The Progressive Assault on the Legacy of Independence Day

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Three Sparklers with American FlagIndependence Day is a good time to revisit the foundations of our political order, especially given the long record of Barack Obama and the Democrats’ disregard for the Constitution. The members of the Continental Congress who met in Philadelphia in July 1776 sought their independence from England in order to recover their rights that had been violated by a tyrant, and to establish political freedom and autonomy so that those rights could be protected from further erosion. For a century now the Progressive ideology has insidiously undermined that legacy of autonomy in a slow-motion revolution that aims to “fundamentally transform America.”

The Declaration of Independence contains a statement of principles that justify the indictment of George III that makes up the bulk of the document. The principles are straightforward: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.––That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The key point is that rights are not the gifts of men, for such rights can be taken back by the same power that bestows them. Rather, they are the defining elements of human nature bestowed by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Individual autonomy is the birthright of all, and can be limited only by the consent of the people, who establish collective power residing in government for specific, limited purposes, and they can take that power back when government exceeds those legitimate purposes. A decade later the framers of the Constitution would enumerate these limited powers and institutionalize the purposes for which they can be used. Thus the significance of the Declaration must be found in the political order created a decade later to institutionalize the principles of 1776.

For the framers, political power had to be divided, balanced, and limited because human nature was prone to corruption, empowering “passions and interests” that threatened freedom. This suspicion of concentrated power defined the political thinking of the framers, who agreed with Machiavelli that “it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it, to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will uses their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.” They had learned from history and their own experience as subjects of an unjust ruler that a flawed human nature meant no man or elite, whether defined by birth, wealth, or education, can be trusted with power for too long. Such power inevitably becomes tyrannical, as the “repeated injuries and usurpations” of George III, copiously documented in the Declaration, demonstrated. Yet the mass of people, if given unlimited freedom, could be just as tyrannical and oppressive, just as prone to the corruption of power. To protect those “unalienable rights” and guarantee the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then, a political order had to be created that, in the words of Orestes Brownson, protected “the sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy.”

The Constitution crafted a decade after the Declaration brilliantly institutionalized the protection of freedom and autonomy at the same time it created a unified central government to perform the functions beyond the powers of the individual states. It did not create the federal government to “solve problems,” for local communities, families, civil society, and state governments were better suited for that task, as they were closer to and more intimate with the great variety of the American people and their mores, religious denominations, customs, and interests.

Obama and his Progressive brethren have attacked the philosophical assumptions of the Declaration and the Constitution root and branch.  A century ago Progressives were calling for a “living” Constitution more suitable for modern times than the allegedly outmoded one of the founders. Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1913, “All that progressives ask or desire is permission––in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution’ is the scientific word––to interpret the Constitution according to Darwinian principle.” This same assumption has been the credo of modern progressives like Ezra Klein, who in 2010 dismissed our foundational document, claiming “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago [sic] and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.” As a candidate in 2008 Obama similarly complained that the Constitution was a mere “charter of negative liberties” that “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” 

Some see this statement as ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of an alleged constitutional scholar. But in fact this sentiment is completely in line with Wilson’s desire to interpret the Constitution “according to a Darwinian principle,” since humans have changed and society advanced so much that only a technocratic elite armed with new knowledge can be trusted to run society for everybody else, and to know what government “must do on your behalf.” What such a Constitution would be evolving from, of course, would be the idea of a limited federal government that respects the autonomy of citizens and states, and leaves them free to rule themselves and solve their own problems.

Consistent with this greater role for the federal government has been the expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress, evident in Obama’s unilateral rewriting, adapting, or ignoring the laws. This encroaching executive power is also a development the early Progressives explicitly called for. Long before he became President, Wilson dreamed of a national leader more evocative of Benito Mussolini than George Washington. Such a leader would “know what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men,” and would use this knowledge “to command” men and discover “the external uses to which they may be put . . . There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?” Later, when writing specifically of the president’s powers, he complained that under the Constitution, “He was empowered [by the veto] to prevent bad laws, but he was not to be given an opportunity to make good ones.” Has any president since acted as vigorously on this anti-constitutional wish to bypass Congress and make laws by fiat than Barack Obama and his “pen and phone”? He has made 41 changes to the Affordable Care Act law alone, and more recently has threatened to take unilateral executive action on immigration, all in violation of the constitutional injunction that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Obviously, an imperial president who “moves” men and knows better than they what is good for them is antithetical to the spirit of the Declaration and its principle of liberty possessed by humans as part of their human nature.

Finally, the bloated federal government and its regulatory regime also challenge the ideal of self-government and citizen autonomy celebrated in the Declaration and institutionalized in the Constitution. Just the Environmental Protection Agency alone enforces 7,000 rules that cost the economy $350 billion a year, and that doesn’t count Obama’s pending assault on coal-fired power plants. In 2012, the Federal Register, which publishes new rules and final changes to existing rules, weighed in at nearly 79,000 pages. The Code of Federal Regulations, which publishes permanent rules and regulations, totaled over 174,000, with over 1 million individual regulatory restrictions. The Competitive Enterprise Institute reckons the annual cost of obeying all these rules and regulations at $1.8 trillion a year. But more important than the cost of this regulatory behemoth backed by the coercive power of the government is the erosion of our freedom and autonomy, the very foundational principles of the Declaration. Indeed, it recalls the Declaration’s indictment of George III, who “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Needless to say, all these Progressive assaults on the spirit of the Declaration and the structure of the Constitution have accelerated and worsened under Obama, and once again recall the Declaration’s condemnation of George III for “taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our government,” and for declaring himself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” In short, the Obama administration has created a regime undermining the foundational principles of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The founders had a word for such an assault on freedom––tyranny.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Obama and the Left like to use Darwinian concepts like evolution, but continue to adhere to a 19th Century political/economic theory that has failed in every way except helping despots gain totalitarian power. The Left is a living refutation of Darwinism and Marxism. If humans are evolving, why do they need despots controlling their every move? If Marxism works, why can’t they produce one instance of its success?

    The truth is that Obama and the Left don’t really believe in anything but grabbing power and establishing themselves as political royalty. Ideologies are a means to an end. A way to corral minds and enthrall them to the evolution of a totalitarian lie.

    • carindlee

      like Jacqueline implied I’m
      taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month on the computer . see
      post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

      • Sharps Rifle

        FLAGGED! Spammer/troll

      • monicadashby

        my Aunty
        Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Flagged as a spammer …

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Does Flagging work?

            I don’t think so.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            The FPM editors will eventually look into every spammer who posts on-site. However, the spammers “spam” faster than anyone can react to them.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        FPM, I wish you would BLOCK spammers like “carindlee”.

    • xander winston

      Can you tell me more about Marxism and Darwinism?

  • MIKE

    Hey Barry Wingnut Obama. Happy Fourth of you LIE.

  • Always On Watch

    This bloated federal bureaucracy will collapse upon itself. In today’s jargon: “It’s unsustainable.”

    • liberalloons

      Exactly, the trajectory of the US government is definitely not sustainable. Thats why left-wing governments become totalitarian. There is simply no other way to maintain the type of controlled society they envision without total control of information and dissent. Its also the reason they’re desperate to disarm the American people as quickly as possible.

      • xander winston

        Examples of left wing governments that become totalitarian?

        • reader

          Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, GDR, Venezuela. Long enough list for starters?

    • WTFUAMERIKA

      Too big to fail? Too big to succeed and to big to care.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Excellent review, Bruce. It gets to the heart of the matter: individual rights. The preamble of the Declaration sums up Locke’s philosophy of natural rights and the purpose of government to “secure” those rights.

    Reading it again is worthwhile. It indeed does what you say, indicting the King for being a tyrant. It also does something else. Further down there is a paragraph with this lead sentence: “We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.” Not only was the King a tyrant but the legislature usurped powers rightfully belonging to the colonial peoples. Today both executive, legislature, and court assume powers and enact measures instead of securing our rights; together they have become the main source of our loss of liberty.

    The balance of powers, as you note, has been disrupted by our President. But that balancing act is a moot point when all branches take away our liberty. Leftist like to say that since we elected the President and Congress it is the will of the people and it is logically impossible for it to be tyrannical. Madison refutes that by quoting Jefferson in Federalist #48:

    All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

    We have now an elective despotism. Hundreds of thousands of decisions are made by bureaucratic appointed officials given a blank check by our elective officials without our consent. We are powerless to do nothing else but choose between a package deal of two choices of massive government. Did we know about Common Core? Did we debate Common Core? Did we vote on Common Core? Of course, not. That just one of thousands of policies that are unilaterally implemented without our consent. Paternalistic government has taken over our lives and both political parties are to blame. Yes, Obama has become a tyrant but the hundred of despots in Congress are not far behind.

    • prlgrl

      The “hundreds of despots in Congress” are the true tyrants. It is with their consent that the usurper occupies. Off with their heads!

  • Rdlake

    The press was there to prevent this but when the President knows that the Corrupt Liberal Media is running cover for him, he has no worries. Now, some writers can see that they can no longer save him & are now trying to save themselves.

    • WTFUAMERIKA

      Trust once lost can never be regained.

    • Markdpez

      The demorats are not necessarily good liars but certainly confident liars due to their confidence in a compliant media. Their insidious destruction of our educational system seals the deal.

      • xander winston

        The plot to destroy education huh? Can you share the details?

        • reader

          Have educational system improved or worsened since the creation of the Department of Education?

  • http://frontlineofdefense.com j.veritas

    this July 4th read about a Muslim American kid, Kareem Khan, who died fighting for our country in Iraq (2007). A patriotic story about e pluribus unum, that the Liberal Media won’t report. frontlineofdefense.com

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      This July 4th read about a Muslim savage who murdered American servicemen in Fort Hood Texas, or the Muslims who go to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad against civilization.

      • http://frontlineofdefense.com j.veritas

        and we should have publicly executed him. I am with you. I just want to let the world know about a kid from my town who actually went and fought. If you read the article at that website, you’d see that his father hates those radical Muslims. Okay?

        • WhiteHunter

          If all, or nearly all, American Moslems were like him, we’d have nothing to fear from them. Unfortunately, that seems not to be the case.

          • xander winston

            You have no more to fear from them than you do any other religion. How old are you? How many “mortal enemies” has our government had? Can you name the ones in your lifetime? Nazis, Communists, Radical “Muslim” terrorists. It’s like it never ends for some reason. Why do you think that is?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            How many “mortal enemies” have bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, declared War on the US on Dec. 11, 1941, had a premier boast that his ideology will bury the US, hijack 4 passenger planes and lie to the passengers that if they don’t resist that they will be safe and fly those planes into buildings?

            Why do you think that is?

            Why do regressive progressives align themselves with conservative, female stoning, gay executing, Jew hating, genocidal threatening Islamists?

            What’s it in for regressive progressives?

          • xander winston

            I aligned myself with no group and you are bad at deflection.

          • reader

            That’s what alinskyites do: deflect and project. Aren’t upi a big fan of Saul’s?

          • reader

            “You have no more to fear from them than you do any other religion.”

            Not if you’re familiar with simple statistics.

            “Nazis, Communists, Radical “Muslim” terrorists. It’s like it never ends for some reason. Why do you think that is?”

            That’s because tyranny is a prevalent human condition, whith the rare exception under assault by radicals of all stripes and colors.

  • Christopher Cole

    The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is one of degree not kind. Both ignore the rule of law, both grab power whenever they can and often even when they can’t in theory. Change the election principle so that the person who takes second place wins office.

    • Sheik Yerbouti

      Hah! “We want Barabbas”!!

      Good one.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      If you mean, by this, that there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives in both parties, then I agree with you. But the stated principles, values, and beliefs of the parties are diametrically opposed to one another.

      The parties are different. The notion that they are same is propagated by the Left. We need … as Americans and voters … to hold the Republican Party’s collective feet to the fire.

      It might help if FOX would stop giving Karl Rove a platform …

      • Christopher Cole

        Both parties want Big Government, just different forms – one wants to control you one way and the other another. Democrats want Big Government that controls the economy through central planning and Republicans want Big Government that control through social controls. Neither is willing to seriously shrink the control government is trying to have and neither believes in the ability of the ordinary people to be free.
        The end is the same, the road to that end is somewhat different.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          You can’t seriously think that both parties are the same, and have the same goals. In case you haven’t noticed, the Dems are the party of Marxism/Socialism, and have been since the 1972 election cycle. Before that, I would have agreed that the parties wanted roughly the same outcome for this nation. But 1972 was a deal-breaker.

          Social controls? Really? You’re not one of these people who believes that the GOP is waging a war on women, gays, and pot-smokers, are you?

          • Christopher Cole

            Waging a war on women, gays, etc.? No I don’t think the GOP is doing that – I think both parties are waging a war on people. And since females are disproportionately aborted, it could be argued that abortions are a war on women.
            The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing party in America. The most recent statistic is that the Libertarian Party is growing a about a 10% per year rate while Democrats and Republicans are shrinking. Can that rate continue? The greatest growth is among the younger and newer voters. It may not stay in double digits but it will continue for the foreseeable future.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I hope that you can forgive the looking into your profile. However, I had to know where you were coming from on the “DEMs and GOP” are the same meme.

            Since you argue that abortions constitute a war on women, to win that war in favor of women would necessarily require the outlawing of abortion, I should think. How does that square with fundamental libertarian philosophy?

          • Christopher Cole

            I am sorry that you inferred that. I could have been clearer but I did not state that abortions constituted a war on women only that such an argument could be made to show that anything could be used, especially by a bigot, to justify such a claim.
            When I was on active duty I asked a Baptist chaplain about the strictures on a parish being Baptist. The example I used was could a Satanist church be Baptist? He replied that such a church could be Baptist but would have to be an Independent Baptist. Something similar exists with political parties. Having looked at the Republican National Conventions I noticed that few restrictions were placed on who could speak, the Democrats had more (compare the two on abortion: the Republicans allowed a pro-abortion speaker but the Democrats vetoed a pro-life speaker). Libertarians have a general set of rules but do not require absolute adherence to them. One can disagree with the party on any issue, although after a while you should consider your status as a Libertarian. Much like, to use the example above, a Satanist in a Baptist church, even an Independent Baptist one.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            One quick question for you …

            When you walk into the voter’s booth during the Presidential election cycle, knowing that the Libertarian candidate is garnering about .5-1% in the polls, don’t you hold your nose and vote Republican? Under these circumstances, voting Libertarian is the same as voting Democrat.

            This is why I always pray for the Greens to have a good candidate, so their turnout is large …

            Earlier in my life, it would have been possible to vote third party, and not hurt the conservative movement, overall. Voting third party, today, might well destroy the Republic.

          • Christopher Cole

            You share a widely held belief that Libertarians are a form of Republicans. Libertarians are just as Democrat as Republican. I started out my political life as an LBJ Democrat.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I could have gone either direction in 1968. I believed that the United States would have been in good hands with either Nixon or Humphrey.

            This changed in 1972, with the takeover of the DEM party by what can only be called their Marxist wing. The party has slid further to the Left, ever since.

            To vote Democrat, or Democrat-by-default (as in voting for a third party), is to damage or even destroy the future of the nation. In my opinion, libertarians could do more for the Republic by disbanding this expensive and ineffectual party.

            According to the LP, itself, after 43 years years of work, there are a total of 139 libertarians holding elective office, only 46 of which are partisan. Forty-three years.

            http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

          • Christopher Cole

            You presume that the Republicans will do what they say they will – the historical evidence is that they will not. Republicans grow the government as fast as the Democrats.
            And as far as the number of elected officials goes, 139 is doing fairly well when you consider that the coverage of any candidate not a Democrat or a Republican is twisted when it exists. To give one example here in Pima County: A Libertarian ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors and the entirety of the coverage of his campaign was the claim that his answer to everything was to restore the Tucson Rod and Gun Club; roads, schools, whatever it was it was claimed, falsely, that his answer to the problem was Restore the Tucson Rod and Gun Club. There is a Libertarian on the Pima Community College Board and he has been the target of special vitriol in an effort to remove him. It has failed so far but whenever a Libertarian challenges the status quo the assumption that this is a two-party system is held by many people (including you it seems) to vote for the “electable” one and not on the basis of principle. If the coverage of the Libertarians was similar to that given the Democrats and Republicans then Libertarians would probably capture a large portion of the offices and either the Democrats or the Republicans (or both) would lose out on many political perks. Imagine how Congress would have to change if there were three major parties not just two.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            But Congress will not change, will it? After 43 years of work, the Libertarian Party has 139 local officials, many of them in positions that weren’t contested.

            For the sake of argument, let’s say Congress were 1/3 DEM, 1/3 GOP, and 1/3 LP. My personal interests in policy lie with foreign and military policy. I don’t think those interests would be well-served by having the LP caucus with the DEMs (especially when a DEM is president). I am also a social conservative. On these issues, the LP would also caucus with the DEMs.

            I think the LP would caucus with the GOP on economic issues. Of this, I’m pretty sure. But if the LP was powerful enough to gain 1/3 of Congress, how many GOP presidents would be elected?

            However, this is merely an intellectual exercise. Wouldn’t it be against libertarian beliefs to force the news media to give equal coverage to these three parties?

          • Christopher Cole

            The Libertarians would probably caucus with each party on different issues presuming that they did not form their own. And the goal would not to elect Republican Presidents, or even Democrat ones, but Libertarian ones.
            Forcing the news media to do their duty properly would be against Libertarian principles but convincing them is not, indeed convincing them is the essence of Libertarian principles. So, even if you do not intend to vote for any Libertarian candidate, it would be in your and the publics best interest for you to ask about any Libertarian candidate – or other minority candidate as well – and try to convince your local media to give proper coverage to them. A lively debate on the issues by several candidates would go far to eliminate the mud-slinging we all say we disapprove of.

          • xander winston

            Stop. Just stop. Has the insane hyperbole of using terminology that you don’t understand helped you or your cause? Marxist/Communist? Do you have any idea what you are saying?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I rather think that I do, considering that Marx’ philosophy was part of the philosophy curriculum that I taught at the university I had tenure at.

            So, I think that I shall not stop …

          • xander winston

            Really? The university? Your college and degree? Yes. list them. And answer my question to you. By the way, I research everything so I’ll know if you just lift from some website. But you claim to be a teacher so you should be able to use your own words right? Why didn’t you answer already?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            First, I have no need to “prove myself” to the likes of you. The university is called “the university” by me to maintain my anonymity. If you wish to tell who you are and where you live, so that some madman comes gunning for you, be my guest.

            On the other hand, you didn’t answer my question. Namely, would you like a list of left wing governments that became totalitarian? We could start with the Soviet Union …

          • xander winston

            Really? So if I shared with you that my university is Vanderbilt then you could find me? I did answer. I did. Look again. I asked you why didn’t you answer already? Why do you keep asking and not providing the list. Yes. I want the list. And do share your academic credentials. Okay. Start with the USSR. Make your case. “Comes gunning for you”? You are suffering from delusions of grandeur and violent fantasies. How is that working out for you?

          • reader

            Wait. What about USSR? What case is there to be made? Are you trying to imply that USSR was not a totalitarian state?

          • xander winston

            I am asking him to state his case. And, no, you don’t seem to have read our entire exchange.

          • reader

            YOU seem to be questioning the premise that leftist governments tend to go totalitarian. Forget him. I’d like for you to rebut that. As you said, start with USSR, make your case.

          • xander winston

            What? He made the argument. The burden of proof lies with him…or you if you would like. Make the case and i will address you on every single example. Your post is quite odd. HE started with the USSR, but just named them. He didn’t even supply any facts to back up his assertions. Reread the thread and then make his argument for him if you wish. Yes, I was questioning the premise since as a student of history, I know it to be incorrect. It is up to the individual who made the argument to provide the facts for their argument. One does not prove a negative. Anyone with even a basic education should know that. Why don’t you?

          • reader

            Oh, ok. USSR, China, Cuba and Cambodia account for over 100 million people slaughtered in the name of ideology. Any student of history would know that. You obviously don’t. You’re a student of Howard Zinn, a card carrying communist and a Stalin admirer. An abhorrent in your astronomical ignorance troll.

          • xander winston

            100 million people slaughtered where? So you are making his argument? Okay. But you’ll have to do more than name names. Name the country. How they are “leftist”. And make your case. You are failing miserably so far. Give me something of substance to work with. Shall we compare numbers of those slaughtered by the religious? First things first. Make your case. Remember what that is? Oh, and unless you wish to compare our levels of education then simmer down on the attempts at condescension. It’s put up or shut up time. Stalin was raised Christian by the way. Start with China I guess. That should be easy for you. Do you know how to make a legitimate argument?

          • reader

            “100 million people slaughtered where? So you are making his argument? Okay. But you’ll have to do more than name names. Name the country.”

            That’s the reply to this:

            “USSR, China, Cuba and Cambodia account for over 100 million people slaughtered in the name of ideology.”

            Let me guess. Your IQ is about 21. High enough to cut and paste talking points from a syllabus of your communist professor, who’s IQ is about 45. This is no place for an imbecile like yourself to try get away with fake condescension. We’ve had much smarter trolls most of the time. Don’t race to the bottom. Get lost.

          • xander winston

            You aren’t making a case. You really want to compare I.Q. and academic credentials? Make your case or stop replying to me. Oh, so you can’t make a legitimate argument so you continue to attempt puerile insults. Let me clear this up for you, someone like you could never insult someone like me. Did you even graduate from a public high school? I have given you numerous chances to make a case and yet you refuse. Why? BTW..amuse me with your I.Q.! Oh, and keep reading. I posted…”Name the country. How they are ‘leftist’? And make your case.” I was explaining a simple way to make your argument since you were just spewing drivel. Can you now or not? You can start with China. Isn’t that one simple enough?

          • reader

            “You really want to compare I.Q. and academic credentials?”

            Sure. Do you know what GULAG is? Try wiki, see how far it will take you.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Soap bubbles …

            I’ll explain further, if you wish …

          • xander winston

            I want you to answer the questions which are based on YOUR posts. Why do you keep deflecting? Or just stop wasting my time posting uneducated drivel.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Why are there no soap bubbles shaped like pyramids or cubes?

          • xander winston

            What point do you think you are making and why do you keep deflecting? Stick to the topic and answer the questions or stop responding.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Because you seem incapable of answering the question, soap bubbles assume spherical shapes because it’s the most efficient form for them to take, in this universe.

            In Xander’s universe, the mere mention of an education by someone other than himself is a threat to his self-esteem, and must be attacked.

            You, sir, are a troll. Like all trolls, you assume the most efficient form … attack dog. What you say has nothing to do with your own education, or that of anyone else. Your whole purpose in existence is to attack all who disagree with you.

            Might I suggest seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication for your NPS, before it’s too late? Do you need a definition of “NPS”? …

          • xander winston

            I did answer the question and I asked you what the relevance was? Wow. You didn’t even get your own “soap bubble” question correct. They take the shape they do because of surface tension like I said. Why should I answer your questions when you won’t answer mine which are on topic and based on your posts. I warned you about insults. I am tracing you. You should seek therapy and try to work out the feelings you have from suffering with IPS. Do I need to define that for you?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            “I am tracing you.”

            I’m terribly frightened by this comment. Allow me to help you …

            Delta CO/2/501/101st Airborne. 1968-69, Vietnam, Republic of (note that I probably killed a number of your friends) …

            Associate of Arts Degree, Westark Community College, Ft. Smith
            Bachelor’s Degree, University of Arkansas (Fayetteville)
            Master’s Degree, Same
            Ph. D., Princeton

            Phi Theta Kappa, Phi Beta Kappa

            There you go. Start tracing. You should be aware that if you find me, I am still armed …

            Did you look up NPS, yet? This is a condition that shouldn’t be left untreated indefinitely, as the President evidences …

          • xander winston

            I already responded to your little NPS quip. Can you read? You went to a community college? I can’t quit laughing. That is the only school I believe that would have accepted you. I still have trouble believing even that. I don’t care if you are armed. But I will alert the authorities that you are. And, thanks, for continuing to post, you have guaranteed a search warrant for your computer at the very least. You know nothing is ever really deleted from a computer don’t you short eyes? You picked the wrong guy to play with.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You’re seriously threatened by someone with more education than you, aren’t you? It’s not our fault your own education is barely above that of Jethro Bodine. Did you gradeeate the Third Grade?

            You would be much more effective if you took the route that Americana has taken, that is, to reasonably debate the issues at hand. Instead, your psychiatric difficulties make it impossible for you to anything than exude ceaseless ad hominems from mommy’s computer.

            By the way, my weapons are all legal, I have a CCL, and what is more, completely understand the conditions under which deadly force should be used. But I wouldn’t need to a weapon the beat the crap out of a useless piece of garbage like you …

            Goodbye. Enjoy your life. Also enjoy the 8-16 years of GOP rule that will start in January of 2017 …

          • xander winston

            You don’t have more education than I do. You are a bad liar. I notice you failed to answer any of the questions. That isn’t surprising in the least. You live in a sad, delusional world. I pity you but I can’t help laughing at your ignorance. I told you what was going to happen and it is already in motion.

          • xander winston

            That was bad deflection you delusional wantwit.

    • xander winston

      “If elections made a difference, they wouldn’t let us vote.” Mark Twain. I believe Mr. Clemens was very right about that.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        And your reason for wishing that conservatives would just stop voting is? …

        • xander winston

          I didn’t say conservatives. I shared something from Twain. You need to get eyeglasses or work on simple reading comprehension skills.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You obviously didn’t understand your own statement.

          • xander winston

            Yes I did. Explain what you think I don’t understand. The Twian quote has nothing to with a specific group except voters. VOTERS. Not Conservative only. Not liberal only. Voting. Voting. Does this really need to be explained to you? Before replying, type out the quote and then tell me what it has to do with conservatives specifically.

  • Lanna

    The Progressives mission, to re-write history and change the way people think. Ideology is pushed on facebook and twitter, social media, theres always someone or something there trying to influence the views of people. Be strong in your knowledge, truth, and wisdom. Brainwashing can only affect you, if you don’t have discernment!

    • xander winston

      What ideology? What history has been “re-written”?

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    From the viewpoint of a black man the words “All men are created equal” would bring on a bitter laugh since the founders all had slaves and blacks had no representation. White conscience led to the freeing of the slaves and slowly the empowering of blacks with privileges denied to whites and eventually the voting in a black president (substantially aided by voter fraud) and so America got itself a black president who may not even be an American and who works very hard to prove that perhaps the founders were not so wrong.

    • xander winston

      He is American and many blacks fought for freedom as well. It was white people that bought them in the first place and white people that had to be killed to free them. “The Founders weren’t wrong”? I just don’t even know how to respond to such a racist, vile comment.

    • johnlac

      Check your facts before you make statements. Not all founding fathers had slaves. John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and others did not own slaves. And John Adams was among a number who wanted to ban slavery before the constitution was passed.

      • DontMessWithAmerica

        Thanks. I just checked. Seven did not own slaves and fifteen did. But that’s like saying “the woman isn’t VERY pregnant.”

  • rebaaron

    So where is the Separation of powers designed to protect us? Just how is Obama flouting the law and getting away with it?

    • WhiteHunter

      Try reading the article again. Carefully this time. It’s all there. Assuming you want an answer to your rhetorical question. Which seems unlikely.

  • Christopher Riddle

    The”Progressives”are ALL in Favor of being “RULED”>To them,It’s Only A Question Of”WHO”??????????????????????????

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

    The signs of the end times are everywhere…

    As we witness such things as the spread of globalism, the building of a one-world church, the increase of wickedness, the breakdown of the traditional family, the destruction of that priceless bastion of liberty called America, the normalization of homosexuality, the callous murder of babies, the filthy pop culture, the breathtaking increase in governmental surveillance, we become fearful, uncertain, frustrated, angry, and discouraged, but this is because our minds and hearts are too focused on things of this world rather than things above. Too often we have the same short view that “conservative” unbelievers have rather than the long view that comes from the light of Bible prophecy……….

    The devil is the god of this world, and his handiwork is evident everywhere, but he is not God and he is not in control of the times and the seasons.

    “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2:20-21).

    We should stand in the confidence that the present evil is exceedingly temporary and will soon be cut down.

    Please visit my Bible prophecy website at: itshallcometopass.org

    • xander winston

      Jesus was an end times messiah as well. One of a myriad number in the Middle East. I forget…did the world come to an end when Jesus was alive?

  • PATRIOT.WW48

    The more I hear what the left says, the more I know that Thomas Jefferson was correct. “THE-TREE-of-LIBERTY must be refreshed from time to time with the BLOOD of PATRIOTS and TYRANTS” The day of reckoning draws ever closer.