Category: Biblical Family

CHRISTIANS TRAIN YOUR CHILDREN

Christians train your children; or the Godless, progressive, social Marxists, will train them for you. Our children are a precious gift from God. The Bible demonstrates that God has a plan for each individual before they are conceived. In Psalms 39:13-14 we read,

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4, states,

A baby is in a bowl with pink stuff around it.

“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 anointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”

Since God has a plan for every person before they were conceived, Biblical Christian parents have an obligation to raise and train their children in a manner that allows each child to discover “the way they should go.” Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” Similarly, Ephesians 6:4 reminds Christians to “bring [our children] up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” In 1Kings 8:36b, Solomon prayed that God would teach the Israelites the “right way to live.” Titus 2:1-2 tells us that we must “teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.  Teach older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.”

Christians train your children is a command from God not a suggestion. The following four Bible verses provide additional guidance to parents about God’s command to teach our children:

“These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”  Deuteronomy 6:6-9

“Those who spare the rod [fail to discipline] hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.” Proverbs 13:24

“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” Galatians 6:9

“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.” 1 John 3:4

The critical question for Biblical Christians is this. Can we allow Godless, atheistic, progressive, social Marxists in our public schools and state universities to teach our Christian children and grandchildren moral precepts and values that contradict Biblical morality and precepts? In my opinion, God would say no, we must “train [our children] in the way [they] should go.” God provides this warning to Biblical Christian parents in James 3:1b “we who teach will be judged more strictly.” Teaching our children is something that Biblical Christians cannot delegate to non-Christians.

Unfortunately, today’s Biblical Christians are like the proverbial frog in a pan of water where the temperature is being gradually increased to a lethal boiling temperature. We are near lethality because we have been duped by progressive educators who told us they only have the best interest of the children in their hearts. In my opinion, one of the best means of learning about the century long progressive plan to undermine Biblical Christianity’s role in our nation’s global influence, success, and prosperity is Pete Hegseth’s 10-part Fox Nation series, “The Miseducation of America.” The series explains how the progressive strategy of undermining Biblical Christianity as the moral underpinning of our society began in earnest over 100 years ago during the Wilson Administration with subtle changes in curricula, the Gary Indiana progressive school system and curricula experiment, and the progressive origin of our “Pledge of Allegiance” designed to change our children’s allegiance from God to our nation and its flag. Originally, the pledge did not contain the phrase “under God” added by President Eisenhour during the height of the “cold War.” The series also explains the reason progressives try to force preschoolers and elementary students to conform to their Godless and immoral concepts of sexuality and gender identity. In the late 1800’s, prohibitionist’s nationwide third grade anti-alcohol curricula led to passage of Amendment XVIII prohibiting sale and distribution of alcohol. The power of early childhood education as a tool to change and manipulate social, moral, and ethical standards in the United States was demonstrated by the prohibition curricula against alcohol.

Biblical Christians, Baptists, Nazarenes, Assembly of God, Four Square, and Evangelicals in “cultural Christian” denominations are decades behind progressives in the field of education and their assault on the Judeo-Christian values that have served the United States very well since our founding. Progressives and the left have an “educational dictatorship” teaching curricula that is Marxist propaganda. These progressive educators teach Marxist critical race theory, Queer Theory, gender theory, and Marxism in virtually every academic discipline from Preschool to Ph.D., Marxist PP. Fortunately, we can take heart as we seek to regain and maintain our parental rights pertaining to teaching and raising our children. God tells us in Romans 8:31; “What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” It is time to unite. Christians train your children.

First, most Biblical Christians and religious Jews do not consider politics as a part of our Great Commission mission. However, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul did not hesitate to confront the political leaders of their time, Sadducees, Pharisees, governors, and kings in their seats of power, synagogues, and palaces. In the United States, politicians are using their executive and legislative power to make many aspects of Biblical Christian life illegal. To ensure our religious freedom and parental rights, the Judeo-Christian community must become political. Data shows that the majority of the Judeo-Christian community is no more likely to be registered to vote and vote than the general population. The 2024 election could be an exception to this generality. If we were able to increase our national voter registration and election participation from 50% to 75%, we would add 8,000,000 to 15,000,000 votes, or more, in presidential elections. Such an increase would require voter registration and get out the vote campaigns where necessary. Similar increases in the Christian vote would also impact state and local elections, including school board elections changing the nature of public education one board member and school board at a time. In these situations, there would be no question regarding the winner of the popular vote in election after election. Conservative candidates supportive of Judeo-Christian values from the Presidency, US Congress, state, and local offices would also be elected. As in 2016, election of candidates supportive of our Judeo-Christian values could also impact the composition of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States. In the current situation, replacement of one progressive Justice with another Scalia would create a 7-2 Constitutional originalist Supreme Court majority or maintain the current 6-3 majority that would last for decades. Christians train your children by participation in your school board elections voting for candidates supporting your Judeo-Christian values or becoming a school board candidate yourself.

Second, Biblical Christians and religious Jews need to become politicians especially at the state and local level especially as school board members. Many more members of the Judeo-Christian community need to become local participants at state legislative sessions and lobbyists meeting personally with state and national legislators, city and county leaders, and school board members. These activities are especially effective when constituents meet their leaders in groups since numbers have an impact. Groups of Judeo-Christians and a growing number of Muslims are joining together to share resources and numbers impacting School boards and other elections. Two of these groups are Moms for Liberty and the ParentalRights Foundation. Progressives are training our children now; but God’s admonition to us is, Christians train your children. It is time to get started.

When Judeo-Christians and Biblical Christians become political, we cannot neglect our primary mission found in Mathew 28;19-20:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

It is encouraging to know the following:

“If a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5% probability everyone else in the household will follow. If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17% probability everyone else in the household will follow. But if the father is first, there is a 93% probability everyone else in the household will follow.”

The challenges are great; but each Biblical Christian understands that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13).

Remember, Christians train your children is God’s command not a suggestion.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

 

 

 

CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS MARXIST

 

Evolution of Critical Race Theory

A black background with white text that says " say no to critical race theory ".

Critical race theory is Marxist; and it is not new. Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of American legal scholars. Critical race theory emerged as a serious academic movement by the 1980s. Critical race theory is rooted in critical theory. Critical race theory has two common themes. First, it claims that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, maintains power through the law. Second, transforming the relationship between law and racial power and achievement of racial emancipation and anti-subordination is possible. Consequently, critical race theory exchanges the two traditional Marxist classes, oppressive capitalists and oppressed labors for oppressive structural racism and white supremacists and oppressed minorities primarily blacks. This is the classical Marxist strategy of fomenting class, or racial, warfare. In 1997, Judge Richard Posner argued that Critical race theory turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative,” and “by repudiating reasoned argumentation, [critical race theorists] reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites. Former Judge Alex Kozinski criticized critical race theorists in 1997 for raising “insuperable barriers to mutual understanding” eliminating opportunities for “meaningful dialog. Therefore, critical race theory labels all white people with their white privilege as oppressors who use structural racism to suppress minorities, especially blacks. The result is high levels of racial animosity.

Critical Theory (CT) is a Marxist approach to social philosophy that focuses on the critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. CT is foundational to critical race theory. With origins in sociology, psychology, psychiatry, and literary criticism, CT argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. CT maintains that ideology is the principle obstacle to human liberation.

Critical theory was established as a school of thought In sociology, psychology, psychiatry, and political philosophy primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them,” a key tenant of Marxism. Critical Theory means the Western-Marxist philosophy developed in Germany in the 1930s and drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Modern CT has also been influenced by Gyrgy Luk¡cs and Antonio Gramsci, as well as second-generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jrgen Habermas. In Habermas’s work, CT transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social “base and superstructure” is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much contemporary CT.

Approximately a decade before critical race theory began to emerge in the United states, Herbert Marcuse, considered the Father of the new left, observed that before radical Marxist change could occur in Western Europe and the United states, a propaganda based educational dictatorship would be required. Marcuse described the strategies necessary to establish the educational dictatorship and the groups, embraced by critical race theorists, that would best serve as radical revolutionaries to change western culture.

Critical Race Theory Revolutionaries and Tactics

Marcuse identified anti-capitalists, radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, exploited, persecuted outcasts and outsiders of ethnic minorities, people of color, the unemployed, and the unemployable as trainable revolutionaries. Ethnic and gender study programs were established in most universities to train the envisioned revolutionaries.” He favored these groups, the new proletarians, or laborers, of modern Marxism because he correctly believed that working class labors were no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in western society and culture. Critical race theory became the perfect educational dictatorship tool to train a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change. Today, the Marxist critical race theory revolutionaries identified by Marcuse, are our educators from preschool to Ph.D., including National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers union leadership and members, publishers, progressive mainstream news media conglomerates, journalists, pundits, and commentators, corporate and social media executives, and leaders of the military industrial complex.  Antifa affiliate members throughout Western Europe and the United States are the useful unemployed and the unemployable violent minions of progressive intolerance¦ and undemocratic means.

Strategically, Marcuse called for the gradual elimination of conservative faculty, speakers, and student groups, first at our universities, then our high schools, elementary schools, and finally in our kindergartens and preschools. Although Marcuse did not advocate violence, he indicated that the process could involve intolerance¦ and undemocratic means. The political correctness movement and designation of conservative speech as offensive trigger language, safe speech zones, cancel culture, conservative speaker shout downs, demonstrations, and Antifa riots designed to drive conservatives from campuses and our streets are some of the tactics of intolerance¦ and undemocratic means that have evolved to establish the Marcuse educational dictatorship. Currently, the corporate executives of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to name the most powerful speech and search platforms on the internet, were educated at universities controlled by the Marxist educational dictatorship and their Marxist curricula. Consequently, these platforms do not hesitate to reduce or eliminate conservative voices by intolerance¦ and undemocratic means.

Marxism, Critical Race Theory, and Black Lives Matter

A statue of karl marx in front of trees.

Since their leaders claim to be trained Marxist, advocates of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter generally support the tenants of Marxism listed below. The section, of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists, outlines strategic details for incremental progressive domestic policy initiatives that gradually eliminate capitalism and private property. Marx wrote,

These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries [like the United States] the following will be pretty generally applicable:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.” [In the United States, inheritance taxes are incrementally moving toward abolition of all right of inheritance.]

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State¦.

Equal liability of all labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children™s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.”

Unfortunately, many of these measures have been enacted. Free education for all children, essential for a flourishing, capitalistic, constitutional republic like the United States of America, has been promoted in our country since colonial days.

Marxism is an atheistic philosophy that is antagonistic to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Europe and the United States. Judeo-Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity, has a history of individuals accomplishing great things in service to our God, His Son, and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Individuals must personally accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16, NIV). Within Biblical Christianity, there are two critical institutions, the family and the church. The Judeo-Christian family has consisted of one husband, one wife, and their children (Gen 4:1-2) since creation, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen 2:24, NIV). The family and the church are both ordained, Holy institutions set aside to serve God.

Husbands, love your wives [and children, Eph 6:4], just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [the church] to make her Holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word [scripture], and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, Holy and blameless (Eph 5:25-27, NIV).

Consequently, Marxist disdain the Biblical Christian church and the traditional Christian, patricentric or patriarchal family. All categories of Marxists support same sex marriage, multi-person marriages including bi-sexual partners, other forms of polygamy, single parent families, and un-wed mother families. These families contradict the concept of the traditional Biblical Christian family undermining the impact of Judeo-Christian values on our society and culture. Currently, Marxist advocates of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter vociferously denounce the patricentric or patriarchal family.

Marxist animosity toward the Biblical Christian family and church stems from the role of these two institutions in fostering individualism. This fact is well documented in Marxist writings and rhetoric. These two institutions are where individuals learn about their infinite worth in the kingdom of God when they become followers and servants of Jesus Christ. The reason for this animosity is simple; for Marxism, in all its pragmatic forms, communism, socialism, progressivism, critical race theory, and Black Lives Matter to succeed, the individual must be totally subservient to the good of the collective. For Marxists, the individual is worthless compared to the worth of the collective. In contrast, Biblical Christian individuals have infinite worth to God because God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ [God’s one and only Son, John 3:16] died for us [each individual] (Rom 5:8, NIV). In John 15:13, Jesus said, Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command (NIV).

The individualism fostered by Biblical Christianity is incompatible with Marxism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, Judeo-Christian, Biblical Christian, and the Biblical Christian church and family influence on society and culture must be eliminated or, at least, marginalized. Consequently, the vitriol displayed by Marxists toward Jews, Biblical Christians, and the Christian family and church is understandable from the Marxist, critical race theory, Black Lives Mater perspective.

Marxism, in all its forms, claims that societies will evolve into societies where wealth will be equally redistributed from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Most modern Marxist would add that the benefits and wealth of society would be equally redistributed to all regardless of individual willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. This includes the idea of reparations supported by proponents of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter. All manifestations and characteristics of individualism must be rejected by Marxists. Of Course, Capitalism, the ultimate expression of individualism, is rejected by Marxists and the proponents of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter. Competition, personal responsibility and accountability, self-discipline, strong individual work ethic, and meritocracy, are also rejected as meaningful characteristics of a Marxist society.

Marxists, Frankfurt School philosophers, and critical theorists in our universities have influenced psychology, psychiatry, and sociology curricula and research since at least the late 1930’s. Their curricula, research, and publications emphasize the detrimental effects of competition, personal responsibility and accountability, self-discipline, strong individual work ethic, meritocracy, Christian morality and ethics, and the traditional patricentric or patriarchal family on individuals and our society. According to these psychologists and sociologists, stressing the elements of individualism in our primary and secondary schools harms some children by causing low self-esteem among low performers potentially causing future neurosis or psychosis for the low performers. Of course, the converse, high self-esteem, occurs among high performers. Research and publications designed to explore the societal benefits of the characteristics of individualism are lacking because such information would promote individualism, innovation, entrepreneurship, and capitalism.

Since most university education programs require courses in sociology and psychology, our teachers are taught that the characteristics of individualism are harmful to student psyches and interpersonal relationships. Preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school teachers are told to avoid teaching and free time activities that praise high performers or correct and discourage low performers. Maintaining positive self-esteem is more important for low performing students than promoting and encouraging the efforts necessary for achievement according to the psychologists and sociologists training our teachers. The same philosophy of esteem building dominates our younger sports and extra-curricular activities programs. Games are played without keeping score. Batters try their best rather than striking out; and every player or participant gets a participation trophy. There are no winners or losers because competition is bad in the Marxist collective where all share equally in the benefits of society.

Today, in critical race theory education, self-esteem has been replaced by equity programs which claim that white supremacy, structural racism, and outright racism is the cause of low performance among most minorities. Asian minorities are an obvious and inconvenient exception to these claims. Consequently, under critical racism ideology, correcting a student who concludes that 3+2=6 no longer causes the student to have lowered self-esteem; it is racist. Setting high standards and requiring effort in academics is structural or systemic racism. This is simply a verbal Marxist bait and switch. Critical race theory educators replaced the misguided ideas of the self-esteem movement for the misguided ideas of racism. The goal is the same, a Marxist educational dictatorship. Racial antagonism replaced class antagonism. Unfortunately, elementary students and younger children are taught the divisive ideas that since they are white, they will grow up to oppress people of color.

There are only two words to adequately characterize critical race theory and Black Lives Matter, Marxist racism.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

PROGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY

 

Progressive foreign policy is based on Marxist leftist ideology and begins with the premise that all property and wealth will eventually be held in common. Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. Contrary to the preferred progressive assertion that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences. The left plans with an evolutionary pace in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need wealth is distributed among all the people. In their vision, societal changes occur first regionally, then nationally, and finally globally. Preparation for the time, when the state withers away, begins with the first steps of wealth redistribution in each state or country.

Although no one on the Left overtly states that they support progressive foreign policy in which the state “withers away,” their speeches and actual policy actions are consistent with a “withered” state of the United States on the world stage. The philosophical underpinning of this claim is discussed in detail below.

In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx made the following statement regarding national sovereignty and Progressive foreign policy:

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

Working men have no country.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie (upper ruling class, land owners, and capitalists), to freedom of commerce, to the world market.

The supremacy of the proletariat (working class) will cause them (countries) to vanish still faster.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end (Emphasis added).

In A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, Engels is quoted describing the incremental nature of the abolition of nations as follows:

The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society “ the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society “ this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished.’ It withers away (p. 467).

Ultimately, the Left, Progressives, and Liberals, as Marxists, are content with the possibility that the United States of America could eventually wither away. The result would be a worldwide Dictatorship of the Proletariat or a border-less global political economic system where wealth will be distributed equally among all people.

In large Constitutional capitalist republics like the United States with strong economies, universal K-12 education, strong secondary education system, and globally significant military power, any progress towards the socialist state is incrementally slow. The left understands that several important influences of capitalistic and predominantly Judeo-Christian societies must be reduced, controlled, or when possible eliminated. In states like ours, the mindset or worldview of the vast majority of the population must be converted from a Biblical Christian and entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset to the socialist worldview.

To accomplish this goal in the United States, virtually every communications medium and major institutions in our culture become either tools or targets in the incremental march towards socialism envisioned by Marx. Two of the most important cultural influences are the Biblical Christian church and family. These two institutions teach and model the important relationship between the individual and God and personal responsibility. As already discussed, individualism is incompatible with implementation of the agenda of the left.

Since Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship from preschool to Ph.D. level programs. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society. Under these circumstances, each generation is closer to the time when the state withers away.

The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary defines state as a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially:  one that is sovereign or possess supreme political power. For the state, including the United States of America, to wither away, the essential elements of state sovereignty related to domestic and foreign policy, must be whittled away.

Probably the most critical function of national sovereignty is national defense. Each of the last three Democrat presidencies, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, significantly reduced the national defense budget during their administration. These reductions included reduction in weapon system development, strategic weapons development, current weapon system procurement, and reductions in manpower. Cessation of ballistic missile defense systems and reductions in short range missile defense systems and deployment in Eastern Europe by the Obama administration have major consequences in light of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs, testing, and ballistic missile developments. In my opinion, the Clinton reduction in combat unit numbers increased both the number and duration of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of the previous reductions in military capabilities, our commanders are concerned about the United States military ability to fight wars on two fronts. As our military capacity decreases and the capacity of other nation states increases, the possibility that the United States withers away into a single global socialist society increases over time. This is the covert or stealth nature and philosophy of progressive foreign policy.

Border control and security, as well as, sound immigration policy and laws are essential for every state to maintain its sovereignty, heritage, and national identity. Border control and security also limits the flow of illegal commerce, drugs, and immigration and improves control of legal international trade. When illegal commerce and drug trade occurs, wealth is transferred to the countries of origin of the products and drugs. Similarly, international trade agreements that promote large trade deficits with much of the world constitute wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Every sovereign state has a national identity, heritage, culture, and legal system. The Founders understood the significance of this concept. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, eloquently stated this sentiment in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,

Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has in a particular manner blessed it (Independent America)for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Primarily Christianity with all its orders and denominations), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other….

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us.

In his Farewell Address, 1796, President George Washington, expressed similar sentiments when he wrote,

“The name American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

Washington’s farewell address also included a warning against the dangers of political parties and partisanship. His warning still has merit. Our Founders understood the importance of our country’s common Judeo-Christian heritage, independent entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry, shared enthusiasm about their future, and commitment to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution and the Constitutions of our first 13 states.

To the Founders unity of purpose was important to the future of the new nation. When immigration policy allows immigrants who do not believe that they should assimilate into the culture of their new country, immigration slowly degrades the unique character of any state. The unique nature of each state would be altered over time, and the state would become a mirror of the global population supporting progressive foreign policy. The process hastens preparation of the culture in each state to eventually wither away into a single global socialist society. For these reasons, leftist thinking encourages open borders, and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as part of their progressive foreign policy agenda. Consequently, our immigration policies should ensure that immigrants wishing to form enclaves and interject their own system of law and disparate codes of morality and behavior with respect to women and minorities should not be allowed to enter our country. Such beliefs are inconsistent with our Constitution and culture.

The Center for Immigration Studies, 1995, publication, Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act described the effect of immigration policy on culture and society of the United States. The publication starts as follows:

“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”

So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the (bill). The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today’s immigration law. Contrary to the president’s assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.

A group of people standing in front of a map.
Progressive foreign policy promotes global weakness, porous borders, and immigration policies that dilute our unique cultural heritage and global national identity.

Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration as a component of progressive foreign policy. Prior to enactment of this law, immigration made up about 10% of annual population growth. After 25 years, immigration made up 39% of population growth. Prior to this law, about 70% of the immigrants were of European decent. In 25 years, about 40% of immigrants were Hispanic and Latin Americans, and 35% were Asians. Discounting millions of illegal immigrants, total immigration tripled. The increase was augmented by non-quota admissions and provisions for family reunification.

Finally, when leaders of a state, like the United States of America, fail to lead as they led in the past in international affairs, either diplomatically or militarily, that state’s power, prestige, and influence will wither away. Unfortunately, some withering occurred when the Bush Administration faltered in its response to Russian aggression in the country of Georgia. The Obama Administration stopped deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe when Russia complained or threatened retaliation with respect to the deployment. This administration failed to take any meaningful diplomatic or military steps when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and failed to make any significant steps toward ending Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. The Obama Administration failed to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq; and it failed to act when Syria used chemical weapons in its Civil War after a stern warning by President Obama. The Obama Administration also failed to take a leadership role that could have changed the Middle East during or shortly after the Arab Spring, including failure to support dissidents in Iran. The administration also chose to lead from behind rather than lead the overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya or insuring that Libya was stable after the overthrow. China is building and militarizing islands in international waters with no apparent or meaningful actions by the Obama Administration. In the administrative action resulting in Iranian nuclear weapons program restrictions, the Obama Administration apparently negotiated from a position of weakness. Secret side monetary, banking, and facility inspection agreements, demonstrate this weakness. Finally, the Obama Administration demonstrated its weakness by allowing the Russian military, including its Air Force, to support the Asad regime in the Syrian Civil War. These actions all contributed the “withering” effects of progressive foreign policy.

In my opinion, whether intentional or not, President Obama’s progressive foreign policy activities have allowed the power, prestige, and influence, of the United States to wither away internationally, as Marx predicted. The actions of the Obama Administration serve as a prime example of the ways that the reality of the progressive agenda and progressive foreign policy are part of the incremental manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented on a global scale.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE LEFT’S EDUCATIONAL DICTATORSHIP

 

From their beginning in the early nineteenth century, European philosophers, political theorists, and educators sought to establish the left’s educational dictatorship. These academicians interchangeably referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. Modern synonyms for these terms have expanded to include liberals and progressives. These intellectuals understood the importance of education in their effort to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.

In his section of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2008, titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.

“But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that social, and determined by social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society by means of schools, © The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

In the early 1920’s during Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt, Germany, Karl Korsch and Georg Lucs conducted seminars for leading Western European scholars. According to the author of The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. 1994, the statement by Marx, You cannot transcend philosophy without realizing it, was central to the discussions of the early theoretical formulation of the left’s educational dictatorship. He summarized the discussions as follows:

It meant that intellectuals who were prepared to ally themselves to the proletariat (workers and laborers)were to have an important role to play. There could be no question ofcuring’ them of their intellectuality. Rather, it was necessary to transmit this intellectuality to the workers.

Later to a similar group, Lukacs stated,

As you now emerge from economic struggle and devote yourselves to culture, you are devoting yourselves to that part of the control of society which will produce the central idea for future society.

In his 1924 Inaugural Address for The Institute for Social Research, at Frankfurt University Carl Grnburg, said,

“And then,there are the optimists. They see, instead of a decaying form of culture, another, more highly developed one approaching. And for their part they consciously demand that what is outmoded should stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity.

Many people are firmly scientifically convinced that the emerging order will be a socialist one, that we are in the midst of the transition from capitalism to socialism and are advancing towards the latter with gathering speed. I, too, subscribe to this view. I, too, am one of the supporters of Marxism.

I need not emphasize the fact that when I speak of Marxism here I do not mean it in a party-political sense, but in a purely scientific one, as a term for an economic system complete in itself, for a particular ideology.

From the early 1950’s through the early 1970’s, Herbert Marcuse taught, as a political theorist, at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis from 1954 to 1965, and the University of California, San Diego. He supported the students of the anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in the United States and around the world. During an anti-war symposium discussion period in Berlin, a student asked him this question,

What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change?

In his response summarized in The Frankfurt School, Marcuse admitted his helplessness, as follows:

In order for new demands to develop, the mechanisms that reproduced the old demands would first have to be abolished; while, on the other hand, in order to abolish those mechanisms, the demand for them to be abolished would first have to be created. The only solution he could envisage was aneducational dictatorship’.”

In the United States, the concept of the left’s educational dictatorship is the model for the rescue of education from the influence of the ruling class demanded by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. The left’s educational dictatorship is the means by which what is outmoded is being forced to stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity in Grnburg’s words.

A library filled with lots of books on shelves.
The left’s educational dictatorship teaches progressive curricula from Preschool to Ph.D. in our classrooms.

In the United States of America, the Marxists of the liberal progressive movement have accomplished their major goal for education. They have used their political power and academic supremacy to established the left’s educational dictatorship. Demands to abolish the old mechanisms have been created from preschool to Ph.D. level educational programs. The current generation of teachers is, for the most part, completely supportive of the liberal progressive agenda for the future of our country. Faculties,at alllevels are dominated by liberals and progressives. The publication process, including editorial boards for most liberal arts and social science journals, is also dominated by liberals and progressives. In many cases, conservatives need not submit manuscripts for publication under these circumstances. In the current culture of political correctness, university and secondary education students now demand that conservatives of all stripes are banned or restricted on their campuses. The reality of our Founders Judeo-Christian heritage has been scrubbed from both curricula and textbooks at every level. Virtually all references to God and the traditional Biblical family are prohibited and disparaged in our schools.

Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, our students are taught by curricula determined byleft’s educational dictatorship. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society in the United States.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

PROGRESSIVES OPPOSE CHRISTIANITY

 

Progressives oppose Christianity since Marxist intellectuals have always understood the necessity of reducing or eliminating the influence of Biblical Christianity on society. This reduction is necessary to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. In the first half of the nineteenth century, European Marxist philosophers and political theorists referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. These and the modern terms, liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.

A flag with three crosses on it and the american flag behind.
Progressives oppose Christianity since role and values of the individual is antithetical in the two ideologies.

In The Communist Manifesto with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2002, Marx and Engels indicated that pragmatic means of hastening this evolution would be required in more advanced industrialized, capitalistic countries. Any belief system or institution that values the individual is inconsistent with the ideology of the Marxist left, progressives. Hence, progressives oppose Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity. Our nation’s Founders had a strong Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage valued Biblical Christian churches and families.

The tone and rhetoric of the discussion and debates between the proponents of any form of Marxism and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian vision is intense. Marxist disdain for all that is Judeo-Christian is really quite simple. The implications of one word, individualism, explain this disdain. The role, value, and relationship of the individual to the society or group as a whole are direct, antithetical opposites in Marxist philosophy and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian values, Biblical Christianity, conservative Jewish culture, and conservatism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, the individual must submit to the good of society. For Marxists, the individual has no value compared to the value of the society. Individuals are worthless.

In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because

God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV).

The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs “ heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:16-17 NIV).

As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. This component of Christianity, the value of each individual, is one of the primary reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.

In his 2002 introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Gareth Stedman Jones discussed Marxist scholars concerns about the relationship between Christianity and the individual. According to Ludwig Feuerbach,

Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism.

Consequently, according to Feuerbach, the essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man. In the relationship between I and Thou, Christ had become Thou. Religion was misdirected. The infinite was not an external God, but Man. Once Man was made aware of his infinite nature through philosophy and reason, individual limitations would be eliminated. Max Stirner sought to eliminate all vestiges of religion especially ethics, morality, and the Protestant God from communist philosophy. Engels observed that,

The Christian world order cannot be taken any further than this.

He considered the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly,

the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.

In his doctorate, Marx expressed his atheism and belief that philosophy is the only true god and that the gods of religion were irrelevant by stating that

all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest divinity are false.

Since God was the creation of Man, Christianity was the symptom of the problem, egoism, individualism, and private property. According to Gareth Stedman Jones, this is a good explanation for the reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.

THE BIBLICAL CHURCH

The New Testament describes the Biblical Christian church and family as the only Holy institutions established by God to raise and train each individual Christian and share Christ with the world. In these institutions, church leaders and parents teach children and new Christians Biblical truths, morality, and the importance of Christian service and ministries. These leaders also model Christian living for children and new Christians. Most importantly these institutions teach and share this simple truth with the world,

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whver believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Since each person who hears this truth must accept Christ’s free gift of eternal life individually, each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God.

In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:

Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.

In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, which indicated that

religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord.

Since the Biblical Christian church works along side traditional Christian families to raise children into strong self-reliant individuals, animosity toward the Biblical church is part of the reason that progressives oppose Christianity.

THE BIBLICAL FAMILY

Biblical Christian families are the institution where parents model their Judeo-Christian heritage and values for the next generation. These values include our moral codes and the worthiness of each individual in the sight of God. This model for the family is an anathema to Marxist. The significance and influence of the Biblical family in society must be drastically reduced or eliminated for their vision for society to succeed. Attacks on the traditional Judeo-Christian Biblical family and marriage are based firmly on the writing of Marx. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois  (ruling class, land owners, and capitalists) family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.

In his 1994 publication, The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, Rolf Wiggershaus chronicled the work of one of the more significant groups of western progressive philosophers. He summarized, Robert Briffault’s, 1927 work on the family, The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, by observing that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future traditional family follows:

¦The expectation that the decay of the patriarchal family as a result of the serious crisis of the individualistic, competitive economy would increase, and that a society no longer characterized by competitiveness would be able finally to release social emotions which went beyond the narrow and distorting circle of family.

Michele Barrett observed that Engels’ view of the family still dominates Marxist thought on the family. Engels viewed the Bourgeois family as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution.

The Marxist definition of family, according to Barrett, is simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household.

This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Biblical Christian family in relation to raising strong individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.

Just as Marx demonstrated his disdain for God and religion, as mere pawns of capitalists, he demonstrated his disdain for marriage and the family. Members of the progressive liberal movement in the United States often express similar sentiments. The attacks on Biblical Christianity and the multi-millennial Judeo-Christian church and family are consistent with the Marxist goal of elimination of all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage as a significant influence on our society. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity including the Christian Church and the traditional Christian family. Progressive disdain for Christianity is greatest for Biblical Christians who adhere to Biblical morality and ethics as essential to their faith.

For modern Marxists, they call themselves socialists, progressives,  liberals, and Democrats to mask their philosophical roots, all vestiges of  Biblical Christianity must be rendered socially impotent for their vision for the future of the United States of America to be fully implemented. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity as a matter of strategic necessity.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

THE“DEPLORABLE CLASS,” WHO ARE WE?

A man and woman with two children on the bed.
The Deplorable Class includes Roman Catholics and Protestants who hold traditional values. We are white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities.

The groups potentially falling into the left’s Deplorable Class may surprise some in the United States. Among the Christians, who hold the Biblical view of marriage and the family as husband and wife and their children, are tens of millions of African-American and Hispanic Biblical Christians. Additionally, tens of millions of Roman Catholics in the United States, many of whom are Hispanics, also believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to the left, this view of marriage is homophobic. The Christian homophobes who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman are in the “Deplorable class.” As a consequence, the left’s Deplorable Class includes Roman Catholics and Protestants. We are white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities. This group also opposes abortion and understand the gender is genetic not aspiration.

Xenophobes are another group in the left’s “Deplorable Class” They are deplorable simply because they want secure borders, an end to illegal immigration, assurance that everyone employed in the United States is legal, assurance that visas are not abused, and an immigration plan that is not harmful to our citizens. Islamophobs are also in the left’s Deplorable Class because they want the government to insure, by a process that requires verified documentation, that Islamic terrorists, from any group, are unable to infiltrate immigrant or refugee populations and attack the United States homeland. People who hold the Biblical view that life begins at conception and oppose abortion are part of the war on women and sexists. These United States citizens are also part of the left’s Deplorable Class. Obviously, Biblical Christians hold many views deemed deplorable by the left.

In the “Deplorable Class,” we believe that we should  protect our nation against invaders who use our porous boarders and weak immigration laws to gain illegal access to the nation. Most seek a better life, but some are criminals or want to subvert our culture both peacefully or as violent terrorists. We also understand the the United States is an essential force for good in the world. This requires a strong military and diplomatic corp that promotes world peace through our strength.

In the eyes of Christophobes like Hillary Clinton, liberals, and progressives on the Left; if you hold any of the views above, you are part of their Basket of Deplorables. You are among the tens of millions of United States citizens who are part of the left’s despised Deplorable Class.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

 

CHRISTIANS FILL THE “DEPLORABLE BASKET”

 

A woman in red speaks at a podium.
To Hilary and progressives, Biblical Christians, among others, fill their basket of deplorables.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statement that “half of the Trump supporters are in a ‘basket of deplorables,’ [“deplorable basket] who are unredeemable and un-American,”   revealed the true disdain that she, liberals, and progressives, have for Biblical Christians, evangelicals, and other conservatives. The room full of liberals, and progressives, who donated around $6 million to the Clinton campaign, laughed in raucous agreement with Clinton. When Clinton, progressives, and a large portion of the left put 20% to 30% of the people in the United States into a “deplorable basket,”  they have created a de facto deplorable class. At least 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 Bible believing Christians and Evangelicals are, therefore, among those that progressives view as deplorable; and therefore, members of their Deplorable Class.

Biblical Christians, those in the “deplorable basket,” believe that people are spiritually drawn to God by faith and His grace into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, do His will, follow His way, and understand that the Bible is inspired and guarded by God. Consequently, Biblical Christians believe that the Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman; and, therefore, that any sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is Biblically immoral. Additionally, the Biblical family is composed of a father a mother and their children. According to God’s plan, the Biblical, Christian family is one of two Holy institutions. The Biblical Christian Church is the second Holy institution ordained by God. In this family, children are taught to love, respect, and obey God. They are taught individual responsibility for their actions and their relationship with God and other people. In this family, children are taught the importance of sharing the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Children are also taught that it is their responsibility to support themselves, their family, and those in their community in need of help and assistance. The father and mother in this family model Biblical Christian living and values for their children. Same-sex families do not fit the Biblical understanding of family. To the left, Hillary Clinton and her liberal progressive friends, the Biblical family is a homophobic institution. This means that to Hilary Clinton, the Democrat Party, progressives, and the left, we, and many other groups, fit in their deplorable basket.

Consequently, Hillary Clinton and the left resist the idea that Biblical families can have positive influence on our nation and society. As a result, they have an irrational fear of Biblical Christians and our values, evangelicals, and the Biblical family. The left is Christophobic. This is especially true for liberals and progressives.

According to Hillary Clinton and her wealthy liberal progressive donors on the left, Biblical Christians and Evangelicals fill the deplorable basket. To progressives, we compose the DEPLORABLE CLASS that they disdain.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.