Progressivism,  Liberal  Lies,  and  the  End  of  Our  Constitutional  Republic

Written by Ronald Carlson March 10 2016



Today, if given a competent legal analysis, no less than 8 out of 10 federal laws would be found to be consistent with the principles established by the Constitution. This ever-growing volume of unconstitutional statutes is the success that compels liberals to use every possible means to seat progressive judges and fight to prevent the confirmation of conservative judges.

The rejection of Robert Bork and the seating of Ruth Bader Ginsberg provide examples and confirmation. If further confirmation is needed, we need look no further than the radical people Obama has nominated to fill federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court vacancies.

Progressives have methodically taken over the education system, which is reflected in the comment of a local attorney who confessed that he never studied the Constitution or even read it while he was in law school.

There is a legal principle that says; you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.  The fact is the wanton violation of this principle is a rather succinct summation of progressive reasoning.  The end always justifies the means in the mind of a progressive!

In my mind thieves, rapists, ax murders and progressives all can appropriately be included in the same grouping. Because laws have been established for addressing the deeds of the first three lawless groups, I am going to focus my attention here on the last group, the progressives. The terms “progressive,” liberal” and environmentalist may be used without distinction in this document.

Years ago we had a friend who had read most of the self-empowerment books that had been written.  He and his wife were hospitable people, had a very nice home. When you entered it there were rules that anyone occupying their home was expected to follow.  The rules became applicable upon entry when you were expected to remove your shoes.  The rules of the house were neither unclear nor unreasonable, but they were the rules and if you did not agree with them you did not have to stay.

Similarly, the founders of this nation established the rules under which one could be a citizen or otherwise stay in the United States. These rules were launched from the Declaration of Independence and particularly the proposition that self-evident truths exist and reveal the fact that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This provided the foundation upon which the Constitution of the United States was established.

All laws are then expected to flow from the principles of that Constitution. If legislation is introduced in congress that is not consistent with the Constitution, there are two choices – abandon the legislation, or amend the Constitution to make the proposed legislation meet the test of constitutionality before the law is enacted.

Amending the Constitution, by design, is a cumbersome and difficult process. Consequently progressives, who have always been represented a minority opinion within the nation, have devised ways of simply ignoring the provisions of the Constitution and particularly the foundation provided by the Declaration of Independence.  These strategies have been successful and through their methodical efforts over the decades, progressives have been able to enact volumes of unconstitutional legislation.


Edmund Burke (1729 -1797) was a defender of constitutional statesmanship.  He opined that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  While Burke’s quote is frequently quoted, it is legitimate to ask if it is, in fact, a true statement.  The answer lies in how one defines “good men” and “do nothing”. For example, the evil of abortion has been legal in the United States for nearly 40 years and, after the government sanctioned murder of millions, the practice continues today in spite of massive efforts to stop it.

The reason why the efforts of good men have been unsuccessful may be tied up in the historic tension that exists between the concepts of “natural rights” as defined in the Declaration of Independence, and a “social contract” which completely rejects and ignores the foundation of the Declaration.  It allows an absolute standard to morph into a pragmatic standard.  It is within this distinction that one will find progressivism firmly rooted in a philosophy of pragmatism.

Pragmatism unfortunately affects many “good men.” Anything viewed by liberals is never in the context of something being right or wrong, good or evil – it is, in any given case, what is most expedient.  The philosophy of liberals and progressives can only exist in an environment where good or evil, right and wrong are relative concepts.  Consequently the implicit question that arises as the foundation of constitutional controversy is:  does absolute truth exist?

The greatest scientific minds that ever existed, to whom most of the foundations of science and mathematics may be attributed, had a common view of truth and scientific discovery. They understood the universe to have been created by an infinite Creator Who continues to superintend all aspects of His creation.  They recognized the abject failure of a mechanistic (evolutionary) view of the cosmos.  In their view, understanding science was simply the privilege of being able to “think God’s thoughts after Him”.   These great thinkers include Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal.  (Others are listed in the footnotes.)

If the evidence leads to a revelation of Truth, mankind can only ignore this revelation at his peril. Unfortunately, the liberal mind and the ideas of progressivism can only be sustained in an environment of lies.  It is not coincidental that the “environmental movement” is built upon deception, fraud, lies and misrepresentations of scientific knowledge and principles.  The religion of environmentalism exists in stark contrast to an understanding that we live in a world that was created by, and blessed by, an infinite and all wise Creator Who gave mankind the authority to manage and use the resources He provides.   The success or failure in the use of the authority granted is completely dependent upon man recognizing and worshiping his Creator and Sustainer. Consequently, progressive thought and liberal ideas are guaranteed to fail.

History reveals the environmental consequences associated with rejection of The Truth. It started with a universal flood that wiped out most of the life that existed on the earth some ten millennia ago.  As population grew and mankind again failed to honor and obey God, many groups of people were destroyed, and others were taken into captivity and slavery.

Disease, pestilence and destruction are always the consequences of not recognizing the God revealed in the Bible.  Since man will always worship something, a rejection of God is always coincidental with idol worship.  Environmentalism is, at its roots, pantheism. 

The first commandment God gave Moses was: You shall have no other gods before Me. The consequences of idol worship are well documented.

The Old Testament has many examples of what can be expected when the leaders of nations bow down to other gods.  One of these gods encountered by the nation of Israel was the Goddess of fertility, Asherah. The pagans of that age erected poles in her honor.

It may seem ironic that the progressives of today are enacting environmental laws to protect and honor their god.  The Asherah pole of Bible times may well have a direct corollary in a landscape covered by monuments to the gods being worshiped today.

What better symbol of reverence could there be for the god of the progressives than a landscape dominated by wind turbines?  (and cell and haarp towers, and surveillance cameras on poles at every intersection?)

http://constitution.com/progressivism-liberal-lies-and-the-end-of-our-constitutional-republic/