It is quite evident that the Left prefers centralized authority.  You are, after all, what you vote for.  And when we examine their policies every one of them moves most or all of the decision making process to Washington.  This kind of top-down governance erodes local control.  It abrogates the opportunity for the more personal relationship one might otherwise have—or feel inclined to exercise—with those in charge.  It makes the process of seeking a redress of grievances not just difficult but almost impossible.  It builds a political “wall of separation” between the rulers and the ruled protecting the whimsy of the rulers from  the unwashed masses.   This is, ironically enough, the very thing our constitution was enacted to prevent.  But the left will do anything to convince us it is not.

The left favors the wall of separation.  They use it to separate us into races, classes, religions, and genders.   They then define these differences through policy, and insist on legislation that calcifies our differences into the law of the land so that there can be no denying that these differences exist.  They erect another wall based on income, separating good labor from bad, defining what profits are best left to those whose labors bore them out, and whose must be sacrificed to their legislative priorities.   They redistribute the product of that labor  to shore up their social engineering, to buttress the walls they have erected to separate us, always in favor of the classes who just happen to vote for them more often than against them.  They spend it on policies that centralize power and separate people, and are comfortable supporting polices that collect more.  And as long as we are separated by them, they can continue to use our money to centralize power.  It is what they want.  It is what they do.

Moral power is the left’s biggest enemy because it  is the only other kind of real power besides political power.   Moral power moves people to action.  Moral power has the potential to contradict political power.  So to protect themselves from the risk of any increase in moral authority they have erected the most well known “wall of separation,” this one between church and state.   They have successfully argued this—in the court or personality and public perception, as a constitutional right–though no such right exists in our own Constitution—turning the free expression of religion into freedom from religion.  

By moving the power away from the community, and separating the community from religion, it has become increasingly difficult to run for elected office on a platform that includes morality as a basis for political thought.  As a result we now get people of both parties who are incapable of seeing any expression of power over people that does not come from The State.   A power that no longer has to answer to anything.  A power that is moving farther and farther away from the people.  The left does not want, nor can they consciously permit politicians to think that they might be held responsible for their actions by any power greater than the state. 

There are two exceptions to the Lefts rule about religion or morality.   The first is that anything that is not an actual religion, but that advances the goal of a secular centralization of political power, can and should be sold—if not to replace religion—as morally equivalent.   It does not much matter what they set on the pedestal as long as it can be worshiped and then abandoned when it no longer serves it purpose; to be replaced by something else “more progressive.”  Nothing can be fixed.  There can be no device by which to measure the lefts motivations.  This is why they ignore history because it rarely suits them.

The second is that religions that thrive on centralized political power, or whose moral tenants willingly assign power to a central politicized figure (like Islam) are free from these prohibitions.  Adherents are actually encouraged by the left to express their beliefs in public, even though such a display by any other group is an abhorrent violation of “their” rights.  It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with power.  The left believes that as long as the focus in on centralizing power, and they control the power, it does not much matter where it comes from.   

The obvious hypocrisy of this has yet to move the masses.  It is that very human desire to escape the centralized authority of both political and religious authority that resulted in the founding of our nation.  But the collectivists have trained us to see that goal as an improvement on the alternative and they are using their reinterpretation of our constitution to erect yet another wall of separation.  It is one where the bill of rights no longer protects the people from the power of the government, it is one where the government’s power uses the bill of rights to “protect the people.”  It is a wall that is gradually separating us from freedom.

The left is systematically building a wall that separates judges from justice.  They prefer judges who act, not on what the law says, or in a manner that the constitution defines, but in accordance with their feelings about what they suspect is the will of the people.   Judges must not just strike down laws, they must rebuild them as well.  It is not enough that these umpires observe the game they must also play it, scoring runs and making outs, usurping at any opportunity the will of the people and their elected officials in favor of their ideas about fairness and justice.  They are secular Mullah’s, passing out judicial fatwa’s, whose validity need have no basis in any law except the ones they have created for themselves.  The left embraces this change, and resists any appointment that might slow its progress.  As long as nothing is fixed, any desire can become the law. 

In contrast to these arguments some will suggest that the free press, whose constitutional rights afford them the ability to investigate and then reveal any such treachery on our behalf, has or would protect us from any real threat.  That the accumulation of power (in Washington) is acceptable because it would still be under the watchful eye of the Press who would then dutifully report any wrongdoing to the people.  The people, after evaluating the ‘News’ of the day, would then take that knowledge and exercise their preferences at the ballot box, ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The overwhelming number of sources—all with similar levels of access, all reporting these events in similar fashion, is meant to have a calming affect; to belay any fear we might have about one or two of them wandering off the plantation and misleading us.*   The inference is that any  majority of opinion from a broad and diverse press guarantees both the freedom to report, and the veracity of the observations.

But this “protection” fails miserably simply because over 90% of the people employed for the purpose of “reporting” favor the politics and policies of the Left.   Reporters or newsmen are overwhelmingly Democrat.  They vote Democrat.  They favor the policies of Democrats and so by extension favor both the centralization of power, and the separation of it from the people.    No clear thinking person should expect someone who supports a policy that favors the secularized centralization of power—or any of the tangential tactics, interpretations, policies, or actions designed to achieve that end—to report unfavorably about it at any great length.  The press is overwhelmingly—and it does not make any difference if it is intentional or not because the end result is the same— in bed with the politics of the left. 

A free press should be one that is not obligated by threat of punishment to toe the party line.  The fact that the Press is toeing it of their own free will does not make them any more free.  They are therefore no longer, nor can they considered “free” of political influence.  They have erected a wall of separation between journalistic integrity and their preference for a particular outcome.  That outcome, in this case, overwhelming favors less freedom and more government.

*It should be noted that the so called ‘new media’ has successfully afforded a different look at politics and the world.  It is not necessarily any more free from its policy objectives than the traditional media but it is different, so much so  that it threatens the left and the trained media who have willfully developed a campaign to destroy it.  Without even questioning their own hypocrisy they have introduced and reported favorably on legislation to protect us from talk radio.  The appropriately misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” is the centerpiece.  It is their sworn goal to enact that legislation to “silence these uncontested and divisive voices of the Right wing.”   Is it just a coincidence that the left wants’ to silence any voice that does not overwhelmingly vote for democrats, does not overwhelmingly favor democrat policies, that does not carry water for them and communicate their preferred message to the masses?  Should it not concern anyone who even offers lip-service to the idea of freedom that the press is prepared to let the government censor any aspect of “free speech” it does not like?

Naked pictures must be protected, but talk radio is an abuse of free speech?  Can we not see the Lefts abuse of our freedoms?

Collecting political power has no other purpose than to serve the will of those who have it.   But people who cherish moral power believe that elected officials, acting in accordance with their moral proclivities, will more often than not use that power more responsibly and in the best interests of their families, communities, towns, cities, or states; more than will the uncaring central power of a federal government.  They believe that their actions on earth may someday be measured by something other than a poll, or a ballot box, and while they are still human and prone to temptation and error, they must ultimately take personal responsibility for those errors upon themselves, before the people they have betrayed, and ultimately before God.  Secularist rulers have no such prohibition.  The politician who does not believe in any authority greater than his own is more inclined to abuse that power.  They govern without any fear of eternal judgment.  They base their actions, not on some definable foundation, but on whichever wind will keep them in power.  And they collect that power because without it their lives are empty and meaningless.   Even an atheist, draped in what he may view as a less than perfect interpretation of the protections of our constitution, should be able to see that any idea of freedom is safer in the hands of someone who fears that their temporal actions have greater implications than that of the moment, than someone who fears nothing including the atheist?

No matter what you think the constitution says, it was never meant to separate the people from those in power.   So you must take the time to look at what your politicians want for your country.  If their policies tend toward collecting power in Washington, then what they are really collecting is out freedom.   And you are not immune.  Sooner or later they will come for your freedom as well.  And when they have collected it all we will have no right to stare dumfounded at tyranny.