Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘political left’

Leftism as a Secular Religion

“Leftists have contempt for anyone who is guided by the Bible and its God, and substitute the heart and feelings for divine instruction,” writes Dennis Prager. (Photo: ~Userc0373230_9/Getty Images)

One of the most important books of the 20th century—it remains a best-seller 59 years after it was first published—is “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl.

Marx saw man’s primary drive as economic, and Freud saw it as sex. But Frankl believed—correctly, in my opinion—that the greatest drive of man is meaning. One can be poor and chaste and still be happy. But one cannot be bereft of meaning and be happy—no matter how rich or how sexually fulfilled one may be.

The greatest provider of meaning for the vast majority of human beings has been religion. In the West, Christianity (and on a smaller scale, Judaism) provided nearly all people with the Bible, a divine or divinely inspired text to guide their lives; a religious community; answers to life’s fundamental questions; and, above all, meaning: A good God governs the universe; death does not end everything; and human beings were purposefully created.

In addition, Christianity gave Christians a project: Spread the Good News, and bring the world to Christ. And Judaism gave Jews a project: Live by God’s laws of ethics and holiness and be “a light unto the nations.”

All this has disappeared for most Westerners. The Bible is regarded as myth, silly at best, malicious at worst—there is no God, certainly not the morality-giving and judging God of the Bible; there is no afterlife; human beings are a purposeless coincidence with no more intrinsic purpose than anything else in the universe. In short: This is all there is.

So, if the need for meaning is the greatest of all human needs and that which supplied meaning no longer does, what are millions of Westerners supposed to do?

The answer is obvious: Find meaning elsewhere. But where? Church won’t provide it. Nor will marriage and family—increasingly, secular individuals in the West eschew marriage, and even more do not have children. It turns out, to the surprise of many, that marriage and children are religious values, not human instincts.

In the West today, love and marriage (and children) go together like a horse and a carriage for faithful Catholics, Orthodox Jews, religious Mormons, and evangelical Protestants—not for the secular. I know many religious families with more than four children; I do not know one secular family with more than four children (and the odds are you don’t either).

The answer to the great dearth of meaning left by the death of biblical religion in the West is secular religion. The first two great secular substitutes were communism and Nazism. The first provided hundreds of millions of people with meaning; the latter provided most Germans and Austrians with meaning.

In particular, both ideologies provided the intellectual class with meaning. No groups believed in communism and Nazism more than intellectuals. Like everyone else, secular intellectuals need meaning, and when this need was combined with intellectuals’ love of ideas (especially new ideas—”new” is almost erotic in the power of its appeal to secular intellectuals), communism and Nazism became potent ideologies.

With the fall of communism and the awareness of the extent of the communist mass murder (about 100 million noncombatants) and mass enslavement (virtually all individuals in communist countries—except for Communist Party leaders—are essentially enslaved), communism, or at least the word “communism,” fell into disrepute.

So, what were secular intellectuals to do once communism became “the god that failed”?

The answer was to create another left-wing secular religion. And that is what leftism is: a secular meaning-giver to supplant Christianity. Left-wing religious expressions include Marxism, communism, socialism, feminism, and environmentalism.

Leftism’s guiding principles—notwithstanding the principles of those Christians and Jews who claim to be religious yet hold leftist views—are the antitheses of Judaism and Christianity’s guiding principles.

Judaism and Christianity hold that people are not basically good. Leftism holds that people are basically good. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity believe evil comes from human nature, and leftism believes evil comes from capitalism, religion, the nation-state (i.e. nationalism), corporations, the patriarchy, and virtually every other traditional value.

Judaism and Christianity hold that utopia on Earth is impossible—it will only come in God’s good time as a Messianic age or in the afterlife. Leftism holds that utopia is to be created here on Earth—and as soon as possible. That is why leftists find America so contemptible. They do not compare it to other nations but to a utopian ideal—a society with no inequality, no racism, no differences between the sexes (indeed, no sexes), and no greed in which everything important is obtained free.

Judaism and Christianity believe God and the Bible are to instruct us on how to live a good life and how the heart is the last place to look for moral guidance. Leftists have contempt for anyone who is guided by the Bible and its God, and substitute the heart and feelings for divine instruction.

There may be a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, but the biggest clash of civilizations is between the West and the left.

Commentary By

Portrait of Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU.



Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


The Democrats continue to lose their minds believing that they’re qualified to question Trumps mental fitness.

Trump Mental FitnessPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday November 9, 2017

How We Can Live as God’s People in Troubled Times. The faithful can help the nation, as divided as it is

waving flagAuthored by Wendy Murray | Updated 17 Feb 2017 at 6:58 AM

URL of the original posting site:

Reflecting upon the current state of social discourse, I have come to believe that the greatest battle of our age is not, as one might suppose, the “war on terror,” meaning terrorists. I believe it is an invisible war inside human souls that carries its own element of terror.

This invisible war, as I am coming to see it, can be understood in the writings of Pascal (the Pensées), who describes the character of a person who has who set himself up as his own god: “He [or she] devotes all his attention to hiding his faults both from others and from himself. He conceives a mortal enmity against that truth which reproves him. He would annihilate it, but, unable to destroy it in its essence, he destroys it in so far as possible.”

This captures the essence of what is going off the boil in today’s public discourse generally, and particularly, as it shows itself by “progressives” on the Left and their repulsion of Donald J. Trump’s presidency. The shocking and exceedingly troubling incitement to violence and the raging intolerance is hardly progressive; it is rather quite regressive and, in some instances, barbaric.point-counterpoint

/* */




There is no way to engage such disgorgement on intellectual or even logical grounds. These battles cannot be won on social media, nor arbitrated on late-night talk shows or (especially) cable news programs. In the best of all worlds, the battle might be met by each person, on all sides of the political spectrum, remembering God in a world that has forgotten him or deposed him.amen

The cynic responds: Good luck with that. Nevertheless, those of us who believe in God are not beholden to the cynics. We know God to be good, kind, generous, mysterious and — most vexing of all His attributes, unable to be fooled.

Related: Weaving Prayer into the Daily Grind

We live in a universe of players who live by cravings to be like God. “Each degree of good fortune that raises [them] in the world,” Pascal continues, “removes them farther from the truth, because they are afraid of wounding those whose affection is most useful and whose dislike is most dangerous.” The person or community that assumes the prerogatives of God or thinks to fool God encapsulates the greatest challenge of these times. This is especially true for those trying to navigate these difficult days as people of

God does not wag His finger, contrary to the popular belief of some — and we, as His emissaries, are wrong to wag ours. He is good at exhibiting patience and practicing persistence, organizing His movements in perfect synchrony that open us to act freely and at the same time draw us irresistibly away from self-deception. 

When I ask myself, What is the “truth” of our times that we, as God-bearers, are called to communicate — I come to see that the answer is quite simple: We must, like God, be good at exhibiting patience and practicing persistence. Beyond that, we (meaning humans) are well-served to remember that we are not God and it is best to leave His prerogatives to Him. (This includes determining who is or is not able to be used by God.) It is liberating if one can truly apprehend it.

Related: What Journalism Can Learn from Lady Justice

I draw consolation from the words of Saint Francis of Assisi: “Since you speak of peace, all the more so must you have it in your hearts. Let none be provoked to anger or scandal by you, but rather may they be drawn to peace and good will, to benignity and concord through your gentleness. We have been called to heal wounds, to unite what has fallen apart, and to bring home those who have lost their way.”

Ultimately, the challenge of our time is to impart this truth in a way that appropriately echoes God’s loving, aching heart.


Wendy Murray served as regional correspondent for TIME magazine in Honduras in the early 1990s, and later as associate editor and senior writer at Christianity Today. She is the author of 10 nonfiction books and a novel.

MORONS: The Left Now Fighting For A ‘Maximum Wage’ Law

waving flagWritten by Andrew Allen on January 4, 2017

URL of the original posting site:

If history is any guide there is a very good chance Trumponomics More Evidencewill improve America’s economic conditions. Indeed, after eight years of low growth (Obama’s economy never achieved an annual growth rate better than 1.4%) and wage stagnation, a big chunk of a generation that has never seen a booming economy may experience one for the first time. The next four years may represent a true fundamental transformation on a scale we haven’t seen since the 1980s.

The Left Is Already Playing Offense:

With Obama’s legacy in the national rear view mirror, and a need to save their economic policies from the truth, the left is already playing offense. Democratic commentator Jehmu Greene recently appeared on a Fox News weekend program. Greene warned viewers of the dangers associated with an economy that was doing too well. According to Greene, if our economy performed too well the result might be a significant future economic downturn. Such thinking is reminiscent of Obama’s pledge to remove the peaks and troughs from our economy and instead settle for a persistent fiscal malaise where prosperity once existed.picture2

The left will be hard pressed to offer a convincing rebuttal as the American economy rebounds. So, they will go for what they always go for – divide people and pit them against each other. The left loves to divide Americans along the lines of haves and have nots. The left will insist that the prosperity enjoyed by haves be redistributed among whoever the left believes are the have nots.lib01

Enter from Stage Left, The Maximum Wage:

The maximum wage is an idea the left adores, but doesn’t like to talk about much unless they have a reason. Switzerland provided one such opportunity for liberals to come out of their maximum wage closet. In 2013 the Swiss went to the polls to vote on a ballot initiative called 1:12. The measure would have limited executive pay to twelve times what employees made. The American left loved the idea. CNN pundit John D. Sutter (please, check this guy out) wrote a lengthy Op-Ed in November 2013 extoling the virtues of the maximum wage and begging for it to become an American reality.

lib02Forget for a moment that CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting and that Turner Broadcasting’s founder, Ted Turner, is one of the richest executives on the planet with an estimated $2.2 billion net worth – far in excess of what Turner Broadcasting’s working stiffs take home. Sutter’s piece is as predictably redistributive economics as it is deliberate in hiding facts. Facts like the truth behind Swiss politicians backing the 1:12 initiative. Sutter mentions Cedric Wermuth as being just one such Swiss politician – nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. That Wermuth was a member of the Socialist International political group was of course never disclosed in Sutter’s Op-Ed.

According to Sutter, “here in America, the land of unequal opportunity” CEO’s earn in a day what an average worker earns in an entire year. The AFL-CIO (with their executives earning tremendous salaries) is Sutter’s source for that information. Comparing the Swiss ratio of executive to worker income with the American ratio, Sutter is sure the Swiss ratio us 148:1. He’s unsure about the American ratio. It’s either 354:1 or it’s 273:1. Either way, “it’s bad” he says. Why is it bad?

“It is fundamentally unfair for the pay gap to be so wide and that it allows a few uber-rich people to wield undo influence over society, economics and politics.” To buttress this aspect of his argument, Sutter defers to Cornell professor Lynn Stout.Leftist Propagandist

Stout said “I’m a big fan of capitalism. I love corporations and I love the business world…but there are structural reasons to think that executive pay and CEO pay are out of whack…what we’ve got is basically an arms race where the CEOs are competing on pay because they want to have higher status than the others.” Sutter cited Stout’s observations as the source of resentment behind the Occupy movement and the 1:12 initiative.Leftist Propagandist

Sutter’s solution would be to cap CEO pay at 100 times the minimum wage. Said Sutter: “It’s ridiculous that the Securities and Exchange Commission attempts to make CEO pay ratios transparent are controversial in the business community. The conversation needs to move forward. Limiting CEO pay to 100 times the minimum wage would still allow top execs to be millionaires – they’d earn a maximum wage of about $1.5 million per year, given the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, figured for a 40-hour work week. And here’s the best part: if the fat cats wanted a pay increase, maybe the best way for them to get it would be to throw political weight behind a campaign to boost the minimum wage.”

In an NPR interview conducted in October 2013, Stout provided fodder for Sutter’s conclusion. She said, “you could have a very simple rule that says any compensation in excess of three or four million’s not deductible. You could even tie it to a ratio, something simple to measure like the minimum wage. Any CEO pay that’s more than 100 times the minimum wage is no longer tax deductible. So there are lots of ways to approach this problem.”more-propaganda

So either Sutter’s a plagiarist or the maximum wage, under the terms discussed by Sutter and Stout, is something the left discussed among themselves in 2013. In any event, a quick dissection of Sutter and Stout reveals:

– The idea that too much wealth is a “problem.”lib03
– “Unequal opportunity” is code for “let’s equalize outcomes via restructuring of the economy in the name of “fairness”.
– Use of the word “structural”. Whenever a liberal says “structural” what they really mean is fundamental transformation in the faculty lounge sense. Structural racism, structural problems in our economy, etc. They are all left-wing dog whistles that mean deconstruct who we are, and replace with what the philosocrats in the faculty lounge think we should be.
– Use of the term “arms race”. It’s a rhetorical molotov designed to energize the Occupy types. (Isn’t it convenient Occupy came about when they did so that Sutter could cite them? Were it not for the Journ-o-List and wikileaks one would wonder if there were any collusion between Occupy’s bosses at 39 West 14th Street and 147th West 24th Street in Manhattan, and CNN).
– The underlying theme that somehow, it makes sense to allow executives to earn $1.5 million but not a penny more represents some great moral triumph.

The Swiss voted overwhelmingly against 1:12. Even so, the maximum wage pops up periodically on-line in agenda pieces posing as economic analysis.

Remember Florida Yachts?:

I don’t have $1 million. When you don’t have $1 million, it’s easy to covet the things that millionaires have. Some years back, liberal do-gooders thought it would be a great idea to hike certain taxes affecting the wealthy in Florida. Taxes associated with yacht ownership and operation for example, were raised, because a bunch of liberals thought it a moral triumph to play Robin Hood that way. The result?

Yacht owners either sold their boats, or they moved them elsewhere. (Kind of like how John Kerry used to park his fleet in Rhode Island until people found out about it and he grudgingly had to move them to Massachusetts and pay higher Massachusetts taxes on them). That meant tens of thousands of men and women working in businesses supporting Florida yachting suffered. Boat yards issued pink slips to highly compensated craftsmen. Shops that sold line, anchors, and navigation radars closed their doors. Floridians that once brought home a pay check saw their hourly wage drop to the true minimum wage of $0.00.

As viscerally nice as it might sound to limit what the “fat cats” can earn, the ugly truths are:

– It’s really nobody’s business what anyone else, rich or poor, earns.

– Limit executive salaries to $1.5 million per year and a lot of lower income earners are going to find themselves out of a job.

Indexing this and that to the maximum wage is intellectually bankrupt unless it’s understood that the true minimum wage is in fact, $0.00. That’s what people out of work earn.lib04


Most perplexing in all this (and other topics) is the left’s discovery of morality. At least what they define as morality. The left that couldn’t stand the idea of legislating morality before seems as of late obsessed with the idea of pushing their morality via executive order, court ruling, or legislation – in that order. The left have become Ayatollahs in the pursuit of their version of morality.

If we are to accept that the maximum wage is evidence of moral society, can we find any on this earth that have mandated a maximum wage?

Two Countries Have a Maximum Wage:

They are Cuba (which limits each Cuban’s earning capacity to no more than $20 per month) and Egypt. The Egyptians implemented theirs in July 2014 and suffered a brain drain as banking sector employees moved elsewhere.

When people think of world economic powerhouses, they aren’t thinking about Cuba or Egypt. Nor are they thinking about places where the quality of life is great. Let’s face it. Nobody is fleeing from somewhere to get into Cuba or Egypt. Cubans and Egyptians are begging to leave what their home countries are.AMEN

That the American left wish to place the U.S. in the ranks of Cuba and Egypt in the name of their legacy speaks to their greed.

Conservative Comedian Destroys Illogical Beliefs of Modern Liberals

Posted on December 11, 2014 by Onan Coca

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Conservative Comedian Michael Loftus of the show the Flipside is one very funny man. Watch as he takes a not-so-funny subject and lays bare the bankrupt logic of today’s political left. If you’ve ever had that “aha” moment when talking to a liberal, where you realize that what they are saying makes absolutely NO SENSE… this is for you.


Blog wishes


Terrifying! Obama Regime Unveils Behavior Modification Program to ‘Nudge’ Americans

By:  Marilyn Assenheim //




FOX News reported on Tuesday that the government has created a “Behavioral Insights Team,” which is intended to influence the behavior of Americans. It is being referred to as a “nudge” because the team’s approach has been dubbed “subtle.” One can only assume that such “nudges” are  intended to be the second part of a governmental, one-two punch, the first being ham-fisted executive orders. The first forces compliance; the second is designed to mesmerize one into voluntary acquiescence. The program isn’t in planning stages. It has already been implemented. FOX reports:  “…the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.”

The government release touts the advantages of the program: “Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals…the (Behavioral Insights) team would ‘experiment’ with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs. Anyone interested in working for the White House in a ‘nudge’ squad? The UK has one and it’s been extraordinarily successful.”

The program cites benign examples of its intentions. But White House inspired behavioral modification experimentation won’t stop at cajoling us to save more for our old age.  It is less about helping people achieve their goals than it is to help The Lyin’ King’s regime to achieve its goals. In this, the British government was far more honest. Quoting from the “In 2010, UK Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which through a process of rapid, iterative experimentation (“Test, Learn, Adapt”), has successfully identified and tested interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government, while saving the government at least £1 billion within the next five years…” Among the U.K.’s concerns were to get tax payers to fork over 30 million pounds of extra tax payments, which they did in three months. They also successfully convinced the public to take advantage of  full-cost, government attic-clearance services. The British government realized a 500% increase in the purchase of  their services and of attic-insulation.  Evidence exists that the Lyin’ King’s power-hungry regime wouldn’t stop there.

Although the White House is painting its usual, self-serving picture, experts warn that there is nothing to stop government’s “we know best” snowball from turning into an avalanche. Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, aired his concerns to FOX News: “Ultimately, nudging … assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them. And sometimes… government actually promotes the wrong thing.” No kidding.

David Laibson, behavioral economics professor at Harvard University, is working with the government on the program. Laibson’s involvement in the program is right up The Lyin’ King’s alley; his verbal contortions outdo mountain switchbacks. First, Laibson states that “Every intervention would need to be tested to make sure (the program) works well…” Then Laibson added that the way the team will function is still unknown. Finally, Laibson “hopes the government will shy away from involving itself from controversial policies.” Well,  Elvis certainly departed that auditorium ages ago. Laibson ends with a bang: “Let’s say we want people to engage in some healthy behavior like a weight loss program, and then start automatically enrolling overweight people in weight loss programs — even though they could opt out, I’m guessing that would be viewed as offensive …”  Why assume one could “opt out”? Horrifyingly, Laibson believes it would be problematic not because of automatic enrollment but because “a lot of people would say, “…this is judging who I am and who I should be.”

FOX News ends with a cautionary note from Jerry Ellig, an economist with the Mercatus Center: “If you can keep it to a ‘nudge’ maybe it can be beneficial…but nudges can turn into shoves pretty quickly.” Mr. Ellig is dead wrong about a nudge from government being beneficial. A “nudge” from government is never beneficial to anyone except to government. We have almost five years of evidence of that.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: