Tag Archives: progressivism

The Progressive Gospel

evolutionIn the past few weeks, I have noticed that a few mainstream conservative commentators are starting to recognize progressivism as a religion. They evidently came to this conclusion as the only possible explanation of why progressives continue to cling to failed policies in spite of irrefutable evidence they do not work. This should come as no surprise since the AHA(1) announced in 1933 that they were creating a new religion “shaped for the needs of this age”. Whether called progressivism, socialism, or humanism, the belief system underlying all their agendas is the same. The main doctrines of this left-wing religion are not supported by experience or reason; they are accepted by its followers on faith, and through the political power it has amassed over the years, its doctrines are forced on non-believers through law and the social sanctions of “political correctness”.

The Progressive Gospel is the Darwinian Theory of evolution on which all its many-faceted doctrines depend. Few things illustrate the hypocrisy of the left more than their defense of the Progressive Gospel. Academics and scientists lose their jobs, their grants, and are often black listed from their profession for raising any question concerning the scientific basis of evolution. Politicians are ridiculed, labeled as “anti-science” and frequently driven from the political arena by the national media for the mere mention of creationism, no matter how insignificant their comment. If the heretical offense occurs in a private college or university, the charge is denying science. If the offense occurs in a taxpayer-supported institution, the charge is violation of “the separation of church and state”. The teaching of progressive doctrine, however, in these same institutions is defended by the left as “academic freedom” or an appeal to the constitutional protection of “freedom of speech”.

It is easy to buy into the frequently made argument that creationism does not belong in a science classroom until you realize that creationism is the foundation of all real science. If scientific principles depended on random chance, as intellectual consistency requires adherents to the Progressive Gospel to believe, who in their right mind would board an airplane, believing that the laws of aerodynamics and gravity that made their flight possible depended on the fickle whims of chance? True science is the study of natural law. Its truths can be proven by observation and experimentation; otherwise, they are just theories. The very existence of law presupposes a lawgiver, just as the existence of all material objects, whether an automobile or a mountain is prima-facie evidence of a maker.

A number of well-meaning Christians and Christian scientists have attempted to compromise with evolutionists by proposing the theory of “intelligent design”, without identifying the designer. This idea has a number of problems that make it unacceptable to the Christian. (1) It ignores or rejects the biblical story of creation, the only reliable account we have of the origin of the earth and its creatures, including man. (2) It leaves the door open for the rejection of miracles and other supernatural phenomena, including the resurrection of Jesus, the cornerstone of the Christian gospel. (3) It encourages nominal Christians and those that are weak in the faith to view intelligent design as just another version of evolution theory. (4) It undermines the reliability of the entire Bible, the objective standard of morality that underlies the traditional American culture.

Christian Churches, Pastors and laymen alike, should not compromise the Gospel of Christ with the Gospel of Progressivism. Instead, we should take an unapologetic stand against the theory of Darwinian Evolution, pointing out at every opportunity that it is only a theory that cannot be proven by replication in the laboratory. The acceptance of its theories is a matter of faith and not provable scientific fact; hence, it is a religion and should be recognized as a religion. Rather than accepting the party line that creationism is not a proper subject to be taught in science classes, we should demand, as Christians that the theory of evolution not be taught to our children without also teaching the Biblical account of creation.(2) If we continue to allow ourselves to be intimidated by the progressive’s misinterpretation of the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time until Christian Churches in America are forced to meet in secret as they are in so many countries around the world today.


1. The Humanist Manifesto I, para. 3

2. Creation science, like evolution science is a combination of speculation, theory and provable facts. There are a number of good sites discussing creation science available on the Internet. One such site is the Institute for Creation Research

Progressivism: Philosophy of Evil

“Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”.
Ephesians 6:11, 12

When Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire”, the progressives went nuts. When George Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea “The Axis of Evil” they went nuts again. Progressivism, the Americanized version of European and Asian socialism, is made up mostly of hard-core socialists and secular humanists. Progressivism does not recognize the concept of evil. It believes in the perfectibility of human nature and the promise of utopia here on earth to be brought about by the enlightened, benevolent hand of government.

Masquerading as the savior of humanity, in reality all socialism, whether labeled socialism, Nazism, fascism, communism, or progressivism is the very essence of evil. During the twentieth century, socialism in its various forms was responsible for the slaughter of untold millions of innocent people through genocide, war, and political purges. In the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, 60 million were slaughtered; under the Nationalist Socialists German Workers Party, 20 million; and under the People’s Republic of China, 50 million. Add to that the millions who died under Pol Pot, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and other socialists dictators, and you have an unbelievable amount of human suffering that can only be ascribed to evil.

For those unfortunate enough to live under one of the forms of socialism, life consists of misery, oppression and deprivation. Considering the consistent failure of socialism during its hundred and fifty year history, it is difficult to understand how any sane person could voluntarily choose it as the preferred systems of government and economics. There has never been an experiment in socialism of any duration that can be pointed to as an example of a successful culture. Every time it is tried, it fails miserably. To understand this incongruity of human experience we only have to look at the recent history of our own country.

Socialism is never presented as “socialism”. In fact, the most ardent supporters of socialist policies are offended when someone identifies them as socialists. In America, socialism is sold under the pseudonyms of “liberalism”, “progressivism” and occasionally “fiscal conservatism“. For that reason, most people who support socialist policies do so without knowing they are embracing socialism. The essence of socialism is deception. At first glance, it appears that socialist policies are motivated by the highest of human ideals, compassion, concern, caring, sympathy, etc. Socialists’ appeals are made on behalf of the poor, the children, the disenfranchised, and those who have been unfortunate in life’s lottery. The reality is that socialism appeals to the basest of human flaws: jealousy, hatred, greed and envy.

Progressives’ most potent weapon against capitalism is class envy and jealousy. Early on, they perfected the technique of demonizing “big business”. In the late eighteen hundreds progressives discovered that if they stereotyped “big businesses” as the enemy of the very people they served, the people, in return would grant progressives political power, not only over businesses but in other areas as well. Politicians found that by blaming the “robber barons of industry” for the ills of society— and there were many— they could win votes and support for their policies by posing as champions of the oppressed.

In the early stages of the progressive era, the targets were the railroads, oil companies, steel companies, tobacco companies, and others who were instrumental in raising the standard of living for the American People. Progressive demonization of “big business” reached a high point under President William McKinley in1898 with the formation of the “U.S. Industrial Commission on Trusts”. Theodore Roosevelt won the Presidency in 1900 on the basis of his attacks on “big business”, and “trust busting” became the theme for his time in office. However, William Howard Taft who succeeded Roosevelt as President was even more successful, breaking up 90 large firms during his four years in office compared with Roosevelt’s 44 during his eight-year term.

The vilification of “big business” proved so politically successful for the progressives in the beginning that they have continued to use the tactic ever since to gain public support for their policies. The “villain du jour” currently is the insurance industry. A year ago, it was the banks. It all depends on what progressive policy is being pushed at the time. By successfully blaming the banking industry for our current economic woes rather than destructive government economic policies, Congress was able to gain support for its “bailout” packages. It is now attempting the same thing with health care, blaming insurance company “greed” for its high cost in order to gain support for their “reform” proposals.

Unfortunately, it seems to be working. The entity most often blamed by the media, and ultimately the public, for the exorbitant cost of health care is insurance company greed. The fact is that insurance companies are in general no more profitable than other companies of similar size, and a large percentage of their profits come from investments, not premiums. The real greed comes not from capitalism but from progressivism. The number one attraction of progressivism is its promise to provide the public with economic benefits they have not earned by forcefully taking from the earnings of others. This attitude is the epitome of greed.

Deception, corruption, envy, greed, jealously, coercion, thievery and wholesale murder mark the existence of socialism in the world. Socialism in America is represented by the progressives in and out of government, primarily in the Democratic Party but extant in the Republican Party as well, only to a lesser degree. The true “Axis of Evil” in America, that threatens to destroy the most successful system of government in world history are the progressive politicians, public sector unions, and federal bureaucracies.

Read the Book
Click HERE for information

Philosophy of
Socialism in America

Get The Picture Yet?

Obama borrowed a page from Al Gore’s playbook Wednesday and declared “the debate is over” on health care.  He and other Democrat leaders indicated they would use “reconciliation” or any other means necessary to get the Senate health care bill passed into law within the next few weeks. A few die-hard optimists still expect his efforts to fail and Republican members of Congress are pulling out all the stops to slow down the process at least.

The Democrat attitude concerning this piece of legislation is perhaps the best object lesson the American people could get to illustrate what is really going on with our government.  Most Americans view politics the same way they view sports.  We choose a team and then watch as a spectator, rooting from the sidelines for our team to win.  We then vicariously share in the sense of triumph when our team wins and the sense of defeat when our team loses. Even when the score is ninety-nine to zip in favor of our opponent in the final minutes, we somehow manage to believe that there will be a last minute miracle and our team will still come out on top.

The last year should have taught us that politics is not a game. Within the next few years, one side will lose and one will win.  Any compromise is a loss for America and the conservative movement.  The winner will determine the type of government we will have in America for generations to come.  Will it be a constitutional republic as the Founders  intended or an American Socialist (progressive) oligarchy?  The “sports” mindset prevents most Americans, especially those in the media from recognizing the reality of the times in which we live.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News is the poster child for this way of thinking.  In a Wednesday evening segment with Dick Morris, discussing the Obama agenda, O’Reilly kept insisting, “that will never happen; the American people would not stand for it and Obama would destroy his chances for a second term” (paraphrased).  What O’Reilly and millions like him do not understand is that it is not about winning a second term, or maintaining control of Congress.  It is about changing the American government into what progressives consider will be a socialist utopia, and they will risk everything in order to accomplish their goal.

Their determination is somewhat akin to that of the signers of the Declaration of Independence when they declared “we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”.  What many of us do not yet realize is that Obama and the leadership of the Democrat Party are socialist ideologues.  As Hillary Clinton indicated in her college thesis on the work of Saul Alinsky, “There is Only the Fight…”; temporary defeats and setbacks are immaterial.  Obama and the Democrat Party are willing to destroy his Presidency and possibly the Party itself in order to get the Health Care Bill signed into law. The implementation of universal health care is the crown jewel in the socialist agenda and has been for over a hundred years.

American socialists (progressives) are convinced that now is the opportune time and that if they do not succeed in their current efforts, socialism is doomed in America, at least for the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, they believe that if they can succeed  in getting socialism firmly entrenched in American society through some type of universal health plan, it will be difficult or even impossible to reverse course later. Our current progressive entitlement programs, and the difficulty in cutting them back are good examples of how they expect their plan to work.

After a century of rewriting history, dumbing down civics education and the strategic placement of progressives in academia, the media and other fonts of public opinion, they believe we will accept their progressive agenda with passive resignation, or at least with no more than a few insipid protests.  After generations of mental and moral conditioning of the American public, they rightly believe that now is their best opportunity to make it happen.  With a dedicated progressive ideologue in the White House and a progressive congress to do his bidding, if they don’t succeed now they probably never will, at least not during our lifetime.

Ignorance is their greatest ally.  An overwhelming majority of the American people are Constitutional and civic illiterates.  This is particularly true of members of the media and politicians.  A recent study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that academics and politicians are the least informed on American civics and the “American” system by at least ten percentage points.

There was a time when the fundamentals of American Civics were taught in our public schools, but no more.  Instead, education is used as an indoctrination system to prepare future generations for progressivism (American socialism).  This needs to be among the first issues we focus on, provided we somehow manage to avoid the complete takeover planned by Obama and his progressive allies.  Above all else, however, there is a need for the American people to wake up and face the facts as they exist and then work to change them.

Until that happens there is little to stand in the way of the “change” Obama promised during his campaign.  He spent over a year telling us exactly what he was intending for the country if he became President but not enough of us were really listening.  Even today, the majority continues to live in a state of self-denial believing that Obama really wants what is best for the country; he just hasn’t figured out yet how to bring it about.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Take the
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

Conservatism Alone is Not Enough

Most progressive pundits consider last week’s seven-hour summit on health care a waste of time.  Conservatives were generally pleased with the performance of the participating Republicans. Everyone stayed true to character as expected.  I watched the entire session and the only surprise for me was how prepared the Republicans were. A year of tea party protests and town hall meetings has at least taught the Republicans in Congress the language of conservatives and they use it well.  However, in listening to the discussion it became apparent that being merely conservative is not enough to get the country back on track.

As expected, the objections of the Republicans were mostly political.  Their primary objections were either about the process used to write the health care bills, or the astronomical cost of the Democratic proposals. These are important, but even if all the Republican proposals were accepted by the Democrats, the eventual transition from a lawfully constituted government to a progressive (American socialist) government would only be slowed, not stopped or reversed.

No serious objections were raised by any of the Republicans to a government attempt to deal with the problems of health care at the federal level. It is obvious, to any thinking individual, that we cannot afford the health care bill written by the Democrats. What no one is addressing is that we can no longer afford the constitution illiteracy that is rampant among our elected officials and the general public.  Therein lays our main problem, not only with health care, but also with the economy in general.

The only constitutional question raised during the seven and a half hour discussion concerned the mandate for individual citizens to buy health insurance.  No Democrat or Republican questioned the constitutionality of the federal government’s involvement in health care. The difference between Democrat proposals and Republican proposals exist only in the degree of government control not whether or not health care is a valid function of the federal government to begin with.

Of all the proposals made by the Republicans, only one can claim any Constitution support. That is the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines.  The primary purpose of the commerce clause is to insure free trade between the states. If health insurance were considered to be a product and not a service, then the commerce clause would apply under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.  Other than that, all the proposals proposed by either party would be covered under the Tenth Amendment and would be among those powers reserved to the states and to the people.

Unless a way can be devised to motivate public officials to honor their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution there is no prospect for reversing our plunge toward progressivism (American socialism). The Illinois Conservative website hosts a number of tools for improving one’s knowledge and understanding of our founding principles and the founding documents. Our blog “The Constitution Sentinel” is wholly devoted to an on-line tutorial on the Constitution. We also have a version on the main website and are currently in the process of expanding our reference edition of the Constitution. Unfortunately, these continue to be the least visited sections of our site.

It is important to make support for the Constitution a major issue in the 2010 and 2012 elections if we are to have any chance of stopping Obama’s progressive policies and starting to return to the Constitutional Republic left us by the Founders. No true conservative should vote for any candidate who does not exhibit an understanding of his or her proper role under the Constitution.


SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Looking Back at Our Future

For most of us, our concept of history begins with our own generation. Consequently, we believe that the problems we face were invented by us and it is up to us to find new solutions for them. That is not the case, however. Many generations have faced the problems we are dealing with today. The reason we are having such a difficult time in solving them is twofold.  First is the idea that it is up to our political leadership, and particularly those in our national government to come up with the solutions. Second is our tendency to view every problem as a separate issue, each with its own unique solution.

Although, on the surface, the problems we face today all seem to be separate issues, they are not. Out of control spending, the looming specter of confiscatory taxes, a burgeoning national debt, health care, energy, the global warming farce, declining quality of education and all the other issues we worry about daily are merely symptoms of our one fundamental problem, a lawless, out of control government.  That, in itself, is not new by any means. It dates back to the beginning of our republic and to some of our Founding Fathers.

President Obama brought nothing new to the table.  His administration is merely the culmination of the hundred year assault on our Constitution that began in the late eighteen hundreds during the Progressive (American socialist) era. Even that was not the first attempt by our elected leaders to circumvent the Constitution. Many of the Delegates who participated in the Philadelphia Convention were in favor of an all-powerful federal government with the state governments subordinate to its will.  That is why it proved so difficult to get a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution after it was ratified by the states.

The lust for power was as strong in the breasts of our Founders as in any of the politicians we send to Washington today. John Adams, for example, one of the leading patriots during the Revolution, and who later became our first Vice-President and then our second President, was a great admirer of the British system of government, as was his close friend Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson relates an incident concerning Hamilton and Adams and their admiration of the British Constitution in a letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811.

“I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as his opinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised by man. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticable government. And this you may be assured was the real line of difference between the political principles of these two gentlemen.”

As we pointed out in a previous post, the British constitution is the model for the progressives concept of a “living Constitution”. Jefferson also made the following observation concerning Adams’ Presidency in a 1793 letter to James Madison.

“…If Mr. Adams could be induced to administer the government on its true principles, quitting his bias for an English constitution, it would be worthy consideration whether it would not be for the public good,”…

Today, Adams is esteemed as one of our greatest Presidents, and in many ways, he was.  However, he seemed to possess two of the character flaws that are common among those who aspire to government. First was the belief that only a member of an aristocracy is suited to the role of government, and second was his inability to deal well with opposition. These characteristics coupled with his disregard for the American Constitution caused him to overstep his authority as President and eventually destroyed his Presidency and the Federalist Party he and Hamilton founded.  Jefferson also referred to this aspect of the Presidency of Adams in his “Thoughts On Lotteries” included in a petition to the Virginia Legislature around 1825.

“…[D]uring the administration of Mr. Adams, [t]heir usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch…..”

The Federalist Party’s and Adams’ disregard for the constraints of the Constitution, more than anything else resulted in his defeat at the polls in 1800 and the eventual demise of the Party some twenty years later. The electorate could very well deliver the same verdict on the Obama Presidency and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012. That, in fact, represents the best and possibly only hope for the survival of our Republic.

Should the present follow the same course as history, displaced Democrats will flock to the Republican Party over the next few decades, transforming it into a progressive party. That would be the proper time for the emergence of a “Constitution based” Conservative Party to preserve the Republic. The current attempts by the media and the progressives to encourage the formation of a third party based on the tea party resistance, is premature and self-defeating.  Its only result would be the continuance of the country in the grip of progressivism, leading to the final destruction of the Constitution.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


“Liberal” Banned From Website

In keeping with our new crusade for accuracy in political labeling, we will no longer post an article or comment containing the word “liberal” when applied to a political figure or position.  The word “liberal” has lost all meaning over the past forty or fifty years.  Instead, we will use the word “progressive”. Progressive has a recognized meaning and a long history of use.  In a campaign speech in Madison, Wisconsin, February 12, 2008 Barack Obama remarked, “And where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the progressive movement was born”.

His reference was to the work of Senator Robert M. La Folette of Wisconsin, the driving force of the progressive movement at the turn of the nineteenth century. The progressive movement was the political rival of the socialist movement led, at the time, by Eugene Debs of Indiana. La Folette attempted to gain the Progressive Party’s nomination for President in 1912 but lost the primary to fellow progressive, Theodore Roosevelt. The progressive movement eventually found its home in the Democrat party and became the popular voice of American socialism.

Progressivism, the Americanized version of European socialism is more descriptive of the policies of the Democrat party than “liberal” and is more difficult to deny than “socialism” since this is the term Democrats routinely apply to themselves. At the same time, it more accurately describes the political views of “moderate” republicans and many self-identified fiscal conservatives. It is more accurate to use the terms “Progressive Republican” and “Conservative Progressive” or “Progressive-Conservative” to identify these groups.

It is not uncommon to hear someone refer to his or her political views as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What they usually mean is that they are opposed to the reckless spending and high taxes connected with progressive policies but they support unconstitutional federal regulations and spending on education, energy use, health care and many of the other unconstitutional federal policies prevalent in today’s America.  Many also support abortion, gay marriage, and more liberalized laws regulating recreational drugs.  “Fiscal conservative” is not an accurate label for this political group. “Progressive-conservative” more accurately describes the moral confusion inherent in their conflicted political views.

“Classic republicanism” and “classic conservatism” both refer to the rule of law applied to government and adherence to the governing principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Only those supporting these principles should rightly be labeled conservatives.

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference