April 9, 2009
Are you trying to call me a "lefty"?
You still haven't defined that term.
Anyway, I'm still defined as a "rightwing extremist" according the the paranoid &!!(#, known as Napolitano (reminds me a Napolian).
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority,
Oh...and to "reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority" is written into my "manifesto". Also known as the Constitution. That is the same Constitution that Napolitano "swore" to uphold, as well as all others in (s)elected government. So, she lies. Most in office lie, but...I will fight for my Constitution. 😉 That is my "manifesto"!
Know what that means? Anyone who swears an oath to support the Constitution and fight for it, and anyone who actually does support the Constitution...is now a "right wing extremist".
You fascist/commies are so funny.
You silly wittle commies...you really never grasped the real American soul did you...just wait. McCarthy was right and the war ain't over. 😉
Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen... - Zbigniew Brezhinsky
April 9, 2009
I know. You point out radicals of passions; dispensers of of cognitive dissonance. As was McCarthy: a nut...had a point - but he was a fool. Rightest extremism is cursed with a broken moral compass as is left wing extremism. Conservatism disdains such foolishness, fiscally; politically and ideologically. By it's nature conservatism must be objective, with a moral compass of equity, or it no longer is conservatism. There is no waffle room. It is stable. In our political jargon It tends to be a hair right of center. This is unlike Islamic fundamentalism or any other pejorative fundamentalism, and it can be lost.
Forcing any belief instead of logically allowing to accept the cause of Providence with example and firm keynote is worthless. As is not defending the precepts and principles that this country's fore father's, who were and are correct, as intimated by virtue of their collective consciousness and value systems manifested in the American Constitution. It is evidenced by successful example and flattering mimicry for better than 250 years. Ideals that had been procured since their childhood from their parents and ancestry, influenced by the Judeao-Christian ethics of their day, that formed the very foundations of America:
The dogma of providence is no trivial matter, e.g. Ott ranks it as "de fide" in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. American Deists, to the extent that they invoked God as Providence, were making an explicitly Christian theological claim that set them apart among Deists as Christian Deists. They expressed their Christianity in other ways as well, of course, such as honoring the Christian Sabbath, worshiping in congregations, earnestly studying Christian scripture (and preaching it in their sermons), etc. “Christian Deism” is not a contradiction in terms; it expresses a form of unorthodox Christianity.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/20 ... n-god.html
...unorthodox Christianity. I couldn't have said it better.
April 9, 2009