Every Latin student had to read Caesar’s Gallic Wars in sophomore year of high school. In English the translation succinctly began: all Gaul is divided into three parts—Gallia Celtica, Belgica and Aquitania.
Today the United States has become divided into just two different sets of diametrically opposed camps of revolutionary ideas. The first began in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago and the other arguably goes back to a fruit tree in the first Garden.
Virtually all ideas of revolutionary change have sprung from their wellspring. We use mainly easy terms, such as left and right or possibly liberal and conservative. Even they have their own derivatives, such as Marxism, Communism, Progressivism, traditionalism and so on.
Like, dramas they are all just variations on a theme
Since the Biblical Fall of Man the world has been caught in a maelstrom of revolutionary fervor that has bifurcated the pages of history into a brace of conflicting ideas that have set the world on fire.
These intellectual wars have assumed many new skins, pigmentation and hues over the centuries. The early Christians found their nascent faith under attack from the religion’s first notable heresy, Gnosticism, an elitist faith that assigned special privilege to the chosen few whose intuitive knowledge would rule the world.
This early conflict evolved into a formidable conflict that St. Augustine called the City of God versus the City of Man. In today’s parlance this plays as traditionalism vs. relativity.
In the 18th century the French Revolution attempted to remake the world and with it change the moral nature of mankind. This was the most revolutionary idea to come down the path since Jesus Christ instituted a new religion that promised, not an earthly paradise but a future life with the Triune God in a kingdom with many mansions.
This pie in the sky was repulsive to the intellectuals of the French coffeehouses and the soirées that proclaimed a new world of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. The French Revolution gave life and sustenance to a squad of imitation revolutions in Russia, Asia and Africa.
The heirs to this thinking later conceptualized their dogma into Marxism, Socialism, Liberalism and Progressivism all of which attempted to create a utopian paradise that promised more a new Eden, a veritable garden of earthly delights. As quickly as inchoate utopias cropped up, they were dashed on the rocks of reality.
In the United States it was the brilliant socialist, Robert Croly, whose book, The Promise of American Life, published in 1907, created a reliable paradigm that has propelled progressives in this country into the driver’s seat amid a declining Christendom.
His new thought turned American thinking on its head and led to the breakdown of a 1000 years of Western Civilization.
To effect this Croly melded the Big Government philosophy of Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, designed specifically to establish American capitalism with the agrarian philosophy of Thomas Jefferson that despised government of any kind and sought to sustain the farming class.
By turning this part of the American giveness on its head, Croly succeeded in establishing a historic paradigm where a political elite used the power of big government to help and entitle millions of the poor and indigent.
In the 20th century these ideas assumed the shape and form a full-fledged war of two distinct cultures. On the one side was the traditional thinking of Western Civilization with its profound respect for law, marriage, sexual morality, the family and private property.
The left countered with a relativistic morass of moral relativism that produced a moral and spiritual chaos of spirit that will impact the United States for generations to come.
Barack Obama was the first Democratic president to push the envelope of checks and balances off the table of reality to accelerate this transformation.
As president Obama has played his part as a country disorganizer like a virtuoso. He has religiously followed the primary rules of his posthumous mentor, Saul Alinsky’s in giving power, not to the Princes but to the poor.
In seven very dangerous years he has stabilized the abortion industry as a veritable American institution. He has promoted gay culture to the extent that homosexuals have a veto power over the free practice of property rights and religious freedom.
He has brought more social democracy to America and with it, higher taxes, draconian relegations, a decline in the private economy and investment, the transfer of millions of jobs to public unions and billions to crony supporters.
Law enforcement has declined to the extent that policemen are afraid to do their jobs for fear of Justice Department prosecutions. Public safety has mirrored this with a huge increase of murders in all major metropolitan areas as gangs, many composed of illegal immigrants, roam with impunity.
Under Obama the left way of thinking has won several battles on several cultural fronts. As hard as valiant traditionalists have fought the battle, the left has too many willing accomplices in academia, the mainstream media and every level of government that it feels a kinship in as George Armstrong Custer was in South Dakota.
Pope Francis’ recent visit to the United States has also underscored how vast the transformation of American culture has come. His attacks on capitalism and free trade, as well as his calls for economic equality in an unequal world, not only world betrays a vast ignorance of how prosperity is created but smacks more of Karl than it does Jesus.
Despite his bromides about taking care of the planet, his acceptance of the unsubstantiated and an agenda-driven theory of made-man climate change.
In doing so the pope has put his papal power and moral authority in league with a legion of population control fanatics, abortionists, euthanasia promoters and death panel advocates, putting the pope’s beloved poor at greater risk.
Noted economist, Thomas Sowell points out how little the pope understands the root causes and solutions for poverty. In the 1980s the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, published a document, entitled Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy. This document has worked at cross-purposes with the traditional teachings of the Church and the prosperity and culture of the United States.
The specifics of the Pastoral Letter reflect far more of the secular Enlightenment of the 18th century than they do Catholic traditions. Archbishop Weakland admitted that such an Enlightenment figure as Thomas Paine is now coming back through a strange channel.
Perhaps some of the Cardinals and bishops are unaware that Paine rejected the teachings of any church that I know of, including the Church of Rome. To base social or moral principles on the philosophy of the 18th-century Enlightenment and then call the result Catholic teachings is disingenuous and unworthy of any Catholic prelate.
This set of secular ideas does nothing to predispose the traditional faithful to the sermons, admonitions and teachings of Pope Francis. It anything it further divided the Catholic Church.
The Ideological left in the Vatican blithely throw around the phrase the poor, blaming poverty on what other people are doing to or for the poor. According to Dr. Sowell it is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining.
Consider which has a better track record of helping the less fortunate — fighting for a bigger slice of the economic pie, or producing a bigger pie? In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century.
Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico.
The much maligned market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.
Poverty is a natural given but prosperity requires many things — none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.
Geographic settings are radically different, both among nations and within nations—especially climate factors. So are demographic differences, with some nations and groups having a median age over 40 and others having a median age under 20.
Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions of social democracy he is now promoting around the world.
This means that some groups have several times as much adult work experience as others. Cultures are also radically different in many ways, especially in the way they approach work, development, education and personal responsibility.
As economic historian David S. Landes said, The world has never been a level playing field.
No one can make that a reality. But they can do is turn the world into an armed camp or a one world dictatorship that will splintered apart before the ink on any agreement has dried.
This is all the result of the loss of the Garden–or what David Hume called the twisted timber of mankind.
We live in a society that denigrates and denies conspiracy theories. Sure many theories are unmitigated balderdash, such as Kennedy’s Secret Service Driver actually fired the fatal shot but in truth history is ladedened with conspiracies.
Communism is a conspiracy and is probably the most long-lasting and successful conspiracy in history.
Even more sinister is the fact that the Russian KGB has had an influential role in the prominence of LT as a global movement. According to former Romanian communist operative Ion Pacepa since ancient times the Russians have used religion to manipulate people.
Like the tsars before them the KGB used the churches to instill dreams about world revolution and heaven on earth to keep the masses at bay.
Because of their imperial vision they used the KGB to work through the church to help the Kremlin expand its influence into Latin America and beyond.
Creating a secret intelligence army of religious servants and using it to promote the Kremlin’s interests abroad was an important task of the KGB. Since priests were not allowed to become KGB officers, they often assumed the position of a cooptee or deep cover officer. Thousands of uncooperative religious, like those in 18th century France, perished in the wake.
The KGB’s effort to use religion to expand the Kremlin’s influence abroad began with Nikita Khrushchev in 1959. His “secret weapon” was Cuba, which was to serve as a springboard to launch a KGB-devised religion into Latin America.”
It was Khrushchev, who called the new KGB-contrived religion Liberation Theology.
His appetite for “liberation” has had many KGB derivatives, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, the National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), and the National Liberation Army of Bolivia.
He also wanted to send a few priests who were cooptees as deep cover officers to Latin America, to expand Liberation Theology South of our border.
To affect this the KGB also built a new international religious organization in Prague called the Christian Peace Conference (CPC) to spread Liberation Theology within Latin America.
As a doctrine Liberation Theology urges the poor and downtrodden to revolt against their established governments as well as capitalism and form a Communist government, not in the name of Marx or Lenin, but in the name of Jesu Christi, a revolutionary who opposed economic and social discrimination.
Since then Liberation Theology has been a breeding ground for revolutionary ideas and violence against the wealthy class.
In 1968, the KGB’s Christian Peace Conference maneuvered the leftist South American bishops into holding a Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Colombia.
At that conference, the attending bishops proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Karl Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow capitalism.
This movement encouraged the poor to rebel against the institutionalized violence of poverty, and to recommend it to the World Council of Churches for official approval. The Medellin Conference did both.
FYI: Romanian writer and former operative Ion Pacepa and historian Ronald RICH-lak Rychlak have written a comprehensive analysis of the KGB’s nefarious role in this conspiracy in their book Disinformation.
All new religions need a Bible. Their seminal text is A Theology of Liberation, written in 1971, by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian priest and theologian, also known as the father of liberation theology.
While Marx stood Hegel on his head in directing the focus of life from ideal pursuits to materialistic endeavors, Gutierrez wedded the two thinkers in an ontological union that has created a new social engine for all of Latin America, if not the entire world.
This new theology has man at its core making it more like anthropology than theology, which is ostensibly about God. It does not limit itself to morality or even ethics but involves economic and political agendas as well.
Its major points are that Christ came into this world to liberate man from oppression, not to open the gates of Heaven. The real goal of Christianity was to struggle for the full liberation of man.
To the liberationisti every socio-economic system that is not socialist is essentially a system of exploitation and oppression.
Prior to liberation theology, Catholicism was unambiguously hostile to socialism and communism, which it saw as “godless.”
Gutierrez’s book was swiftly acknowledged as a pioneering and prophetic approach to theology, which famously made a preferential option for the poor, at the top of its agenda.
Gutierrez’s theology is founded on two contradictory beliefs: (1) God loves all persons equally and gratuitously; (2) God loves the poor preferentially.
Sounds like: All men are equal—only some are more equal!
A student of the French Revolution, Gutierrez proposes a end to capitalism and its replacement by a social democracy that will give all the world’s poor a sense of hope in the transformation of the human soul in its relationship to a self-communicating God.
HOPE AND TRANSFORMATIOM—HMMMMM!!!
Liberation Theology teaches that the church must stand on the side of the impoverished and the downtrodden, and that it must, if necessary, support the overthrow of social systems that contribute to their oppression…like ours.
Its main sacrament is victimhood.
In recent decades, Latin America’s Liberation Theology movement has been oriented towards the image of Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Liberator.
This type of thinking is prevalent in several newly published books on Jesus.
Jesus is portrayed as a revolutionary dressed in guerrilla fatigues and carrying a rifle.
A primary critique of liberation theology is its tendency towards violence. Gutierrez, its greatest exponent, has said, The theology of liberation is rooted in a revolutionary militancy. This is not what the Church meant by the Church militant!
Liberation Theology is a radical departure from the essential message of the Gospel. Thanks to Father Gutiérrez the poor now had their own ideology—one rooted in Marxist praxis.
In 1984, Pope John Paul II charged the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, to prepare an analysis of Liberation Theology. His devastating study exposed Liberation Theology as a heinous combination of class struggle and violent revolution.
According to these revolutionaries, true Christians must commit themselves to the Marxist Revolution as a religious duty. Violence, stealing and lying can be employed for the greater good of mankind. This is the language and praxis, not of Jesus Christ but more of Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Saul Alinsky.
Any time you see the word oppression treat it as another warning because it is a Marxist term that somehow has invaded our translations of the Bible used in Mass.
While the historical and religious roots of liberation theology may be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America – its praxis and methodology had more traditional communist forebears
In the first year of his papacy, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) devoted an encyclical to condemning socialism. QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS
Liberation Theology has a much broader tapestry than its Marxist threads.
Virtually every social movement that has anything to do with religion, race, sexual preference or the environment has emanated from this philosophy.
Liberation Theology is certainly not on the right side of history…whatever that empty term means but it is definitely in the wave of a chaotic global future. This raises the question: will the United States be able to withstand its powere surge or will it be swept away in its powerful vortex?
By now everyone in the Western world is familiar with the name Todd Akin.
He’s the Senate-hopeful from Missouri, running against one of the most unpopular Senators in Congress, Claire McCaskill.
Akin was leading in the polls until he made an uncalculated statement about abortion and rape on a TV interview with Charles Jaco, one of the most ardent supporters of unfettered abortion rights in a newsroom.
One must wonder why Akin would even risk agreeing to an interview with someone like Jaco.
When asked about a woman’s right to choose an abortion after she had been raped, Akin started swinging on a trapeze without a net.
He made some statements that seemed to conflict with the popular understanding.
In the pro-life movement arguing against abortion for a woman who has been raped is tantamount to trying to discuss the Holocaust from an objective historical perspective.
It just can’t be done!
It is just not good for one’s career or well-being.
Akin first used the word legitimate.
I misunderstood this to mean that he said some women would lie about having their most private are violated.
Would a woman actually do that?
Of course one need only consult the Old Testament for the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar, who was sexually attracted to Joseph.
When he refused her advances, she accused him of rape and he was imprisoned.
What he meant to say was forcible, to distinguish it from the legal definition of statuary rape with a minor.
He compounded it with his layman’s understanding of feminine stress biology–a definite lose/lose situation.
Many doctors deny that a woman’s body will produce stress hormones that will effectively prevent a conception from a forced act of sexual intercourse.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has had a field day savaging Akin, did publish an article that listed several sources that tended to support Akin.
One was that of Dr. John Wilkie who wrote in 1999 that there is no greater emotional trauma than can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. It can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization and implantation.
Is it much of a stretch to reason that nature or as Darwin would have said, natural selection, had endowed the female members of the species with such a self-protective mechanism?
This to me is reasonable and definitely plausible…though as the late singer, Sam Cooke sang many years ago…Don’t know much about biology.
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Post-Dispatch, the morning after this hit the fan.
NOPE THEY DID NOT PUBLISH AFTER ASKING FOR MY PERMISSION
I have followed Representative Akin’s career for many years.
I have always thought him to be an intelligent and reasonable man.
That’s why I was surprised by his comments in answer to Charles Jaco’s loaded question on abortion and rape.
But after reading your incisive article about the origins of his statement, I find that his statements were all within the realm of reality.
They may be controversial and debatable but isn’t that what elections are all about?
The surrounding whirlwind has taken on a life of its own.
I am disappointed in the cowardly lions of the Republican Party for throwing him under the bus during this crucial election.
This controversy also loses sight of the real issue at hand.
While Akins’ gynecological acumen might not be in the medical mainstream, his understanding of what has been used as a wedge issue by the left is highly significant.
A woman’s body is sacred.
For a man to physically and morally violate her is an unspeakable crime.
If a pregnancy results, that only compounds her trauma.
But nothing is to be gained in justice or retribution by aborting that unwanted pregnancy.
The rapist needs to be punished not the unborn child.
The unborn child is an innocent life and has done nothing to warrant its termination.
It’s the old adage: we don’t get to pick our parents.
For her to go to an abortionist would result in her body being violated for a second time.
No one says she has to raise the baby.
There are millions of couples, now paying several thousands of dollars to go Russia, Central America and China to have a baby to love.
The best way to combat evil is to do something good.
Her act of selfless heroism can transcend the evil of her violation.
To abort the child will not relieve her of the trauma of her rape but will only add to her pain and misery. And that’s the fact lost in Jaco’s question.
Akin has quickly become a pariah…an albatross around all Republicans necks.
He has become a threat to the Republican establishment because they don’t want to hear anything about abortion.
It is the economy–not social issues that float their boats.
But their position surrenders the moral high ground, not to mention logic itself.
Take George W. Bush for example.
Let me first offer the caveat that I think he is a fine, moral man, who overcame a lot of personal problems in his life.
I admire him for this but when it comes to abortion–that’s another story.
If I am not mistaken, he considers himself ardently pro-life but he would allow for abortions for incest, rape and the life of the mother.
The Democrats have cleverly but obvious to those who know, amended life to health of the mother.
This is of course is a misnomer.
I say that because experience has shown that health can mean just about anything.
Now if the aborted human life is innocent and I don’t fathom any way that it isn’t–unless it is out of the demonic fiction of the Damian literature–how does the occasion of its conception warrant his or her death?
That is a profoundly false logic that undermines their entire arguments against any abortion.
Either Bush and most of his fellow Republican who mouth the same pious platitudes against abortion don’t understand this or they are trying to sneak a fast ball by the pro-life community.
The most regrettable thing about the Akin flap is that now the Catholic McCaskill, who apparently never met an abortion she didn’t like, given her 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, is now favored to win the election.
I think that have fallen for the secularist dictum that in politics and abortion, the ends do justify the means.
What is lost on them is the fact that this idea belongs, not to Jesus but his polar opposite–Niccolo Machiavelli who was the forerunner of Saul Alinksy.
And we all know whom they served.
The worst case scenario is that Akin’s resolve to stay the course could conceivably cost the GOP a Senate seat they should have easily picked up.
But the damage has been done.
Were Akin to drop out, just who would his replacement be.
He did win the hotly contested primary a few weeks ago.
Plan B’s always have a rough time substituting.
Commentators now say that if he does stay Missouri is lost and the Republicans won’t get that magic 51st vote to repeal ObamaCare.
Could Akin possibly cause the defeat of the Romney ticket?
By completely ostracizing Akin they have almost ensured that McCaskill will keep her seat.
Stranger things have happened.
Republicans have been preaching the Apocalypse for the last few years.
I think that could happen with an Obaman united front in the mainstream press.
If it does it this country may suffer a Doomsday Scenario that would be the foodstuff of historians for years to come.
Akin would be relegated to either the comic strips or the demons of history.
Akin should never be condemned for standing up for a real principle that did not involve dollars and sense, material prosperity and dreams of world domination.
Maybe that is the American hubris and all nations, all empires eventually succumb to their own fatal weakness.
Could this be the result of our looking the other way while the forces of Obama now and before him have slaughtered over 50 million of our offspring.
The bottom line is, not that there is a war on women.
That’s a vicious misnomer that has had some legs.
But can anyone argue that there is not a war on the unborn?
And that Todd Akin is one of the few consistent voices in politics reminding us?
It is just too darn bad that fetuses cannot vote!
There is something about rules that warrant a visceral reaction.
I think people feel that way because rules tell us, not just what we can do but what we cannot do.
In a society that has turned some freedoms into licenses that can be a very harrowing thing.
Personally, I think government goes too far with its multi-layered bureaucracy of innumerable agencies with their volumes of rules and regulations that threaten my personal freedoms from 16 different directions.
However I think some personal rules are great for society.
Take the 10 Commandments–if more people followed them religiously, we could easily dispense with millions of our government’s petty moralizing of our behaviors.
But there is one set of rules most Democratic politicians and even a few Republicans find troublesome and too restrictive on their own freedom and power.
I am talking about the Rule Book for Politicians.
No, I do not mean Machiavelli or even Saul Alinsky.
I am talking about the United States Constitution, which was designed 223 years ago to empower, direct and limit our politicians in their myriad dealings with the citizens and foreign countries.
It is a marvelous document that could only have been created by leaders whom I fear were far greater than any this country has produced in the last generation or two.
Most of our politicians, especially the progressives, hate the Constitution because it tells them what they cannot do.
It puts a curfew on them when they want to spend all hours of the night trying to expand their powers, while getting rich in the process.
To hear many of them argue today in the wake of the November debacle at the polls, inspired largely by members of a throwback era, the new Tea Party that demanded a new respect for the Constitution be demonstrated by all those who wished to serve this nation.
After all it is not only the president that swears to uphold and protect the Constitution but also every member of Congress.
I dare say I would wager than many of them have never even read the document.
One would think that with a president who presumably has not only read it but understands it well enough to have taught it at the University of Chicago Law School that there would be more respect offered to this our primary source of authority and the rock upon which the nation’s existence and future rests upon.
But is that the case? Perhaps Professor Obama studied the document, only so he could find all its loopholes.
The bone of political contention in the Constitution revolves around two potentially conflicting sections.
The enumerated powers lists all the specific things that the different branches have as their responsibility.
There is also an amendment process that is a bit cumbersome and can take years before a change is enacted.
For a president or a Congress in a hurry, this can be game-breaker.
The clause that has given the most hope to presidents with big ideas is the general welfare clause that states the government may do anything that is necessary and proper to promote…
Since it carries with it a lot of implied powers, it has often allowed presidents a lot of wiggle room.
Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury and he had big ideas for launching America’s economic enterprise.
His series of Reports on Manufactures set a paradigm for American prosperity that seemed to capture the future in a handbasket.
People like Hamilton were called loose constructionists because they favored a relaxed approach to the extension of government power through those pesky implied powers.
Hamilton’s ideas became the linchpin of the Federalist Party, one of the country’s first faction that is a group of people with a similar political agenda and philosophy.
They were quickly opposed by their polar opposites, for want of a better name, the Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
They believed in few if any implied powers, or a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.
These two principles set the stage for evolution of a system of faction that Madison had warned against in hisFederalist #10.
These two “parties” were the progenitors of the political struggles were have been enduring in the 21st century.
However the differences between the two parties have become more extreme and the nation is in severe danger of turning its rule book into a quaint historical artifact.
These contradictory views are clearly visible in our current Supreme Court.
As President Jefferson was so dedicated to his belief that had his ministers not gone ahead without his consent and agreed to the purchase of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the country would be a lot smaller and the nation’s history much different.
When the agreement reached his desk, he bit his lip and signed it even though he could think of no place that it was allowed in the Constitution.
The general welfare clause, sometimes called the elastic clause was a stroke of our political genius.
I took a course in Constitutional History at Fordham University one summer.
The professor pointed out that the nation of India was less than 25 years old and already its Constitution had hundreds of amendments.
The Indian constitution lacked an elastic clause that would have allowed for changing times and new circumstances that the founding fathers could in their wildest imagination never predicted.
At that time our constitution was approaching its 175th birthday and it only had 24 amendments.
Of course the elastic clause has since the dawn of the 20th century and the rise of the Progressive philosophy of big and intrusive government has been thoroughly abused by several presidents.
This clause has allowed a number of them to confuse the general welfare of the country with the welfare of their winning the next election.
Since FDR and later under LBJ and now with BHO, the country has suffered through an enormous expansion of government that has made it become a Leviathan State that many of the founding fathers warned against.
Look for an expansion of this extreme division in my Part II later next week.