They fight dirty, and they don’t need guns
In the four years since I wrote this post, Democrats have stopped trying to win us over and now just run roughshod over us. Learning how to steal elections is so marvelously liberating! You don’t have to pretend anymore that you’re not a communist.
Mark it well: all over the world, self-anointed elites are hunting our souls, working tirelessly to erase our freedoms. They will not be happy until they’ve enslaved those of us they haven’t killed.
Now that the Senate has decided they can impeach someone who holds no public office–at least, as long as his name is Donald Trump–Democrats are already drooling over the next step in their fundamental transformation of America:
Impeaching the dead.
“Being dead does not give you a pass for incorrect behavior!” declared Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Mordor). “George Washington’s rap sheet is as long as your arm! Ditto Jefferson, Jackson, Grant–the whole kit and kaboodle of ’em!”
The plan, Schumer said, is for every Republican president in American history to be posthumously impeached: “And the beauty of it,” he added, “is that their crimes are part of the historical record–no way they can defend themselves!”
Eventually, he said, Democrats will Save Our Democracy by making America a one-party state and outlawing the Republican Party altogether.
But how do you punish someone who died a hundred years ago?
“Oh, that’s easy!” chortled Schumer. They don’t call him Chortlin’ Chuck for nothing. “Completely destroy their reputations, and then erase them from the historical record, just like the ancient Egyptians used to do with unpopular pharaohs. It’ll be as if they never existed!”
“The Living Constitution lets us do anything we want!” exulted Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. “We’re already drawing up impeachment articles on John Tyler–start with a president no one remembers or cares about, and working our way up to doing biggies.”
Yeah, right…
Susan sent me a column by one Mark Wingfield, writing for Baptist News Global, with the provocative title, “Three words for the church in 2019: ‘we were wrong'” (https://baptistnews.com/article/3-words-for-the-church-in-2019-we-were-wrong/#.XhzGXYh7n3h).
Uh-uh. Not buyin’ it, sunshine. You’re the one who’s wrong.
I smelled a rat, so I peeked behind the curtain. Baptist News Global is, according to itself, part of “the wider progressive movement.” Gotcha. But let’s see what he says the churches were “wrong” about.
Wrong about 1) “race.” Here he just rehashes boilerplate left-wing “white privilege” blather. Apparently he doesn’t know any white people who are poor. 3) Women. Ordain ’em all. To me it’s a debatable point, but he’s not here to debate it. 4) “What it means to be ‘pro-life.’ He seems to be saying it’s wrong to focus on abortion when there are other bad things, like genocide and slavery, going on in the world. Is he saying tackle everything in the world that’s really bad, and only then can you oppose abortion? Or is he just putting words on paper that he thinks sound smart?
“Sexual orientation and gender identity”–some of us think the latter is a lot of bunk–is No. 5 on his list. Churches were wrong to expel homosexuals et al and probably should’ve made them pastors and elders instead, he says. Somehow the Bible got that wrong. 6) Something about measuring progress “by numbers instead of souls.” How does he know what kind of progress a church has made in saving anybody’s soul? And no such list would be complete without 7), we “put our hope in politics.” Translation: Christians voted for Donald Trump. So it must have been “right” to vote for Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt woman in the world?
No. 2 was a charge of churches ignoring sexual predators among the clergy. Do you know anyone who thinks that should have been ignored? Do you know anyone, besides a few leftids, who thinks there should be more sexual predators among the clergy?
The key to understanding where this guy is coming from is his assertion that the churches need to have “various ways to understand Scripture.”
Oh! You mean like the doctrine of “the living, breathing Constitution,” in which the meaning of the Constitution is subject to incessant reinterpretation, depending on whatever innovation Democrats wish to extract from it?
So here we have a kind of “living Scripture,” which changes all the time according to the worldly fad of the moment–never mind how many times God reminds us, in the Bible, that He does not change.
“Living Scripture” is why the liberal churches are dying on the vine.
This week a Democrat Congressman, Ted Lieu of California (where else?), said, publicly, “I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech, but the First Amendment stops me” (https://freebeacon.com/politics/lieu-i-would-love-to-be-able-to-regulate-the-content-of-speech-but-the-first-amendment-stops-me/). This was said in the context of a Congressional hearing on the social media giants, Google and Facebook, and their censorship of conservatives.
Lieu added that “over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”
Oh, please. The government doesn’t have to do it, if Google and Facebook do it for them! Let the social media monopolies do the dirty work. They’ve been doing a a fine job of it, so far.
And before we heave a sigh of relief over the First Amendment, just imagine how this would play out with a Supreme Court packed by, say, Hillary Clinton–or any other Democrat. What do you want to bet that those judges, citing “the living Constitution” that has replaced that crummy old original, would quickly discover all sorts of “nuances” that would restrict free speech to the Far Left Crazy, to the exclusion of the rest of us? Free speech for liberals, censorship for everybody else.
Sort of like the way they do it on college campuses, these days.
If we entrust the Democrat Party with any role in governance, we’ll suffer for it. But good.