Once The United States of America is diminished, in all ways economic, geopolitical, and civilized, all the free-ride, free-love, free-everything bennies will begin to disappear, or at least stop being free.
Is that what Americans really want?
The horse can only be buggy-whipped so long before it collapses and dies.
I began asking readers yesterday to really, truly, intelligently educate themselves about Hillary Clinton, her roots in radicalism, her faith in Saul Alinsky, her say-anything-to-get-what-I-want politics, and to really think about the future they really want for this country, and for the world.
This isn't where we usually post about politics, that's Abortion Pundit. But bear with me, there is a point to putting this discussion here instead.
Hillary has a great, long, mouth-flowing history, and it would be a good update for those of you recently educated (high school or college), to do yourself a great service to read up on it. You could start with our several sidebar links at Abortion Pundit under the heading "MORE Hillary Backpedals."
After really educating yourself on Hillary's history (and not just from the media that favors her), I'd ask you just one question:
Is it more important that you can claim to have crowned the presumed first woman President, or more important that you are not among those who have helped destroy this nation and its position of resources for its own people and its strength (read, safety) in the world?
Be careful before you answer. Really read up on Hillary's adoration of "Rules for Radicals"
, her suppressed thesis on it. Did you know Alinsky, in this book, happily tips his hat to Lucifer, acknowledging and commending him for being "the very first radical" and for "rebelling against the establishment...so effectively that at least he won his own kingdom"
In interviews, Alinsky considered himself "short on virtue" and said he'd be happiest in Hell.
Satan? He gives credit to satan, and denies and denounces God? Really? Yes, really.
See Hillary falling in love with the book, with Alinsky's thoughts and calling this radicalism the "fulfillment of Revelation." Ask yourself, does she mean this Revelation? And if so, what precisely is she looking forward to in the "end of the age"?
Ask yourself: if she really has changed and does not now adore all that Alinsky stood for, why won't she come out and repudiate it? She won't. Instead, she and her party bury this information so you won't know her real allegiance is not to alleviating poverty or bettering mankind's plight, but to "rebelling against the establishment", perhaps winning her own queendom, perhaps in the footsteps of her and Alinsky's idol.
Contrast Hillary/Alinsky with one of the staunchest Communists who ever lived, who later became one of the staunchest anti-Communists. I'm just starting to read Whittaker Chambers' "Witness", in which he summed up why he stopped being a radical, a Communist. If you only read the introduction written to his children, some twenty pages short, you may begin to see far too close a parallel to what's happening to this nation:
[Communism's promise] is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods."
The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world...Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God.
...man without God is just what Communism said he was: the most intelligent of the animals, that man without God is a beast, never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness...Man calls it reason and uses it simply to be more beastly than any beast.
Is the U.S. a Communist nation? No. Is about half (or more) of the country thinking and acting precisely as beastly as Communists are described above as doing? Yes:
It's ok to abort pre-born fetuses if we don't want them, and even newborns who were supposed be disposed of before they were born...It's ok to commit suicide in some states...It's ok to let the national government control what health benefits you can afford and when you can have them, and keep from you better benefits by making them impossible to afford or get approved, and in the process worsen the nation's deficit (predicted to Obama's face, before the ACA passed) which only makes our kids and grandkids suffer under the excess burden...It's ok that a chief architect of ObamaCare and a top medical advisor to the White House thinks 75 is a good age to die and that "society...will be better off" if we do (although one Jewish rabbi thinks it's a "less than Jewish" belief to think that)...It's ok to stir up false racist charges against people defending their very lives, thus wrongfully fomenting a hateful splitting of the citizenry, all while not doing anything to focus our help where it really could do some good, with black-on-black violence...It's ok to take everything that other persons have worked hard to earn, and give it to all the everyone elses unwilling to first work hard in school to educate themselves and then to work hard to earn their own keep and their own respect.
The horse can only be buggy-whipped so long before it collapses and dies.
One thing most ex-Communists could agree upon: they broke because they wanted to be free...Freedom is a need of the soul, and nothing else. It is in striving tward God that the soul strives continually after a condition of freedom. God alone is the inciter and guarantor of freedom. He is the only guarantor. External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. Without freedom the soul dies. Without the soul, there is no justification for freedom....Hence every sincere break with Communism is a religious experience, though the Communist fail to identify its true nature...His break is the political expression of the perpetual need of the soul whose first faint stirring he has felt within him, years, months or days, before he breaks. A Communist breaks because he must choose at last between irreconcilable opposites-- God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism.
Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God. But its view of God, its knowledge of God, its experience of God, is what alone gives character to a society or a nation, and meaning to its destiny. Its culture, the voice of its character, is merely that view, knowledge, experience, of God, fixed by its most intense spirits in terms intelligible to the mass of men. There has never been a society or nation without God. But history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that became indifferent to God, and died.
And why does a radical or a Communist decide he "must choose" between God and Man? Because
"...one night he heard screams."
Chambers wrote of an embarrassed daughter of an ex-Communist, ashamed that her father had broken:
A child of Reason and the 20th century, she knew that there is a logic of the mind. She did not know that the soul has a logic that may be more compelling than the mind's. She did not know at all that she had swept away the logic of the mind, the logic of history, the logic of politics, the myth of the 20th century, with five annihilating words: one night he heard screams.
What Communist has not heard those screams? They come from husbands torn forever from their wives in midnight arrests. They come, muffled, from the execution cellars of the secret police, from the torture chambers of the Lubianka, from all the citadels of terror now stretching from Berlin to Canton. They come from those freight cars loaded with men, women and children, the enemies of the Communist State, locked in, packed in, left on remote sidings to freeze to death at night in the Russian winter. They come from minds driven mad by the horrors of mass starvation ordered and enforced as a policy of the Communist state. They come from the starved skeletons, worked to death, or flogged to death (as an example to others) in the freezing filth of sub-arctic labor camps. They come from children whose parents are suddenly, inexplicably, taken away from them – parents they will never see again.
What Communists has not heard these screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century? Those screams have reached every Communist's mind. Usually they stop there. What judge willingly dwells upon the man the laws compel him to condemn to death – the laws of nations or the laws of history?
But one day the Communist really hears those screams. He is going about his routine party tasks. He is lifting a dripping reel of microfilm from a developing tank. He is justifying to a Communist faction in a trade union an extremely unwelcome directive of the Central Committee. He is receiving from a trusted superior an order to go to another country and, in a designated hour, meet a man whose name he will never know, but who will give him a package whose contents he will never learn. Suddenly, there closes around that Communist a separating silence, and in that silence he hears screams.
He hears them for the first time. For they do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul. He says to himself, "Those are not the screams of a man in agony. Those are the screams of a soul in agony." He hears them for the first time because a soul in extremity has communicated with that which alone can hear it – another human soul.
Why does the Communist ever hear them? Because in the end there persists in every man, however he may deny it, a scrap of soul. The Communist who suffers this singular experience then says to himself: "What is happening to me? I must be sick." If he does not instantly stifle that scrap of soul, he is lost. If he admits it for a moment, he has admitted that there is something greater than Reason, greater than the logic of the mind, of politics, of history, of economics, which alone justifies the vision.
The bold emphases are mine, but Chambers is still describing, inadvertently, the America of today.
Don't tell me the Democrat Party isn't taking a page from the Terror policy of Communism when it allows Black Panthers with blackjacks visible in their hands to patrol outside voting places to intimidate folks into not coming in to vote unless it's to vote Democrat.
Don't tell me the Democrats, from Obama and Eric Holder on down, aren't trying to have police officers who defended their own lives locked up and sent to prison or worse, the execution chamber, because their attacker died after trying to wrest the cop's gun from him to shoot him with it.
Don't tell me the Democrat Party isn't using "terror as an instrument of policy" when it terrorizes black folks, telling them through campaign material photographs that a vote for a Republican is akin to lynching Obama. (It is jaw-dropping considering the lynchers, the Ku Klux Klan, began as nothing but "Solid South Democrats" and it was Abraham Lincoln, the first "Republican President, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation [and] a Republican-controlled Congress that voted for the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery.")
Don't tell me the Democrat Party hasn't made itself the Party of sanctioning the silent screams of children being suddenly, inexplicably, taken from their mothers, never to see them, ever.
Don't tell me the Democrat Party and its lapdog mainstream media supporters don't cover it up when Kermit Gosnell is allowed to do what he did, because to stop him would have been to harm legal abortion.
I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. It is far from it. And it has its share of racists. So do the Democrats, on the flip side.
And to be The Party of Death (i.e., the party of abortion) is to have become at least as beastly as those who believed lynching another person was their "right to choose."
And that's what gets us, in the end. All several hundred thousand, maybe millions, of us.
When we women who have aborted our children finally hear our own set of screams, we are driven to our knees and we also suddenly. just. know. how wrong—or how duped—we were. We know now there really is something greater, something more real, than Reason, or the mythical "war on women", or the logic of the mind, or of anything on Earth.
I'm begging the 50% of this nation to stop denying that little scrap of their souls, and to do so before they contribute to the death of this nation.
Whittaker Chambers, an American, knew that this isn't just "being dramatic." He knew it to be the course of history, of life or death, for not just our nation, but each one of us. And he risked his own life, to tell this to us, and to be free himself.
Which of us are willing to really listen?
[republished, on this Ash Wednesday, as the 2016 primaries begin, this was originally posted on AfterAbortion blog on Nov. 6, 2014]