In 1992, the US Supreme Court expanded abortion rights in America in a case called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
At issue was a Pennsylvania law that required a married woman to notify her husband if she was planning on having an abortion. The court overturned the law, writing that: “It cannot be claimed that the father’s interest in the fetus’ welfare is equal to the mother’s protected liberty.”
This decision is but one in a series of decisions stretching from the 1960s to the present day that have dismantled the Constitution and replaced it with the philosophy of liberalism. However, Casey is worth revisiting because of one particular sentence contained in its decision.
Speaking for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy (the man who would later bring you gay “marriage”) wrote the following: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Is this not the clearest and most succinct definition of liberalism ever given by a public official?
Of course, Kennedy was freelancing when he wrote the words, “At the heart of liberty.” He was not defining liberty but redefining it according to the new anti-Constitutional (liberal) interpretation.
The true meaning of liberty is self-rule and self-mastery—the inner strength to choose to uphold that which is right. There is an objective truth which exists independently of us. The duty of each individual is to discern this truth and conform to it through knowledge, self-discipline and virtue.
Such was the understanding held by all the great sages: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Old and New Testaments, Augustine, Aquinas, Confucius, the founding fathers and Lincoln. It was the view shared by most of our countrymen and the courts until relatively recently.
But that view is so passé.
Hence, we needed our Supreme Court to give us a looser interpretation of the law of the land. It is summarized by these words: “Liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” Voila! In the eyes of the law, the person who lives his life in rebellion against reality is now considered morally equivalent to the person who strives to conform to reality.
One area where we clearly see the effects of this liberal philosophy is in the big push currently going on for transexual “rights.” The sex of a person is based on a biological reality determined by their genes—these are the facts.
But the facts don’t matter according to liberalism because “liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” You get to decide your gender, not those lame chromosomes.
Or take the example of abortion. Life begins at conception. The life of the child in utero is nascent and precarious but it is a life nonetheless.
However, as Melissa Harris-Perry of the arch-liberal network MSNBC said, “When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling—but not science.” Life begins when we feel like it begins, because “liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence,” or, in this case, someone else’s existence.
Or take the example of this country’s current approach to Islamic terrorism. The leaders of the Islamic State eat, sleep and breathe the Koran. They talk endlessly about Islam, sharia and the caliphate. But liberals understand what these Muslims believe better than the Muslims themselves.
They know the terrorists must be misinterpreting the Koran because Islam is a “religion of peace.” Liberals can say that without having any understanding of Islamic history because “liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence.”
And then there’s Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on gay “marriage.” It’s an undeniable fact that gay couples cannot produce children. Everyone should know that sodomy spreads disease.
And, of course, the notion that the Constitution contains a “right” to same-sex marriage is flagrantly absurd. But none of that matters because “liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” And if you believe otherwise you are a bigot who deserves to be ridiculed into silence.
As you can see, this philosophy can be used to justify literally anything. Liberalism is the negation of reality and objective truth. Liberals have no respect for tradition, natural law, religion, or whatever else is not expedient and useful for obtaining what they desire.
This leaves them with no basis for morality beyond the will of the majority—the belief that might makes right. It is the triumph of the will, the essence of Nazism.
People accept the lie of liberalism because they are enslaved by their lust and pride. America has fallen under a spell induced by decades of television and advertising, which have been constantly exhorting us to seek pleasure and enjoyment.
Many have surrendered their power of self-control and have begun to worship their desires as idols. As a result, that which hinders their desires (reality) has to be minimized and explained away as something oppressive and useless.
We are at a turning point in this country where the tone of liberalism is becoming increasingly shrill and self-righteous. Anger is the inevitable outcome of trying to fight against reality. As reality continues on in defiance of the liberal’s desire, his anger at what he deems “oppressive” turns into hatred and eventually rage.
This rage is directed at the group of people who are supposedly responsible for the “oppression” (i.e., the reality that won’t cooperate). Under enough pressure, this rage can erupt into a spell of totalitarian violence—a reign of terror. From the guillotine to the gas chambers to the gulag, the history of liberalism is one of malice, resentment and bloodshed.
The arrogance and empty promises of the Obama administration are what has brought the country to this sudden boiling point.
Whether sanity is restored or whether the blood-dimmed tide is loosed depends on the prayers of the faithful men and women who are still out there.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.