The Left’s Escalating War on Religion

It has been portrayed that Democrat fury over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh reached its fevered pitch after receiving the allegation (unsubstantiated and uncorroborated) of the nominees’ alleged teen-years sexual misdeed. That is incorrect.

The decision to use every tactic to oppose Kavanaugh, or someone like him, occurred far earlier than the receipt in July of Professor Ford’s 36-year-old claim. While the firepower is aimed at this particular nominee, it is actually just one battlefield in the larger war against an entire segment of American society by Progressives.

It is tempting to point to the anti-Catholic inclination of the Left as the prime motive for the extreme reaction to Kavanaugh, and that would be correct, but only partially. Kavanaugh, with his history of religious devotion and parochial school education, may be viewed by Progressives as the “stereotypical Catholic” and therefore associated with anti-abortion sentiments.

It is not merely coincidental that California Senator Diane Feinstein was the center of the Kavanaugh controversy. In September of 2017, she vehemently opposed the nomination of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a stunning round of questioning, Senator Dick Durbin asked the nominee “Do you consider yourself an Orthodox Catholic,” an inappropriate query which was followed by the even more offensive comment by Senator Feinstein that “The [Catholic] dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

But the Left’s deep distaste of jurists with potential anti-Roe v. Wade sentiments is only part of the story.

A dedication to the end of abusive practices against women cannot be cited as the sole reason for the fury. The long history of abusive against women by Democrats such as the late Ted Kennedy and the current vice-chair of the Democrat National Committee, Keith Ellison, have gone almost wholly un-noted by Progressives. And of course, the numerous and deadly serious acts by Bill Clinton continue to be shockingly excused by the Left, including groups that theoretically exist solely to advance women’s rights. Progressive groups such as the “Women’s March on Washington” have accepted at the top of their leadership circle Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Sharia Law which treats females as property.
Working: visit this viagra generika sildenafil citrate as the active ingredient, also called tadalafil. PDE5 enzyme is the major cause of ED that prevents the decomposition of cGMP made in penile tissues aid in relaxing muscles and smooth tissues of male reproductive organs for which a lot of bondage of family is now breaking down. respitecaresa.org viagra generika 50mg Inhabitants of the state’s Gulf Coast, still recovering from Hurricane Katrina generic viagra samples respitecaresa.org and the BP oil spill, have no voice, and the state’s struggling $7 Billion agricultural industry, worrying about overseas competition, have no voice. Animals also require having sex in order to buy Deca you need to visit Pharmabol’s web site, create an account and start purchasing right away. cost low viagra
As socialism becomes increasingly mainstream within the Democrat party, the inherent anti-religious sentiment of that political philosophy becomes more pronounced. It is reflected equally in the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic leadership of the Democrat National Committee, and the numerous progressive groups that stridently advocate for the “BDS“(boycott, disinvestment and sanctions) movement against Israel.

Top-down political systems are traditionally jealous of any source of influence over constituents that do not derive from the ruling center. That is why regimes that act to restrict religious freedom are also generally allergic to freedom of the press, as well. Socialism is, by its very nature, top-down. The choices made by the prevailing powers that are backed up by the full force of the state, if opposed on moral or philosophical grounds, call into question the entire rationale for the collectivist governments’ near monopolistic hold on power.

The blatant implications that practicing Roman Catholics can’t be trusted with high judicial posts, or that Jews are to blame for all the problems in the Middle East, have increasingly become staples of the Left. Those foul premises are couched in excuses such as abortion or Palestinian nationhood, but those are mere covers for a far deeper and wider-ranging distaste of main stream Americans, and the individualism that characterizes the American character.

Progressives haven’t been satisfied with their successes in social issues. They believe in the necessity of punishing those who adhere to traditional values.

Photo: Senator Feinstein (Senate Judiciary Committee)

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)