Not all individuals who call themselves Leftists hold to these tenets. But the orthodox within the movement do hold to them. And it's the orthodoxy of the Left that's being addressed here.

Let's not underestimate the Left. It's not W that they're after. At least not him alone. The goal of the Left is to implement socialiam. That's all. To do this, the Left works to install two basic principles into society. These are "redistribution of wealth" and "collectivism". Both of these find their historical basis in Fredrick Hegel, and Karl Marx.

So what gets in their way? Free enterprise, especially on a global scale. When we (businesses large and small) can trade freely and employ our surplus as a tool for entering new markes, then the economy grows and all individuals experience "wealth".

They decry success because not everyone succeeds. So they preach jealousy. After all, some *had* to be taken advantage of during the process. They *deserve* more than they were given. And that, to the Left, is an injustice. To resolve this apparent injustice they employ the principle of redistribution of wealth.

Thomas Malthus was close to correct when he said that the world had a limited amount of wealth if wealth is defined by land and precious metals. So wealth was redefined from value the substance to the value of gain. In other words, by leaving the old gold standard behind we were able to spread wealth instead of simply redistribute it. When that change was instituted, Mathus' economic became irrelevant.

Free enterprise also means property ownership. While we've not seen the measures taken in the US that were taken in the Soviet and Maoist nations, it's interesting that none of the conservative members of the Supreme Court voted with the majority on the Kelo decision (the case in Conneticut allowing municipalities to take private land and redistribute it at will) all of the Left and "liberal" members voted as the majority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html)

What else gets in the way of the Left's goal? Christianity. In its various forms, Christianity expresses itself as transcending all of human existence, and that includes the authority of government. This has been promoted in various manners over time, sometimes in express theocratic experiments and at other times in the simple application of the Judeo-Christian ethic to law, as in the United States. (Evidence of this ethic is the inclusion of Deuteronomic legal precedent in law school training.) In most cases God comes first and government is further down the list.

But for the Left all religion is the opium (what the government uses to pacify the people) or opiate (what the people use to pacify themselves). To allow any faith, but expecially one claiming a transcendence, to maintain this relationship is unthinkable. So they redefine the law and bypass the clear and plain meaning of the Constitution.

There's another aspect of Christianity that confounds them. It's the idea of free moral agency. Because the Left views society as a collective to server the principles of government, to allow, even by definition, real individual moral responsibility in all areas of life is something to be challenged.

So they attack this with laws and regulations based on "class". These essentially racist laws (because they find their source in the ethnic divisions) remove the individual choices and coerce a group think. It works out in a very simple manner. If you're of one group the you get one benefit; if you're of another, it's different. And that means no choice. (Odd, isn't it.)

The approch to creating change that the Left uses is simple and can be stated in a single phrase: Subvert the dominant paradigm. That is, in order to establish socialism one must find ways to counter the current establishment. And the most common method used is to show that the establishment is corrupt.

The presentation of corruption goes to all areas. It may be in terms of societal responsibility ("Why doesn't this government do more?") or it may be in terms of the nations military efforts, fostering a "peace" movement. A third division is to turn the civilian portion of the government against the military component of government.

V. I. Lenin did the same in Russia and gave reference to his peace protestors as "useful idiots" because they did not understand that they were his pawns in the revolution. He weakened the forces under the Czar because they wouldn't fire on other Russians. So in the matter of a few years and several internal skirmishes, he had influenced the system to such a degree of weakness so as to allow for a simple coup to take place.

In the US today the Left is claiming these same corruptions and wokring toward the same end -- the war was wrong, you shouldn't serve in the military under a "corrupt" administration, the President is a war criminal, the President is spying on you, and so forth. All of these lies are built on half-truths, allowing the persuasion of many.

The Left regularly pursues and attacks the institutions that oppose it. Free enterprise is seen as corrupt because too much money is being made and you're being hurt by it. Religion is just a bunch of scammers trying to take your money and your government and thus should be restricted to operating within the four walls of their buildings. It's a partern that anyone can observe.

So what is our response? If we're willing to educate others so that history is known and understood, then the Left will have only its revolutionary fervor but no substance. Let them also be free, but be certain to convey an accurate historical understanding to others.

As a leftie, may I respectfully reply? First, there are lots of "lefts". There is a Roman Catholic and even a Protestant left. The former is bruised and battered, but still there. They focus on what is called the "social gospel". Very heavy on the "four" and uncomfortable with other Christians bopping back and forth between the old testament and Acts, gliding over the actual gospels. There is the academic left, disappointed in the failure of the Soviet system and Castroism, finding solace in postmodern deconstructionism- a jive nihilism. I have been a gov't bureaucrat and on the receiving end of petty bureaucratic officiousness. This is no more of an argument for throttling gov't than preachers having affairs with churchgoers or priests fondling boys being an argument for abolishing religion. If thine eye offends, strike it out. No wait. We don't do things that way. I keep going back to Teddy Roosevelt, essentially disowned by Republicans. He was clearly a "regulator". saying that if we are to have big business, we need three legs to counterbalance each other, the other two being big government and big labor. Sound like a leftist? Or a prophet?
There is a liberal left as well. Good hearted folks, if a trifle anxious. They hope that draconian gun laws will make themselves safer, their anxiety less. Would that it were so. They hope that we might give succor to all the world's downtrodden billions. Would that it were so. They hope that if the world would become vegans and eschew motorized transport, the world could accomodate its teeming billions and then some. Would that were so. Their kind hearts dominate their cerebral cortex. Then there is the rest of us.
If popular thought takes two steps to the right. and the rest of stay put, the center becomes the left. Check out what Adam Smth said about really large companies, T. Jefferson too. And consider why you are here on this forum....

Your criticism is understood.

Yes, the Left as a movement is not a monolith and not all hold to the tenets to the same degree. That's why I went to the basics and a few examples. And that's why I prefaced with the blue text.

Jesus statements about removing your eye if it offends you was hyperbole. That's pretty clear from the rest of the passage.

Whether one's perception changes by degree is rather immaterial as it's primarily positions being dealt with here rather than applicaiton.

O that people would forsake "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx) and accept "Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased." (Adam Smith)

Actually no, that why the heading of the forum is Conservatives only.

At least (presumably) he was more civil (though less intelligible) than some of the others.