The Make-Believe World of Modern Liberals

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2010


The first thing we should understand about modern liberals is that they deeply hate the true tenets of Christianity, which teaches the values of truth, integrity, and individual responsibility. Many, being agnostics or atheists, do not believe in religion, and therefore have no immutable moral values. Their values are subject to constant change, and many merely choose values that most fit the way they wish to live at the time. One has as much authority as the other in this regard – there are no unchangeable moral values, as in Christianity, Judaism, and some other religions. These kinds of liberal ideas lead to the acceptance of such things as fornication, living together out of wedlock, having children out of wedlock, adultery, and sodomy as moral "lifestyles." They accept as moral activity the killing of unborn babies, and even the killing of many babies who are born alive and healthy after the failure of late-term abortions.[1]

Modern liberalism is responsible for the steep decline in morality in America and the world during the last fifty years. With our decline in the belief of individual responsibility comes socialism, as we witness today in the "healthcare" bills in congress. And with socialism comes the erosion of our basic human and constitutional rights.[2]

However, people seem to have a yearning for acceptance that leads liberals into the world of make-believe. They want to falsely change things to make their immoral acts acceptable as proper and moral to all. These ideas lead to things that would be really comical were it not for the harm to society they are doing. It is truly a land of make-believe.

Many groups of liberals want to change history, our dictionaries, our encyclopedias, and even the Bible to falsely reflect their "politically correct" ideas. These groups include feminists, atheists, evolutionists, and various liberal churches.[3] Facts, truth, and Christian morality mean nothing to them.

Many churches have caved in to modern liberalism and present make-believe religions. Such churches have been influenced by several things – the strongest of which have been Darwinian evolution and the homosexual agenda.[4]

Falsifying history to fit their views has long been a part of the homosexual agenda. They deceptively try to make us believe that great figures in history were homosexual – from Jesus to George Washington. Our colleges and schools have caved in to them and indoctrinate young people and children with their propaganda. They wish to infiltrate our churches, the military, and even the Boy Scouts, and bring the acceptance of sodomy into them. They want to even change our basic institution of marriage between a man and a woman. The primary object is to teach that right is wrong and that wrong is right.[5]

Feminists have pushed for same-sex dormitories in colleges and universities, and in the military. And even same-sex toilets and restrooms. They wanted separate men's and women's restrooms eliminated. I suppose, to be consistent, they want group showers, such as dormitory and barracks showers, same sex, too.

The feminist movement has done great harm to our military. Now, they not only require absurdity in our military services, but the brainwashing of our officers who have some common sense; and the elimination from the armed forces of those who have the temerity to recognize, even in private conversations, the quite obvious fact that women, on the average, are not as capable as men in many areas of the military. Our country is most fortunate that such "enlightened" leadership did not exist during the Second World War.  Otherwise, we would probably now be under the rule of some foreign power—either Germany or Japan .

Judge Robert Bork makes the case for the terrible harm done to our society by the feminist movement.[6] Performance in our military academies has been downgraded to accommodate the women cadets.  For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons, because the women are not able to do that. Women cannot perform nearly as well as men in the training programs.[7]

In Air Force Academy physical fitness tests, very few women could even do one pull-up on a horizontal bar, so the women were given credit for the time that they could merely hang up on the bar. Female cadets averaged about four times as many visits to the medical clinic as males. At West Point, the injury rate of women in field training was fourteen times that of men, and 61 percent of the women failed the complete physical tests, as compared with 4.8 percent of the men. "During the Army basic training, women broke down in tears, particularly on the rifle range."[8]

"Pregnancies due to sex during the preceding phase, Desert Shield, were the primary reason the non-deployability rate of women was many times higher than that of men when the troops were called to battle in Desert Storm." It has been reported that ships have been recalled from missions because of pregnancy of female sailors.[9]

The above information about the absurdity and harm of the feminist movement related by Judge Bork may also be found on this website.[10]

There are many other excesses of the feminist movement.[11] They want to rewrite history. They want to rewrite our Bible, our dictionaries, our encyclopedias, and our textbooks to reflect their fantasies. They want gender references removed or changed to female gender. Sadly, their success has been amazing and very destructive to our culture. Moral sexuality has no place in their thinking. Sodomy and other sexual deviancies are now to be considered acceptable and moral.

President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration make-believe that we are not in a war against Islamic terrorism. They carefully avoid even using the phrase, "war on terrorism." They try to convince us that the Islamic religion is on the same plain as Christianity, and should be equally respected. The liberal media do the same. When the massacre occurred at Fort Hood by the Islamic radical, Nidal Malik Hasan, the administration and the liberal media started talking about possible mental problems of the perpetrator, when all of the evidence pointed toward the act of an Islamic terrorist. In fact the man's beliefs and Islamic terrorist orientation were known and documented before the incident, but the political correctness of the administration, and the military under our new "Commander in Chief," left the man in the service and in a position to do just what he had previously advocated. The shooting left 13 dead and as many as 38 wounded.

Ever since the Muslim religion of Islam has been in existence, there have been wars of various kinds against the "unbelievers." Their "Jihads" and terrorism have become a way of life for large numbers of them. It started with their prophet, Mohammad, who was continually involved in wars to make the "unbelievers" submit to Islam and Islamic rule. At one point the Muslims had control of a good part of Europe, and they hate the Christians because the Crusaders finally pushed them out of Europe. Christians and Jews are persecuted around the world in Muslim countries. Even their own people do not have basic human rights in Muslim countries.[12] Our president and many in the country do not seem to recognize who and what our enemy really is. This is very dangerous make-believe.

Some of the worst harm to the country has been by liberal justices in the United States Supreme Court. They have changed and destroyed parts of our Constitution to make it conform to their own personal views and liberal biases.[13]

From time to time, the courts necessarily need to determine the purpose and application of certain parts of our Constitution. There is only one way that it can be done so as not to reflect the particular personal views and biases of the judges or justices making the determination. That is to construe it according to the purpose for which it was enacted, and according to the intent of those who formed and ratified it. It is that purpose which should control, and not what some justice thinks it should be under current circumstances. There are many ways in which the intent and purpose of a provision may be determined. Some are debates, writings by knowledgeable people at the time such as the Federalist Papers, laws and Constitutions in the states at the time our national Constitution was enacted, and history. Great emphasis should be placed on the plain wording of a provision. 

Our Constitution specifically provides for changing it to fit current needs and changes in our society, but that is within the sole province of the people and their representatives – not the courts. But our Supreme Court Justices have often usurped this right of the people, and changed our Constitution to suit themselves.

The United States Constitution specifically provides for and recognizes capital punishment in four different places. Nevertheless, our imperial Supreme Court, in 1972, in the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), held in a Georgia case where two defendants had been given the death penalty for rape and murder, and in a Texas  case in which a defendant was given the death penalty for rape, that the penalties were unconstitutional in these cases.[14] This was a five to four decision. The case was unusual in that nine separate opinions were written. This decision created such a sense of confusion in our law that it appeared for awhile that the death penalty was unconstitutional. Some of the justices on the majority side wanted to declare any death penalty unconstitutional.

There was a great outcry throughout the country, and by many legal scholars, about the usurping of the authority of the legislative branches of the government, and of the people, in the Furman v. Georgia case. Fortunately, on the matter of capital punishment, a solid majority of the United States Supreme Court came back to their senses and affirmed several death penalty cases in 1976. However, the cases together have left such confusion in the law, with the many restrictions set, that we can expect the issue to be continually argued in many future cases. The right of the people and their representatives to decide these matters still remains usurped by the courts to a large degree.

The worst mischief the U. S. Supreme Court has ever done to this country and its Constitution was the false and fraudulent invention of a constitutional "right of privacy."[15]

The Right of Privacy is not in our Constitution, is not supported by history or precedent at the time our founders framed and adopted it, and is completely an invention of activist judges engaging in deceit. It is an ingenious method of extending the power of the court far beyond its constitutional limits. Since the "Right of Privacy" is not in the constitution and is not supported by history and precedent when the Constitution was framed and adopted, or when the Fourteenth Amendment was framed and adopted, there is no valid precedent to determine what it means or what it covers. This leaves it wide open for the judges to place whatever meaning they choose in a particular case, and have it cover whatever they want it to at a particular time. This is the ultimate in flagrant judicial misbehavior, and is a disgrace to our Constitution and to our Country.

In their creation of a constitutional "right of privacy," the liberal justices not only usurped the sole right of the people to make and change their Constitution, they also usurped the inherent rights of Congress and the States to pass laws upholding the morals of the community, and for the safety and wellbeing of the people. A tracing of the history of this fraudulent creation shows how insidious and nefarious their actions were. Their methods used were underhanded and deceptive in every respect.

This unlawful creation began in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), in which the appellant was convicted in state court of having various pornographic items which were admittedly obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that the necessary evidence for conviction was barred because of the unlawful search and seizure. It also overruled a prior United States Supreme Court case that held the opposite. Four justices dissented.

Now for real the mischief.[16] Several times in the opinion this right against unlawful search and seizure was referred to as a "right of privacy." Since these words are not in the Fourth Amendment, they could only have been descriptive of the actual right, which is simply the right against unlawful search and seizure. That is the one constitutional right on which the case was based. That wording is not included in the Fourth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution. There is also nothing in our history or in the debates and papers relevant to the Fourth Amendment that would support any right of privacy. It was a complete farce. In fact the Fourth Amendment itself shows that it does not create a right of privacy. Had the search and seizure been lawful, these same private items could have unquestionably been used in evidence. The words regarding the right of privacy were also completely unnecessary and entirely irrelevant to the case. Yet the Mapp case and its progeny would be cited over and over, creating "constitutional rights" that were nothing but fraudulent fictions used for liberal justices to change our Constitution to conform to their own personal biases, and political and social views. Now we have a make-believe Constitution.

The next important case in this fictitious creation was Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). A Connecticut statute was struck down that made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart pointed out that Connecticut had the law on its books since 1879. The case does not say, but probably other states had similar laws. Yet this Supreme Court overturned the law, taking this right away from all of the states and their citizens, with no sound basis whatsoever. The non-existent "right of privacy" was extended a step further. The Mapp case was cited as precedent, even though that case was based solely on the Fourth Amendment, and the Griswold  case was not. But the worst was yet to come.

The liberal justices, having control of the United States Supreme Court, continued their constitutional mischief, citing one wrongful case after another, building on their false precedent set in the Mapp and Griswold cases. It is not feasible to go into all of them in this paper, but the book, A Way to Save Our Constitution from Judges, on this website, goes into them at length. I will comment on two of the most flagrantly wrong ones.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was the basic case that declared a constitutional right to an abortion. It struck down a Texas law which was a typical law in the country prohibiting abortions, except when necessary to protect the life of the mother. There were three dissents in the case.[17] Under their "right of privacy" fiction, the liberal majority held that there was a Constitutional right to abortion, and struck down the Texas law.

The following, from Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade, shows the basis of the opinion:

Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); ...

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

We see that what the Court did was apply the "right of privacy" as created in the Mapp and Griswold cases to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is construed as extending the Bill of Rights, which originally applied only to the U. S. Congress, to the states.

The majority and dissenting opinions show that the history of laws against abortion in English common law go back to before there was a United States. They were continued in this country prior to the time there was a United States, and continued after our Constitution was formed. There was nothing in our history, constitutional debates, or relevant papers indicating that those who formed and ratified our Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, intended for there to be either a right of privacy or a constitutional right to an abortion. All of these things showed the exact opposite. There could have been no intention to overturn the laws against abortion in the states or prohibit Congress from enacting such laws in the territories.   

As Justice Rehnquist stated in the dissent in Roe:

By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." ...

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

The people who formed our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were learned and brilliant men, and had they intended our Constitution to provide either a right of privacy or a right to abortion, they were certainly capable of saying so, and would have put them plainly in the Constitution. I consider them far more capable than these liberal justices who thought that their minds were so brilliant and illuminating that the Constitution should be changed to fit their personal points of view. They were actually just plain frauds.

I consider the most flagrant usurpation of the rights of the people to have occurred in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In this case the Supreme Court overruled a prior correct case, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 176 (1986), that upheld the right of the people to pass laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Citing Griswold, and extending the "right of privacy," they made engaging in homosexual sodomy a constitutional right. It struck down a Texas statute that made such conduct a criminal offense. 

This decision and the language used show an utter disregard of the intent and purpose of the phrases in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that a person shall not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." There is nothing in this opinion that goes to the intent and purpose of those who gave us our Bill of Rights, or of the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is clear beyond any doubt that the majority is basing this decision on their own personal ideas and biases and that they prefer certain changes in thinking of modern times to our Constitution.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, the opinion by Justice White upholding a Georgia sodomy statute that provided for punishment of up to20 years imprisonment, stated:

Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. ... Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.

In a concurring opinion in the Bowers case, Justice Burger noted:

As the Court notes, ante, at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816 the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.[18]

When the Court overruled the Bowers case and held homosexual sodomy to be a constitutional right it violated all concepts of common sense and legal reasoning to impose the personal views and biases of the liberal justices in the majority.

Our Constitution begins with the words, We the People of the United States. As President Abraham Lincoln said, it was intended that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The rights of the people to govern themselves have now been severely eroded by an imperial Supreme Court. This past damage to our Constitution could easily be corrected, and prevented in the future,[19] but the people have apathetically failed to do so.

Political correctness and our make-believe world have also invaded modern science. I will not lengthen this paper by going into this subject in detail, but I will make some summary comments on three branches of science that have been strongly contaminated by this modern liberalism. I plan to later write and post on this website detailed and supported articles on each of the three.

The first is global warming. For a long time many scientists have been saying that the information being presented to the world that global warming was largely man made, and that we could therefore correct or eliminate it by doing various things, amounted to a hoax. Because of recently obtained information, it now appears that a number of scientists have indeed been presenting fraudulent information to us. Important information in this regard has been obtained through emails that were obtained by hacking into the website and emails of the world's most influential research organization on global warming, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at England's University of East Anglia. This is coming to be known as the Climategate scandal. Some of our National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists also appear to be implicated in this scandal. If this is the hoax that it appears, we have already wasted millions and maybe billions of dollars on the hoax, and the leaders of the global warming movement are calling for the expenditure of trillions more by the world, most of which would be born by this country.  

The second area is psychology and homosexuality. Ever since there has been psychiatry and psychology, homosexuality was generally and officially recognized by psychiatrists and psychologists as a pathological mental illness, until the liberal and homosexual movements of the 1960's. As a result of intimidation by threats and violence against these organizations by activist homosexuals, in the 1970's homosexuality was removed from their classification as a psychological disorder, and was classified as normal activity. Classifying the vile and destructive acts of homosexual sodomy as acceptable and normal was truly a pure fiction.

The third area is Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Evolution, although it is an unproved and improvable theory – particularly when it gets into the origin of life – has falsely been taught in our schools as established fact. On the other hand, intelligent design in nature and in the universe has been recognized throughout history and by most if not all of our greatest minds in history. It is quite obvious in nature to anyone who approaches it with a little common sense. Nevertheless evolutionists continually fight having nature's intelligent design taught in our schools, and have been very successful in their opposition. The reason they fight it is because design indicates a designer; and evolutionists want us to believe that everything that has occurred in our universe and life itself came about by accident. These people truly live in a world of make-believe. In my opinion, this fiction of evolution has done more harm to the Christian and Judaic religions than anything that has ever happened. It is also one of the important bases of atheism and modern liberalism.

[1] See the parts about abortion in the articles on this website, Barack Hussein Obama is a Fraud and Facts, Truth, and Morals are Irrelevant to Democrats.

[2] See the articles on this website, Why our Founders Feared a Democracy, Why We Are Losing Our God Given Rights, and America's Trojan Horse – Government Run Healthcare.

[3] See Liberal Revisionists Present False History and Moral Decay, The Immoral Religions of Atheism and Evolution, The Sodomizing of Our Churches, and Facts, Truth, and Morals are Irrelevant to Democrats under Articles on this website.

[4] See The Sodomizing of Our Churches, supra..

[5] See Liberal Revisionists Present False History and Moral Decay, supra.

[6] Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Gomorra . New York,  Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1996, pp.218-223.

[7] Supra, p. 221

[8] Supra.

[9] Supra.

[10] Pages 221-224, As We Sodomize America, under Books.

[11] See Liberal Revisionists Present False History and Moral Decay, supra.

[12] See the article on this website, Muslim Nations Deny Basic Human Rights.

[13] See the book, A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges, under Books, and the article, Saving Our Constitution From Judges, under Articles, on this website.

[14] A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges, supra, pp. 150-155.

[15] Supra, pp. 68-80

[16] Supra.

[17] Supra, p. 210.

[18] Supra, pp. 333-334.

[19] Supra, Chapter XII, and the article, Saving Our Constitution From Judges, under Articles, on this website.