Guess Which State Leads the Way in Liberal Fascism?

I saw a graphic the other day that read, “Okay, joke’s over. Show me the real presidential candidates.” My sentiment exactly, this isn’t funny anymore. Neither candidate has demonstrated comprehension of the U.S. Constitution. Neither has given me any spiritual peace. Neither candidate has given me any reason to believe that they will protect the document that secures our liberties. Aside from Mr. Trump’s legitimate complaints regarding Obama’s immigration policies, I’m simply not convinced. And Mrs. Clinton suggested a 550% increase in immigrants without a system to vet them.

Trending: Creepy Joe Biden One-Ups Hillary’s “Deplorables” Comment, Angers Americans

President Obama insists that the Presidency is not a reality television show, although the primaries certainly seem as much. Now that we have the two candidates, each representative of his or her party, reality television takes on a whole new meaning. To be perfectly honest, neither party is giving me any reason to take sides. Democrats never fail to take advantage of a tragedy to politicize an agenda. Republicans simply cannot unite long enough to make a difference.

Regardless, I will have to choose one. My conscience will be my guide. I cannot tell for whom my vote will be cast come November other than #NeverHillary. But I pray I am not in California when that time comes. We are planning on a move back to my home state of Texas. There we will be in familiar company. Our families are mostly living in Texas. And there are still a majority of fundamentally conservative thinkers in Texas. Luck and chance are meaningless in my specific world view. So I don’t think it coincidental that we began planning our move nearly 3 months ago. Yes, we are leaving California, land of the Progressive.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The term progressive means favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform[1]. I had always thought of progressive as improvement. But, it occurs to me that the definition may have evolved over time to include those who call themselves Democrats, Liberals and, well, Progressives. The thesaurus doesn’t change my hypothesis: advanced, liberal, avant-garde, innovative[2]. So, the one reference I always look to when a good definition is desired, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary: Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; as progressive motion or course; opposed to retrograde[3]. The result, it seems, is that the term progressive has become more inclusive of certain characteristics, much like the Democratic party. Strangely ironic, though, how the Democratic party seems to push everything backwards.

Interestingly enough, it seems that when not enough is being done to progress the liberal ideology of inclusion – thus opposing exclusion – the Democrats in California set the pace and the bar for progressives nationwide. California is not afraid to challenge the U.S. Constitution and throw our rights under the bus. One case in point is a new bill, SB 1146, which poses a direct threat to private colleges and universities that still provide focus on teaching with a biblical world view. These are not seminaries, but universities that, given biblical principles, reject the LGBT agenda and seek to foster a student body that reflects the principles of the university.

liberalfascism-1-1024x461It is written that a little yeast in the dough leavens the entire lump. That is, allowing individuals into the student body that really have no desire to be a reflection of those principles is destructive to the foundation of the organization. While the U.S. Constitution instructs that Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of a religion, certain states act contrary to the ideology that Freedom of Religion incurs. Religion is, in and of itself, exclusive. Every religion has a set of principles by which one abides to properly claim membership to it’s respective doctrine. Institutions founded on a set of religious principles – whether business, college or church – must be allowed to employ those principles at will. If one does not agree with the principles, then one simply looks elsewhere.

California bill, SB 1146, introduced in February, 2016 by Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, passed the state Senate on May 26. Senator Lara is part of the state Legislature’s California Legislative LGBT Caucus. As reported by the Daily Signal, Lara stated, “Under state law, at least 34 California universities are exempt and do not have to comply with state nondiscrimination laws, leaving thousands of students open to discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.” He goes on to add, “These universities have a license to discriminate and students have absolutely no recourse.”

I openly challenge the Honorable Senator Lara to debate this issue with common sense and logic.

First, keeping in mind that any religion, by the nature of its doctrine, is exclusive, we must concede authority to those institutions whose principles are founded within its respective religious doctrine. This particular bill, aimed at colleges and universities, seeks to impose a ‘right of inclusion’. Specifically, no such right exists. In a previous article, the enumeration of Natural Rights makes no provision for inclusion. Freedom and liberty are independent of one’s inclusion into a group or institution. Inclusion is a privilege and those rules of inclusion are what separate and identify one group from another.

Second, progressives like Senator Lara designate the religious clause a ‘loophole’. The ‘loophole’ is by design; therefore, not a loophole but a means by which institutions founded on religious principle are allowed to maintain the authority of its respective doctrine. To refer to the design as a loophole trivializes a Constitutionally protected right.

Of the 42 universities that are potentially at risk of losing the authority granted by its respective religious doctrine, none are specifically Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or New Age (although interdenominational could be considered as such) and only 1 is specifically Jewish. However, there are exactly 34 universities that specify either a denomination of or association with Christianity, or use the term undenominational which really only has meaning within the Christian faith.

If this assault against religious liberty is successful, churches will be next. We have already witnessed the LGBT lobby force Christian business owners close shop and lose property.

My third point of contention with Sen. Lara is that students absolutely have recourse. As I mentioned earlier, if one does not agree with the principles of an organization, one moves on and continues the search. However, people have somehow come to believe that inclusion is an entitlement. To claim entitlement is to covertly suggest one has a right.

I believe Senator Lara has no religious affiliation. I will concede that he may believe in an unnamed higher power but is otherwise unattached. So he doesn’t understand the exclusivity of religion. Maybe the senator believes he was slighted by a college fraternity and wasn’t included in the frivolity and camaraderie afforded its members. Maybe there are underlying issues of unresolved rejection in his past. Regardless, Jesus will accept him as he is and, therefore, I will, too. I would invite him to church to learn about our Savior. But I know that no legislation is going to change how my church feels about the homosexual lifestyle.

Then again it is possible that the Senator’s higher power is himself and will likely reject the One who says He came to bring division (Luke  12:51). Exclusivity is built into doctrines of faith. In Christianity, we can look at John 14:6, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” That is exclusive. I’d like to see the legislation that tries to force inclusion on Heaven.

If inclusion were an entitlement religious doctrine would be meaningless. Democratic and Republican parties would never have existed. Nations would have no grounds for sovereignty and borders. The world would be one big happy socialist blob.

My suggestion to the ‘Entitlement Crowd’ is to get over yourself and find a group that already exhibits your principles. And when you feel adventurous, try something new. But quit trying to change everyone to meet your criteria.

[1] – progressive –

[2] – progressive –

[3] Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Online Edition – progressive –


David Boarman

I am Christian, a husband and a father. Currently, we live in Oceanside, California (which is ironic in so many ways). We moved to San Diego in November, 2011 for a software engineering job. Beginning in November, 2014, I began a journey that has culminated in vast understanding of our natural, inalienable rights. I have converted a Facebook page (formerly for a bid as a presidential candidate). The FB page, Old Guard Federalists, is now about our rights - educate, learn and defend.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.