There is a Newsletter called The Liberal Patriot. Liberal Patriot (a Substack newsletter) is described as “ a political newsletter dedicated to renewing liberal values and advancing American interests”. The editors describe the Liberal Patriot as:
“… a regular newsletter for political analysis and debate on elections, public opinion, policy, and ideology by co-editors John Halpin, Ruy Teixeira, Peter Juul, and Brian Katulis.”
I became curious about the seemingly oxymoronic title of “Liberal Patriot”(pardon my bias) so I decided to give it a brief read. Why? That’s a good question and here is my good answer. I became curious because it has become abundantly clear, at least in my mind, that liberal political ideology, its politicians, and its pundits have become increasingly vitriolic and repressive - rejecting anything to do with the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the US Constitution). Nevertheless, I gave it a look and here is what I found in their introductory newsletter: “What is The Liberal Patriot?” What better place to begin than with a group of liberals explaining who they are philosophically?
”The Liberal Patriot will therefore provide an alternative to existing ideologies and programs on offer from both right and left: the dead-end gridlock produced by right-wing populism, democratic socialism, and multicultural identity politics, as well as the growing authoritarian waves sweeping the globe.”
That’s not so bad. After all, most of us view the way our government and the liberal media and politicians have been handling “THE pandemic” as an “authoritarian wave”. I was not laughing derisively yet but then I read this:
”The results of the 2020 election—a resounding personal defeat for President Trump combined with a decline in support for Democrats in Congress and most state houses—show that the American people are looking for a fresh political alternative.”
“a resounding personal defeat for President Trump”
Seriously? Do you still believe that Donald Trump was defeated by a man who is barely cognizant of his surroundings and didn’t campaign until the last minute and then mostly from his basement and his running mate who has been shown time after time to not be able to speak in a way that makes any linguistic sense? And that they garnered millions of more votes than Barack Obama? The reports and the data coming from PA, WI, AZ, and even GA put lie to this assertion as does the record of success of Trump endorsed primary candidates across the nation - a record that now stands at 150 - 10.
Let’s put that aside along with the charge that President Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2020 at the US Capitol with a call to arms or the use of any language that any reasonable person would call incendiary. A charge which is being “fleshed out” by a one sided presentation of opinion and absurdities such as President Trump attempted to take control of The Beast (the presidential limousine) as he was seated about six feet away from a much younger, armed Secret Service driver for the purpose of turning it around to drive pel-mel to the Capitol to oversee the “insurrection”. A charge quickly dismissed by the Secrete Service but not the democrats running the “hearing”.
Moving right along, Halpin et al. have provided the reader with a list and explanation of their “Values” the first of which is “Liberalism”. I never viewed “liberalism” as a value, even when I was one way back in the day but if Halpin et al. want to call it a value, fine by me. In any event, here is their definition of “liberalism”:
”Liberalism: A project that aims to renew liberal values ought to realize them itself. In practical terms, liberalism as a core value entails a commitment to genuine freedom based on open inquiry, a fair-minded exchange of ideas, and an allergy to dogma from any quarter. It insists on equal treatment and full political rights for all people.”
Let’s take a quick look at John Halpin’s application of “open inquiry, a fair minded exchange of ideas, and allergy to dogma” to the recent SCOTUS decision in Dobbs which overturned Roe v. Wade returning the issue to the states.
Here is what Halpin wrote in a Newsletter called “The Legal Fictions of the Anti-abortion Right”:
”Decent and good-hearted Americans obviously disagree about the morality of abortion at different stages in a pregnancy. Many people express qualms about abortion while others express little concern. This moral uncertainty underlies the majoritarian position of keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare. Because people disagree on abortion, most voters support the Roe status quo, want women to make these decisions not politicians, back birth control, and support policies to help families raise children. But most of these sensible policies are now threatened because the anti-abortion extremists have political power in many states and control of the Court.
Liberal patriots will need to band together to reject the right’s ideological nonsense. America is a land of individual rights and constitutional freedoms for real and existing people—men and women, alike. It is a land of "live and let live" for all citizens, not a country where one narrow moral or religious view is foisted on everyone else. (emphasis added)
Americans who care about freedom and democratic pluralism will need to apply these values to upcoming elections and vote out those zealots who create legal fictions designed to make abortion unsafe, illegal, and unavailable everywhere.”
My primary issue with liberals, progressives, and socialists is their constant assertion of opinion as fact and their constant redefinition of terms to bolster their opinions. These three paragraphs by Halpin are no exception. They are intended to obfuscate the facts. Even Halpin’s assertion that the basis for a “Constitutional right” to abortion resides in the 14th Amendment which addresses the rights of people who are “BORN” in the United States. Here is the logic presented by Halpin and others on the left:
A baby in utero is obviously not born, therefore, it is not a “real and existing person” thus it has not accrued rights of citizenship and as such is not protected by the nation’s laws regarding the taking of a life. And life clearly, cannot occur until a baby is born and capable of living on its own.
Does that make sense to you?
I hope not because it is not a biological reality. I say that with all confidence and without even having to rely on Jeremiah 1:5 which should be enough in and of itself. For those of us opposed to abortion despite Halpin’s assertion to the contrary there is no disagreement about its morality. For those of us who have spent just few minutes understanding the definition of life there is no biological doubt that life begins at conception. For those of us opposed to abortion there is no doubt that a pregnant woman, a baby’s mother, is carrying in her womb a unique individual defined by its DNA from its mother AND its father. And in that regard the mother has a moral obligation to ensure the welfare of that child until it is capable of ensuring its own welfare.
That’s my view.
Halpin et al. may charm you with words to have you believe that they are a different brand of liberal who care about you and YOUR values. Those three paragraphs by Halpin put lie to that assertion.
The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-5
Union, KY
20 July 2022
Hey where's all the money researching artificial wombs for pregnant people who aren't physically able complete the term of pregnancy?