of that individual: in this relationship, the two concepts cannot be separated.

At the same time, if we say that Descartes exists because he thinks, then it follows — by logical extension — that Descartes has the capacity to think.  This is because the ‘proof’ that Descartes exists is based on the ability to demonstrate he has some sort of real or perceivable form.  In this case, ‘thinking’ is the ‘proof’ that Descartes has this form.  Therefore, we can conclude that Descartes can think because this is how we proved he has form or existence.  If it helps, think of this form of ‘logical extension‘ as loosely meaning ‘implication.’

These two points are very important to us.  If we are going to properly evaluate an argument, we must be able to clearly define the terms being used.  This is true whether we are the one making the argument, or the one who is hearing or reading it.  It is also important that we be aware of the ‘logical extensions’ connected to the meaning of the words or terms being used.  Once we have a command of these concepts, we will often find that many people make mistakes because they do not consider the actual meaning of the words they are using, or the logical extensions which precede from them.

 

In my first post in this series, POINTS TO PONDER: Does the Progressive Agenda Violate the ‘Separations Clause?’, I attempt to help readers see that the Progressive movement is religious in nature: one just has to understand the roots of Progressive ideology before one begins to see how this is true.  In this post, I will ask the reader to consider another aspect of the Progressive movement, and that is the reasons why the Progressive agenda so often seems to lend itself to ‘conspiracy’ theories.

Now, before we start, I must warn you, dear reader: this will not be a short post.  Nor will it be easy for most people to read.  This is because I have to provide the briefest of a background story before I can have any hope of helping you see what I want you to see.  Even then, I will be forced to leave out most of what you need to know to see clearly.  Nevertheless, I beg your indulgence.  Please stay with me while I lay the necessary foundation.  I promise, near the end, it will start to make sense — and you may never laugh off the notion of ‘conspiracy’ again (though you may understand it in  different light).

Once again, we need to go back to the start of the Progressive movement.  This will take us back to the mid 1800’s and a bunch of German students of a man named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.  They were kicked out of Europe, mostly because of the danger presented by their ideas.  Hegel’s most famous student is probably Karl Marx, but he had others: others who are just as important to us today — and just as dangerous.

The first of these students we will look at was a man named Herbert Croly.  He is one of the forgotten founders of the American Progressive movement.  It was Croly who coined the term, ‘New Nationalism,’ which was later championed by another founder of the Progressive movement, Theodore Roosevelt.  Croly tied historic progress to material egalitarianism: the belief that history is marching toward the ultimate goal of equality in all things, especially material wealth.  This is the central tenant of Marxism.  In words that could have easily come from Marx, himself, Croly wrote this critique of the American system:

“It is the economic individualism of our existing national system which inflicts the most serious damage on American individuality;…”

You see, Croly, like most of the original Progressives, believed in democracy, but their idea of democracy was essentially the same as Marx’s Communism.  They believed that society was moving toward a utopia in which the individual would fade away and the collective would become the focal point of society.  The ‘People’ would express their collective will through ‘democratic’ means, and all individual rights would be stripped away in the process.  The only thing that would remain were the needs and the will  of the ‘cooperative’ collective.  This is the idea that was actually being reflected in Obama’s speech in which he said:

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”

To the Progressive, everything is the result of a collective effort: nothing can happen due to the efforts of any individual.  Therefore, the individual can only be happy when he or she finds their place in and submits themselves to the will of society.  And only in this way — according to the Progressives — will the individual ever know true freedom.

This brings us to the next important point about the Progressive ideology: that ideas are useless unless they are actually brought to fruition.  In other words, the Progressive cares less for talk and more for doing or making it happen.  Thus, the Progressives spent a great deal of their time trying to figure out how they could best bring about this utopian collective toward which they believed history was pushing humanity.  This is where Woodrow Wilson enters the picture.  First, let us not be fooled: Wilson was also a student of Hegel and Marx:

“The fundamental theory of socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same.  They both rest upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members.  Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be, limits of principle [of the things government can and cannot do], upon strict analysis, there are none.”

In other words, Wilson believed in his own version of Communism where the people had the authority to do whatever they wished — even to its own members.  So long as 50.0001% vote for it, then that is what the Progressive considered to be the ‘moral’ and ‘just’ thing, and no one and nothing had a right to object.  After all, whatever the People vote for is the ‘will’ of the collective, and the will of the collective is the ultimate expression of the Progressive’s notion of ‘democracy.’  This then leaves only one question for the Progressive: how does he or she direct the ‘destiny’ of society so that it can be made to actually happen in the real world?

For most early Progressives, the answer was ‘administration.’  In short, this meant the establishment of an elite, specially trained cadre, independent of the Peoples’ will, who would govern society ‘scientifically’ by conducting ‘experiments’ on society to determine what works and what does not and then governing accordingly.  This is all explained by Wilson in his essay, ‘The Study of Administration.’  In this essay, Wilson calls for the establishment of an independent and unaccountable bureaucracy run by a cadre of elite people who are appointed to their positions for life.

“I know that a corps of civil servants prepared by special schooling and drilled, after appointment, into a perfected organization, with appropriate hierarchy and characteristic discipline seems to a great many thoughtful persons to contain elements which might combine to make an offensive official class….”

— Woodrow Wilson

Dear reader, this is the ‘shadow government’ you hear about in the media and it is real: Wilson and the Progressives succeeded in their goal of creating this un-accountable ruling elite.  However, if you fear these people might ever represent a threat to you or society, don’t.  Wilson also said this will never happen because — essentially — this ruling elite are the angels John Adams and James Madison said did not exist and, therefore, was the primary reason the Constitution placed chains on the government: so as to prevent the very thing Wilson and the Progressives wished to create.

Returning to the laying of our foundation, the Progressives knew where they wanted to go.  All that remained was to figure out how to make all this happen in a country where the Constitution prohibits every bit of their agenda?  (which, by the way, is why the Progressives always seem to be at war with the U.S. Constitution: it’s because they are!) The Progressives’ answer was to start with the education system.  Going back to Croly again:

“The best way to popularize scientific administration, and to enable the democracy to consider highly educated officials as representatives, it to popularize [today — populate] the higher education [universities].’

In short, the Progressives sought to take over our university system — and they did.  They started by establishing many schools with the purpose of producing the core of this cadre of Progressive elites.  Then they slowly took over other schools until, today, the universities we know as ‘Ivy League’ represent the culmination of the Progressive effort to construct this elite ruling class.

Now that I have laid the most minimal of a foundation for you, dear reader, let me start bringing things together.

— First, we must remember that the Progressives believed that they could govern society through ‘science.’

— There were many fields of ‘science’ by which they could achieve their goal of directing the evolution of humanity.

— These fields included administration (i.e. government bureaucracy); education; economics; social sciences; health care; the media/press; even the arts and especially the entertainment industry.

— We must also remember that the Progressives formalized the ‘science’ of what we now call public relations and/or ‘spin.’  Originally, before the word took on a negative connotation, this was referred to as propaganda.

— Next, we must remember that the Progressive founders all studied the same philosophers.  They also interacted with each other.  While each of them may have had their favorite focus as to what is the best method for achieving their goal — education for Dewey, Administration for Wilson and the press for Lippmann — they all had the same goal: the construction of a ‘democratic’ society where the individual is eclipsed by society (and society is governed by an appointed, unaccountable, ‘scientific’ elite).

So the solution was simple: train an elite and put them in to the system in places where they are not elected and cannot be touched by the government system as described by the Constitution.

The next problem for the Progressive was to figure out how best to pick these elite and train the people to accept this new social organization.  Their answer was to indoctrinate the masses through public schooling while using the elite university system to control who would have access to the un-accountable organs of ‘administration.’  And this is where the feeling of ‘conspiracy’ is born: the majority of those people running the bureaucracies, elite universities, media, entertainment and public schools all come from the same Ivy League schools.  This is because the ivy League schools were the Progressives answer to the problem of selecting their elite cadre.

This cadre is selected by using the college entrance and acceptance programs.  They are then shaped by the curriculum, which is taught by other Progressively trained professors.  They are then further whittled out when they entered into whatever branch of the ‘administrative’ machine they chose or for which they were groomed.  And, finally, after entering their specified branch of the ‘administration,’ they are continuously controlled by those above them, who also happen to be a part of the system.  The ultimate beauty of this plan is that, aside from the true, hidden leadership, the rank-and-file member of this elite ‘governing’ class never realize that they — too — are programmed drones.

The easiest way to see what I am trying to explain is to read Orwell’s “1984” and Huxley’s “Brave New World.”  Read them both and combine them in your mind, paying special attention to the characters in each book from the ruling elite of the societies in each book.  You will see that the ruling elites in this book are the fictional reflection of the real-world people behind the system the Progressives constructed.  If you will research them, you will also discover that both Orwell and Huxley were a part of these ruling elite, so they wrote with a great deal of informed authority.

This network goes far beyond anything the average person would imagine or expect:

Politicians And Their Famous Roommates: From Movie Stars To, Well, Other Politicans

I understand that it is easy to dismiss all of this as coincidence.  I once believed that, myself — but no more.  Now that I know the history behind the Progressive movement; what they believed and how they planned to achieve their goals; and how to understand the language they use; I see connections in everything about the process that shapes and directs our daily lives.  For example: can you see the related idea that runs through and connects the following quotes?

“And the people cannot be bothered with administration, for not only are they too busy, but they are simply unfit for and incapable of such a momentous task.”

— Woodrow Wilson, Founder of the American Progressive movement

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

— Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, ‘PR’ and ‘SPIN’

“The public must be put in its place, so that it may exercise its own powers, but no less and perhaps even more, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.”

— Walter Lippmann, hero of modern American journalism

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

— John Dewey, father of modern public education in America

If you see the common theme in these quotes, as well as how it progresses from a thought to an active solution, then you are starting to see what I mean by a Progressive ‘conspiracy.’  It is not so much the notion of a ‘tin-foil-hat’ conspiracy as it is a highly successful conspiracy to subvert the nation by undermining the U.S. Constitution and the system of government it describes.  Put another way, the Progressive movement is like a computer virus that infects, takes over and eventually re-writes the host operating system.  Once the process of infection is complete, there is little to no trace of the original operating system.  The trick is to teach yourself to look for and recognize the signs of infection and, in the case of Progressive social programming, it manifests in the form of a consistent agenda throughout all levels of government, education, the media and even our entertainment industry.  Once one understands and accepts this, and actively starts to look for these signs, they will become readily apparent in most everything you see or hear in the news, at school or in your favorite TV show or music.  We simply do not live in a world that happens by chance — not anymore:

The Progressive idea “…proposes that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view….” and “…that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.”

–– Woodrow Wilson, Founder of the Progressive movement

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.”

— Franklin D Roosevelt, Progressive

Do you see the connection and progression of ideas in those two quotes?  if so, do you see how they are connected to the notion of Progressive ‘conspiracy’ I have tried to describe and illuminate?  I would ask, dear reader, that you make an attempt to look for these signs: the signs of this Progressive conspiracy as well as how they are all connected back to the Progressive goals and system for achieving them.

 

 

 

 

h

 

Have you seen this story?

California High School Teacher On Leave After Questioning School Shooting Walkout

First, let’s agree to something: let’s set aside the fact that there is no ‘separations clause’ in the U.S. Constitution (not with regard to Church and State, anyway).  Let’s also set aside the argument over whether or not abortion is a ‘Constitutional right.’  Let’s agree to set all of this aside so we can focus on the blatant contradiction that has crept into all levels of our national and State governments (as well as a large part of our other social institutions).

The first thing we have to do is understand that it is usually easier to just take things on face value rather than to expend the time and energy necessary to dig down deep enough into an issue to discover what is actually at its foundation.  Unfortunately, taking the easy path is a failing of human nature.  This means the majority of people are going to be prone to accept things on face value.  This is especially true when those things are as complicated as the debates over political and social issues.  Rather than spend a large part of their life learning to understand what drives these debates, it is easier to just accept what they are told and live their lives as though that appearance is reality.  This is why so few people see the contradiction in our public institutions  This contradiction reveals itself in so many different ways, the average person who takes things on face value cannot see the connection between them.  To these people, the appearance of being separate issues is enough to convince them that there is no connection.  Once this becomes their reality, getting them to see the contradiction is nearly impossible.

So, what is the contradiction?  Well, I’ll be honest: this is not easy to define in one or two sentences.  It requires a great deal of knowledge and understanding of political philosophy.  However, if I were to put it in rough terms, I would describe the contradiction as a ‘Left-wing’ claim that the Framers of this nation intentionally constructed our system of government so as to separate Church and State, not only in government, but in the public square, as well. While, at the same time, the ‘Left’ has taken over the government and public square and are now using them to push their religion.

OK, now, I am well aware that my last statement will meet with a great deal of objection.  I understand why someone might object to my statement, as well.  Unless we are open to seeing things from a different or better informed position, then we will seldom find the Truth.  All I am asking is that the reader stay with me a little longer and, please, keep an open mind while I try to make my case.

Today, most Americans — at least those Americans who are politically aware — understand that the American Left supports a ‘Progressive’ agenda.  However, what most Americans do not realize is that, for the Progressives, their agenda is religiously driven.  We do not understand this because we do not know the history of the Progressive movement, which means we are unaware of the explicitly religious language they once used.  And today, because this Progressive religion has morphed into something that appears to be anything but a religion, those people who do know the history of the Progressive movement do not see that they are still pushing their religion today.  They may know the foundation in one area, but they accept a different appearance of the Progressive religion on face value, therefore preventing them from seeing the connection.

At this point, let me share a few words from two of the most prominent founders of the American Progressive movement:

“Our cause is based on the eternal principles of righteousness; and even though we who now lead many for a time fail, in the end the cause itself triumph…. We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

— Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Party convention, 1912

“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

— William Jennings Bryan, Democratic convention, 1896

This type of religious speech runs throughout the writings of the Progressive founding fathers.  You merely have to start reading it to run into it.  However, in many cases, you will also need to have a sound knowledge of the Bible and the Judaeo/Christian faith, as well, because the early Progressives — like the nation’s Founders — often quoted Scripture without citing it specifically.  For example:

“…each must be his brother’s keeper…. If the fathers cause others to eat bitter bread, the teeth of their own sons shall be set on edge.”

— Theodore Roosevelt, “Who is a Progressive?” 1912

As Ronald Pestritto explains it in the introduction of his book, “American Progressivism“, for most early Progressives, the idea behind their agenda was that:

”…it had become possible, through an empowered central state, to realize the Christian hope that “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  Social Gospel adherents considered it to be their mission to fulfill in this life the New Testament’s call to bring about the perfect kingdom of God.”

Now, here is where the foundation of this driving desire behind the Progressive movement to create the kingdom of God on earth, in this life starts to change.  The ‘Social Gospel’ is now known as ‘Social Justice.’  And the notion of the God of the Bible has been changed to the State being god.  Again, if one reads enough of the early Progressive founders, one will see that all of this is true.  One will even find that they state this goal openly.  It’s just a matter of learning to understand their language.  Once one learns the way they are speaking, the Progressive declaration that they see man as his own god jumps from their writings.  But more than that, one finds that the Progressives saw the schools and universities as the mechanism through which they could affect the changes they sought in the way society thinks and behaves.  That this is true can be demonstrated through the words of another pillar of the American Progressive movement and father of the modern American public education system:

“The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.”

–– John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed“

When one realizes that Dewey rejected the God of the Bible and that he was also admired Russia and the Communist system, one quickly realizes that the “God” Dewey is speaking of here is not the God in which our Founders believed — or the God in which the majority of Americans still believe.  For Dewey, man was his own god, and, therefore, he could direct his own evolution to create the humanity of his own desires.  Again, Dewey says this, and again, he sees the teacher as the ‘prophet’ of this new religion:

“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.”

–– John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed”

“I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”

–– John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed”

 “I believe that the teacher’s place and work in the school is to be interpreted from this same basis. The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.” 

–– John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed”

Now, here is where we need even more knowledge of the Progressive agenda, the Progressive ‘religion.’  The Progressives advocate for ‘social justice.’  This is their ‘gospel.’  Their ‘god‘ is man (more specifically, the government).  Therefore, everything the ‘government‘ decides is important becomes a decree from ‘god.’  And anything which opposes these ‘decrees‘ represents an attack on their ‘god.’  If and when one comes to understand this, and starts to consider current events in this light, things will start to take on a different appearance and the connections between things that once seemed to have no connection suddenly become crystal clear.  Now, back to the story I posted at the start of this post:

If one understands that the Progressive agenda is actually their religion, then it becomes easy to understand why the schools would support the anti-gun agenda while punishing one of their ‘prophets‘ (i.e. teachers) who dares to blaspheme their ‘god‘ by asking her students to question whether or not students should also have a right to protest abortion, which amounts to a Progressive ‘sacrament.’  The heresy this teacher committed was in trying to get her students to think for themselves:

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

“Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy.”

— John Dewey

You see, this teacher was upsetting the Progressive religion by trying to spoil the ‘harmony of the collective society.’  In other words, she was trying to teach the students to be individuals rather than indoctrinating them into accepting their assigned place in the collective.  If the reader can even imagine the relationship I am trying to show them, let alone see it, I would ask that they try to learn more about the early Progressive movement and how it has changed over time.  Then try to see American politics and society from the perspective I have tried to describe: as a war between the Progressive religion and all other interests, both religious and secular.  Which brings us back to the contradiction I mentioned earlier in this post:

If Progressives honestly believe that government should be divorced from religion, then why have they seized it for the sole purpose of pushing theirs?  And how can the government do anything in support of the Progressive agenda without implicitly choosing the Progressive religion over all others?  Which is a clear violation of the original intention of the Constitution and First Amendment?  If one looks at our political and social arenas in this light, the contradictions are everywhere, and they are everywhere connected back to the Progressive religion.

ADDENDUM, 16 March 2018

More evidence to support my questioning:

Ohio student suspended for staying in class during walkouts

Principle drives off student opposing anti-gun demonstration:

 

As regular readers may be aware, I listen to Glenn Beck.  I do not listen because I agree with him on all of his opinions (truth is, I seldom agree with him), but because I find that he is one of the few voices in media who is honestly seeking Truth.  Although I believe he often misses the ‘why‘ behind any given issue, he is usually pretty good at putting his finger on the ‘what‘ of that issue.  By this, I mean that Mr. Beck is good at identifying and properly framing an issue, but I seldom agree with his analysis as to the cause of that issue.  Here is an excellent example of a cases where Mr. Beck properly identifies a problem — the correct ‘what‘ of the issue —  but he completely misses the ‘why‘ behind it:

Glenn Beck: ‘None of us know the Bill of Rights’ — here are the disturbing statistics

[NOTE: There are some startling statistics in Mr. Beck’s piece (as well as a great video explanation of the issue).  I would strongly urge that everyone reading this post stop and take the time to read the story and watch the video — especially since the rest of this post will assume that the reader has done so.]

This will not be a lengthy post, because it doesn’t have to be.  Mr. Beck believes that our rights come from the Bill of Rights, and that the solution to the majority of our nation’s problems can be solved simply by restoring our understanding or and support for the Bill of Rights.  You see, Mr. Beck believes that the American ‘Left’ and the American ‘Right’ both still believe in these rights, and therefore, the Bill of Rights is the ‘common ground’ upon which the nation can seek to reconcile its differences.  But there are two major problems with Mr. Beck’s beliefs.

First, it is no longer clear that the American ‘Left’ still believes in or agrees with the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  In fact, if we are to take them at their word, the American ‘Left’ is directly opposed to may of the protections in the Bill of Rights, and when it does express support for any of them, it has often re-written their meaning so that the original intent is no longer recognizable.  Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for a rational, objective observer to conclude there is any difference in the principles between the American ‘Left’ and the American ‘Right.’  The two sides may express fundamental differences in their respective Party platforms, but in practice, they show little difference.  Perhaps this explains why, in more recent times, the American ‘Right’ has demonstrated an indifference for the Bill of Rights equal to that of the American ‘Left?’  Either way, Mr. Beck’s assumption that the Bill of Rights is the common ground upon which all of America can come together is suspect, at best.

Then there is the more fundamental problem in Mr. Beck’s argument: that the Bill of Rights is the source and protection of our rights.  To be fair, Mr. Beck is not alone in this belief: a great many people believe the same thing — and they are all equally incorrect.

First, the Bill of Rights does not grant any right, it only asserts guarantees of protection of pre-existing rights: rights that existed before the Bill of Rights was written and adopted.

Second, the Bill of Rights protects both civil and Natural Rights.  Civil rights are those which are created by society.  In this case, they have been created by the People, through the Constitution.  Civil rights would include things such as the right to vote, the right to a trial, to a lawyer, etc.   But civil rights are not secured by the Bill of Rights or even the  U.S. Constitution;  they are secured under the principles of Natural Law.  The other rights protected by the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights.  Natural Rights include the right to life, liberty, property, etc.  Natural Rights are also secured under the principles of Natural Law.  Because Natural Rights are granted by the Creator, at the moment of our creation (i.e. conception), they are inalienable: meaning that they are an inseparable part of every individual.  Natural Law governs the relationship between Natural and Civil Rights, as well as the interactions of every individual.  It is through the Natural Right to Contract (i.e. the Social Contract) that civil rights are created.  That is all the U.S. Constitution is: a Social Contract between the People of the United States, created through their representatives of the several States of the United States.  The Bill of Rights is just a part of this Social Contract.

The U.S. Constitution grants and protects our Civil Rights.  Because they are Civil Rights (i.e. constructed rights), they are subject to change.  But neither the Bill of Rights nor the U.S. Constitution grant Natural Rights.  Those are granted by the Creator.  they do not change.  Nor can they be taken from or given away by the individual.  They are inalienable: an inherent part of each person that can no more be removed or controlled than their free will.  in addition, any trampling of these Natural Rights — unless in accordance with Natural Law — is a violation of those rights (and of Natural Law).   All of this is explained in the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the United States.  it is also the document which asserts the principles from which the People drew their authority to write and ratify both the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Therefore, it is the Declaration of Independence that declares the ‘what‘ and the ‘why‘ of America: the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely the ‘how.’

Mr. Beck either does not understand the relationship here, or he has failed to explain it.  If he has failed to explain it, then he has undermined his entire argument by creating a false narrative.  If he does not understand the relationship, then he has failed in his attempt to restore America’s understanding of ‘rights.’  Either way, while Mr. Beck is correct — America has lost its understanding of rights and from where they come — he has focused on the wrong thing.  The Bill of Rights is not the point from where one must start to explain what a right is or from where it comes.  Once must start much farther back.  One must start here, with the free will of the individual.

This is the real root of this problem: it is not that we no longer know our rights, but that we no longer know what I right is or from where it comes — let alone how or why we must protect them.

 

Have you seen this video clip?

I honestly cannot remember the last time I was as furious, insulted, revolted, disgusted and heart-broken as I was watching this video.  It served no useful purpose.  It is pure propaganda.  When I watched this, I saw nothing but two spoiled and disrespectful brats demanding to be given respect where it has not been earned and has not been earned.  But when I watched the way Bill Maher not only fed into these kids belief that they actually have a valid voice in public debate, but intentionally deceived them as to the truth of that debate and his role in deceiving the American people in general….  Well, I confess: I lost control of my temper.

First, I do not believe these two children when they claim to be sincere.  This is because their words and demeanor testify against them.  They claim that they are not pushing a Left vs Right agenda, but they do nothing but attack Senator Rubio, President Trump and Dana Loesch.  After hearing this, and watching the contempt in their faces while they speak, why should I ever consider the slightest possibility that they are angry with all politicians?  There is no rational reason to believe they are angry at anyone but those they deem to be standing in the way of the gun control agenda.

Next, they are not ‘experts’ on gun control.  They said that hiding in a locked room is enough to make them an expert on gun control.  By this reasoning, being in a car crash makes you an expert on the engineering behind automobile safety, as well as the physics involved.  Being in a house fire makes one an expert on firefighting and structural engineering.  being the survivor of an airplane crash makes you an expert on air craft safety and aeronautical engineering.  Heck, watching a space shuttle launch would make you an astronaut — if we accept this line of reasoning, anyway.

Then there is this: if we are going to ban gun sales to anyone under the age of 21, then why aren’t we banning interviews about guns with anyone under the age of 21?  In fact, why are we letting people under 21 vote?  The principle is the same, so why isn’t any of the rest of this being done.  Why isn’t the principle being applied equally?  If you are reading this, and you are under 21, I want you to know the answer to this question.  It is because the youth simply do nt have the life experience to know what they are talking about when it comes to matters such as these.  They have not learned to control their emotions, therefore, they can be easily manipulated and exploited — as these two kids have been.

Then there is the matter of the fact that these two children are ignorant on a level that leaves one to wonder whether or not they have ever had a class on American History or simple civics.  The Second Amendment is not granted by ‘being American.’  It is not a right given to us by the Constitution.  It is granted by the Creator, at the moment of conception.  This makes it a Natural Right: a right that is inherent in the individual and that can never be justifiably taken from them.  Bill Maher knows this, so why didn’t he educate them instead of furthering their ignorance?  I can excuse the kids.  After all, they are kids.  But Maher knows better, which means his actions in this interview make the interview nothing but propaganda for the gun control lobby.  For the record: the Second Amendment recognizes and protects the Natural Right to self-defense; and by self-defense, we do not mean just the right to personal defense, but to be able to defend against a modern army fielded by a tyrannical government.  This means these kids have demonstrated a lack of understanding of this issue.  A responsible media would have noticed this and not allowed this interview.

Then there is the matter of the emotional appeal in this whole thing.  there is no reason in any of the many appearances these kids have been making.  Their whole testimony amounts to:

“We got shot at.  This must stop.  Grab the guns.”

They do not talk about the 39 times law enforcement failed to protect them with this one shooter alone.  they do not talk about the fact that their sheriff has signed an agreement with their school board agreeing not to arrest or prosecute minority juveniles so that the school board will receive more government money (this is true: look into it).  They do not talk about hardening schools.  They do not talk about arming teachers, or adding armed guards.  They do not talk about the fact that their sheriff ordered four deputies to stand down and not go to the aid of their classmates (again, this seems to have actually happened).  They did not talk about the need for better screening and more programs for mental health.  they did not address the affect of violent video games, Hollywood movies and gangster rap music.  They did not address the affect of the gun control lobbies propaganda.  they did not address the connection of anti-depressants and other psychotic medications to mass shooters.  They did not address any of this; they only attacked the guns.  Obviously, they have an agenda (just as I argued in my post in this very issue).

In addition to this, these kids never discuss the fact that the Government’s own report on the 1994 assault weapons ban determined that there was no decrease in the number of people shot and killed in mass shootings.  They didn’t even mention that there were mass shootings using assault weapons while that ban was in effect.  They never discuss the fact that gun control does not work in the U.S. cities with the strictest gun control laws.  They do not mention that violent crime where there are permissive gun laws is far below the national average.  They do not mention how many crimes and deaths are prevented, or how many mass shootings are prevented every year by private citizens with their personal weapons.  They do not mention a single thing that might contradict their claims.  This makes their testimony one-sided, which makes it both fallacious and propaganda.

All of this begs the question: what is the true agenda here.  Personally, I think that these two are seeking employment either in the media or in a political career and they see this as their shortest path to that goal.  I pray this is not the case because, if it is, it would mean they are crawling over the dead bodies of their classmates to grab this publicity for their own, personal gain.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but this is the impression with which I have been left, and it is an impression these two kids created by their own words and demeanor.

Finally, I will end with a personal comment.  If they honestly believe that previous generations have messed up our society, and that they can fix it, then I would like to see them give up the cell phones their parents have provided them.  I want to see them leave school and shun any and all public assistance — in any and every form.  I want to see them denied any platform on which to speak, and silenced — by force if necessary — any and every time they try to speak.  I wish to see them sued by the NRA for malicious slander, and I do not want to see them given any legal counsel.  Let them get their own.  I don’t even want them to be given any access to the internet or social media unless they pay for every step of the way.  Make them buy a computer, pay for the internet access: all of it.  Even then, do not allow them to raise any money from any source over the age of 30 years (they said the previous generation ‘f-ed’ things up,’ so they shouldn’t mind if we keep them from accepting anything from the previous generation.  Then, after we do all of this, let’s see if they can survive, let alone ‘fix’ the mess they claim we have made.  Somehow, I suspect that, if we could do this, these petulant little kids would be singing a different tune in less than a week.