Why don’t conservatives and moderates see eye to eye?

Why don’t conservatives see eye to eye with moderates?

by Don Hank

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.   Ephesians 6:12

A good friend of mine (whom we shall call X herein), recently raised a very important question (see title) that we often fail to answer, mostly because most of us simply can’t. This is because there are 2 kinds of true conservatives:

1–the kind who have been brought up to believe in a rigid conservative ideology, whose instincts tell them they are right but who have no idea why or how to defend it. This group is hard put to articulate its ideas and hence often reacts with anger to the Left and to ‘moderates.’ They expect them to understand common sense, and in a perfect world, they would. (They don’t understand the spiritual block against understanding).

2–the kind who have thought things through and can answer the questions of the Left and the ‘moderates’ who are deceived by the Left.

I strive to belong to the latter group. Lord forgive me where I have failed, but I try. Here is my response to X’s question as to why moderates are different from conservatives.

 

Dear X,

I think the main reason for the difference is that moderate conservatives don’t see the ‘continental drift’ of popular social and political thought in recent years. They have no idea what cultural Marxism is and they can’t see how they are manipulated by the MSM. After all, has anyone noticed the physical drift in the American continent in their lifetime? It is too minuscule to notice. Only a scientist can verify its existence. By the same token, most people could not possibly notice how the nation’s definition of ‘conservative’ has been stealthily altered by sly operatives in MSM, ‘education,’ politics, Hollywood, academe, etc.

In particular, they don’t understand that a group of white billionaire elitist men is trying to grab the reins of the planet. To them that is just too outlandish to wrap their minds around. That is also why they still insist that G.W. Bush, an advocate of a borderless US (NAU), of amnesty for the lawless, of the bailout of banks with your money and mine, and of Middle East wars that result in the death and exodus of millions of Christians, is a conservative.

It is all a matter of perception, and of our willingness to face truth head-on rather than simply to dodge the more thorny issues. More importantly, it is a spiritual question and they are spiritually blind.

Ironically, the most powerful apologists for Judeo-Christianity are the atheist-humanist transnational elitists themselves. Even if most people steadfastly believe that our struggle is against operatives of the material world, the behavior of these elitists clearly demonstrates that they know it is a spiritual battle and not a material one. They fight with that realization in mind, while we largely struggle—vainly—on the material level and wonder how it is that we are failing. Yet how could we possibly expect to win if we direct our efforts at a target that is not there?

Read more:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/why-don-t-conservatives-see-eye-to-eye-with-moderates

Definition drift in the Snowden case

Most Americans still associate the idea of illegal informants or spies with people like the Rosenbergs, who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Indeed, articles on famous spies before about 1970 show that most high profile cases were working for the Soviets.

Thus, before the 70s, a spy was generally thought of as a person who shared secrets, often military, with a perceived enemy who could be expected to use those secrets to harm America, and the expected or potential harm was usually of a military nature.

Beginning with the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971, the unofficial definition of “espionage” and “spy” started to shift subliminally in the minds of Americans, along with the unofficial definition of “enemy,” in keeping with the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China. In the broadest terms, the shift could be described as being away from freedom and toward government tyranny.

Of the ten accused informants under this act, none were said to have spied for the Soviet Union, only one, Bradley Manning, allegedly leaked information that may have compromised the safety of American and allied military personnel and one, Jeffrey Sterling, allegedly leaked information about US planned sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, which could have perhaps enabled the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon somewhat earlier. These three could have arguably compromised our security.

The others, however, disclosed classified details, mostly to reporters, that in the Old America, We the people would have felt entitled to know.

More here:

 http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/definition-drift-in-the-ed-snowden-case