The evidence is clear to those of us looking at the evidence from a spiritual perspective. When we eliminate God from our culture and society, we bury our children. We bury our brothers and sisters. We bury our fathers and mothers. We bury our law enforcement officers. The first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, John Jay, along with most of the Founders clearly stated their sentiment about the importance of Christian precepts to maintain theBlessings of Liberty,Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happinessin far less stark terms.
In The Federalist No. 2 John Jay discussed the critical nature of the maintaining our shared ancestry, language, and Judeo-Christian culture and heritage when he wrote,
“Providence has blessed (America) for the delight of its inhabitants. 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 (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.”
George Washington, our first President and theFatherof our Country, shared a similar sentiment in hisFarewell Address to the Nationwhere he wrote,
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
œThe Experimentbegan with the Declaration of Independence; suffered and triumphed in the Revolutionary War; perfected its ideals and outline for governance with the Constitution of the United States of America; suffered through the Civil War; won two World Wars, expanded from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, to Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands, and beyond; suffered through the Great Depression; struggled to define and refine the meaning of the Declaration of Independence phrasesall men are created equalto pursueLife, Liberty, and Happiness;and became the greatest nation in history as a result of our shared victories, trials, and tribulations. Our success as a society and nation was based on our common Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, language, political philosophy, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that evolved since colonial days.
It is significant to me that the two men, who were the first to lead two of the three branches of our Constitutional government, the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch, said that our United States Constitution and our nation was anExperiment. For John Jay, ourExperimentisdoomedif we abandonthe moral precepts of the Christian religionwhich constitute afundamental precept of governanceunder our Constitution. George Washington wrote thatReligion, and Morality are indispensable supportsleading topolitical prosperityincluding personal prosperity and property rights, a solid personal reputation, justice, happiness, and life itself. He wrote thatProvidence (God) connected the permanent felicity (happiness) of (our) Nation with (our) virtue;and ourExperiment (will be) rendered impossible by (our) vices.In other words, both of these Founders observed that when we eliminate God as a significant influence in our culture and nation, thisExperiment,isrendered impossibleordoomed.
In contrast, progressives, most of whom are atheists or agnostics, vehemently disagree with Jay’s pronouncement thatthe moral precepts of the Christian religionconstitute afundamental precept of governance.Progressives have succeeded in their efforts to eliminate God and the influence of Christian precepts in our society and culture. Progressive efforts to eliminate God from societies began in the early 1800’s with intellectual elites in universities throughout Europe. They were most active in the areas of history, economics, political philosophy, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and the liberal arts. Marx postulated that all societies will inevitably evolve into socialists or communist societies where wealth is shared equallyfrom each according to their ability to each according to their need.The concept of social evolution was bolstered by publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species which postulated biological evolution. One of the first academic disciplines to fully embrace social evolution which also worked to eliminate God as an influence on their discipline was the study of law. The changes in the academic perception of the Constitution and legal philosophy started around 1870 at the Harvard Law School and spread to law schools throughout the United States.
Prior to this time, jurisprudence in the United States was modeled after British common law and the laws of England. The two most significant commentators on English law were Sir Edward Coke and William Blackstone. Both offered similar views regarding the relationship between Biblical law and the laws of England. Sir Edward Coke wrote about the nature of the human relationship to God in creation as follows:The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction the moral law called also the law of nature.The following statement by Blackstone emphasized the critical relationship between Biblical law,the law of nature,and English law as follows:Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (The Bible, God’s Word), depend all of human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
Beginning with the Harvard Law School, the philosophy of jurisprudence in the United States actively began tocontradictthe idea that human laws should reflectthe law of nature and the law of Revelation.The purpose of this teaching and philosophy was to eliminate God and theprecepts of the Christian religionfrom the practice of law. In addition, the idea of social evolution as it related to the Constitution and law was also incorporated into our system of jurisprudence. Under this concept, often calledjudicial activism,as our society and culture changes, the articles, sections, clauses, and phrases of the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of society as it is at the time. Judicial activists maintain that the amendment process outlined in Article V is slow and cumbersome; and judges must mold the words of the Constitution to fit the times. The concept of original intent orthe manifest tenor of the Constitutionis irrelevant under this philosophy of evolutionary jurisprudence.Manifest tenorreflects the definition of the words, when ratified, grammatical construction, and the contextual thought prevailing in each section of the Constitution or law under consideration. Consequently, for judicial activists, precedent and the opinion of judges about the constitutionality of law is more important than themanifest tenoror original intent or the Constitution itself.
As previously noted, academia has been at the forefront of the Marxist, Communist, socialist, progressive, critical theorist, liberal, Democrat efforts to eliminate God andthe moral precepts of the Christian religionas a dominant influence on our society and culture. The vast majority of the professors at our universities teach and promote progressive thought and ideology. Ideologically, progressives achieved aneducational dictatorshipat our universities in the humanities, liberal arts, philosophy, education, social and political sciences, and economics. Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that hasbeen largely assimilated into modern social sciences,our students are taught by curricula determined by left’s educational dictatorship. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. In addition, by the late 1980’s, the educational dictatorship was extended to our public schools where this progressive curriculum has been taught from preschool through the end of high school. 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 where our children are also taught to rejectthe moral precepts of the Christian religion.
With a judicial system that has worked to eliminate God from its jurisprudence for about 150 years and an educational elite that has embraced Marxist or progressive ideology for over 200 years, ourexperimentis more threatened now than ever before. Over the last 70 years, the United States has rather quickly submitted to progressives who seek to eliminate God as a meaningful influence in our society and culture. The primary target of progressives is Biblical Christianity which stresses the importance of the each individual’s personal relationship to Jesus Christ as their Savior, the traditional family with a father and a mother, personal moral responsibility, and the role of the Christian church in our society. Progressives have succeeded in eliminating prayer and other Christian activities in our schools, government agencies and property, removed displays of the 10 Commandments and other religious displays on public property, promoted a culture of death as it relates to abortion and assisted suicide, and supported sexual promiscuity and moral relativism in relation to most other personal interactions.The moral precepts of the Christian religionare no longer considered to be a fundamental precept of governance.Many Biblical Christians and conservatives fear that our great nationalexperimentisdoomed.Consequently, we bury our children, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. We aredoomedto a cycle of death.
Progressive solutions to the problems plaguing our nation abound. Suggested solutions include gun control, school fortresses, welfare reform, criminal justice reform, healthcare reform, mental health programs, immigration reform, safe zones, diversity training or re-education, ending white privilege, ending our system of capitalism, instituting socialism, free college for everyone, income equality, wealth redistribution, and more federal money for everything imaginable to name a few. In my opinion, virtually every progressive solution is only considering the symptoms of our sick society. The problem we face was clearly stated by our Founders. In the words of George Washington, OurExperiment is it rendered impossible by (our) vices.
As a nation, we have worked hard to eliminate God from our culture and society and ourvices,call themwicked ways,orsin,or just plain evil, abound. Our nationalvicesare our problem; and we need a Healer. He is our God. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who is the solution found 2 Chronicles 7:14:
œIf my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
The question is whether or not our nation is willing toturn from (our) wicked waysand once again acknowledge thatthe moral precepts of the Christian religionconstitute afundamental precept of governance.
Our God is waiting for us to humble ourselves and turn back to Him.
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 political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.
The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that’ significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.
For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.
Solutions to the DACA’ immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.
The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.
We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,
‘JUST DO IT!’
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 political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.
The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.
For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.
Solutions to the DACA immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.
The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.
We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,
JUST DO IT!
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.
Our Founder’s nation, like every nation that cannot defend itself, maintain geographic integrity, and loses its unique culture, economic and political identity will wither away as Marx and Engels stated it. The Marxist left, whatever name they have used throughout the last two centuries, communists, socialists, Critical Theorists, humanists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats have accomplished a significant transformation of our Founder’s nation using their plan to transform America. Progressives used the tools provided by our Constitution and culture in a relentlessly incremental process to transform the United States into a nation that our Founders never envisioned.
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation.
From colonial times until the Constitution was ratified and well into the twentieth century, We the People of the United States shared a strong, significant Judeo-Christian heritage which the Founders clearly understood. In the late eighteenth century, the majority of the population was of British descent, spoke English, and attended one of the many Protestant denomination or Catholic churches. All of the universities were of Christian origin, including Harvard which was named after a wealthy preacher who gave his theological library and wealth to the university. Most of the first departments established at these universities were Divinity Schools and Law Schools. Additional universities were established after the Great Awakening revivals of the mid-eighteenth century to train more evangelists. Our Founder’s nation shared a strong Judeo-Christian heritage.
VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation from the time the first colonists set foot on this continent. This sentiment was eloquently stated by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has blessed it (Independent America) for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. 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 (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 [by] design of Providence for a band of brethren, united by the strongest ties, should never be split into alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us (Parenthetical remarks added).
James Madison in The Federalist No.14 was also confident that a constitution so ordained and based on Judeo-Christian morality, ethics, and law would be a model for mankind. He stated,
Posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theater, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society: They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great confederacy, which has been new modeled by the act of your Convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide (Ratify the Constitution, Remark added).
Fifty of the fifty five men who attended the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians including theologians, denominational leaders, pastors, and evangelists. Many were also legal scholars and attorneys. After shepherding the nation through the first eight years of our experiment, the Father of our Country, George Washington, expressed similar sentiments in his Farewell Address to the Nation:
“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.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Cultivate peace and harmony with all. “ Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? “ It will be worthy of a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
The Father of our Country clearly stated that the international reputation of the United States, sound governmental policies, and the integrity of our courts were dependent on our shared Judeo-Christian religion and morality, our cultural and societal identity. In our Founder’s nation, We the People had leaders like John Jay who summarized the Founders’ view of the importance of Christianity to the successful future of the United States as follows:
No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.
Not only did these four Founders express this view, but virtually all the significant Founders wrote expansively about the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage to previous success and future benefits that would come to the world as a result of the virtue and religious morality of the United States. Consequently, our Founder’s nation was a Judeo-Christian nation. In my opinion, most of the current societal, cultural, political, and legal problems in our nation are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition concerning Religion and Morality.”
Historically, great nations deteriorate from within. Moral and ethical deterioration of cultures normally precedes political, economic and military instability. These problems often lead to the inability of nations to defend themselves against external economic or military forces. In the United States, our national greatness flowed historically from the individual and collective character, virtue, strength, and moral integrity of We the People. Our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitution and the rule of law, and our economic system based on individual entrepreneurialism and capitalism have been largely responsible for the success of the United States on the world stage. Virtually every aspect of the historical cultural, political, and economic strength of our nation is being incrementally undermined by forces seeking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States outlined five general functions of constitutional governance, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Only those areas of life and governance detailed in the various Articles and Amendments to the Constitution were intended to fall under the authority and responsibility of the National or Federal government. In the Founder’s nation, Tranquility, general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty were the responsibility of citizens, state, and local governments. The Constitution was established for a virtuous, moral, industrious, and responsible citizenry free to pursue their personal general Welfare and secure the Blessings of [their] Liberty.
In my view, one word in the Preamble to the Constitution has great significance to understanding why our Founder’s nation subsequently exceeded the expectations of the world. The word is “ordain,” to set apart for a sacred function in service of God. The Preamble states, We the People of the United States do ordain’ and establish this Constitution. This meaning for ordain is the only one that fits the context and definitions of ordain and establish found in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language because all of the meanings for establish are synonymous with the non-sacred meanings in the definition for ordain. If the Framers had not intended the sacred meaning of ordain, they would not have included the word establish which would, therefore, have been redundant. The Constitution was not written as a strictly secular document. The Constitution of our Founder’s nation was a document design to serve God.
During the first half-century or more of the history of our Founder’s nation, our Judeo-Christian heritage was critical to the principles and doctrines of law. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) wrote, The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction the moral law called also the law of Nature. Similarly, Commentaries on the laws of England by William Blackstone, was a widely respected commentary on law in America. In a statement almost identical to that of Coke, Blackstone wrote, Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (Biblical Law), depend all of human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. Additionally, prior to the mid-1800’s, it is safe to assume that Constitutional manifest tenor was the basis of court decisions related to the constitutionality of laws. Manifest tenor is the readily perceived, obvious, plain understanding of the course of thought running through the applicable article, amendment, section, or clause of the Constitution in relation to the case or statute under consideration. A synonymous phrase for manifest tenor is contextual original intent. During this period in the history of our Founder’s nation, the “law of nature” which “God… infused” into the “heart” of We the people was critical to our understanding of the meaning and purpose of our laws and duties as citizens.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Progressives have used several tools to “fundamentally transform America. The first, and possibly most important tool, is the transformation of Constitutional law which has had a significant effect on our Founder’s nation. In 1848, Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto promoting atheism and social evolution; and in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species positing biological evolution which challenged Biblical creationism. Both concepts were widely embraced by academics throughout the world. In 1869, scholars at the Harvard Law School embraced evolutionary thinking as keys to life and the law. They taught that great legal scholars and judges could develop the laws governing mankind since mankind did not need God and Scripture for guidance in law. All references to both God and Scripture were eliminated from legal education, and consequently, from the practice of law.
To accomplish this goal, these legal scholars developed the concept of case law in which legal principles, doctrines, and presidencies are developed over time by degrees through a series of cases. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating, The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new. After three to six decades of the development of legal principles and doctrines based on case law, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, summarized the legal system as follows, [Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more. These two statements regarding constitutional law bear a striking resemblance to the following discussion of truth found in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore:
The criterion for evaluating truth-claims normally is, or involves, human practice, a practicist criterion of truth. Truth is conceived as essentially the practical expression of a subject, rather than the theoretically adequate representation. Truth becomes a totality to be achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history…. Truths are the this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. Truth is an ideal asymptotically approached in history but only finally realized under communism after a practical consensus has been achieved.
Apparently, according to legal scholars, jurists, and philosophers, the Constitution, law, and truth are living things, ideas that have triumphed at a given point in history. Through case law over time, judges have transformed our Constitution and laws into a changing body of this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. One could say that the Constitution of the United States of America, as envisioned by the Founders, has already withered away; or the Constitution is being transformed and will soon wither away.
Progressives have been using courts and the concept of living Constitutions to challenge long held Judeo-Christian cultural norms for decades. Consequently, progressives have used our courts to undermine the sanctity of life through abortion and right to die decisions, marriage and the traditional family through same-sex marriage decisions, biological sexuality through decisions recognizing LGBT identity and access to previously gender specific public facilities, and religious freedom in business, public schools, governmental lands and facilities, and government agencies. Our courts have been the most effective tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States of America. As time passes, the United States of America is becoming less and less like our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION
The second tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is the establishment of a public education dictatorship. Our current public education curriculum promotes progressive cultural, social, economic, and political values and principles from pre-school to Ph.D. These curricula seek to undermine or eliminate discussion of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, in relation to our Constitution and legal system. Curricula ignore or minimize our Founders’ emphasis on the relationship between shared moral and ethical values and cultural harmony, individual and national prosperity, and national identity and strength on the world stage. Curricula stress claimed abuses of all western civilization on the rest of the world, capitalism as a form of western imperialism a concept espoused by Marxism, the benefits of socialist systems, and the progressive cultural agenda. The left’s educational dictatorship has been extremely effective as an agent to fundamentally transform the United States of America which has less and less resemblance to our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE
The third tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is our telecommunications and entertainment industry including social media and pop culture. Television, movies, and music promotes non-traditional families and include LGBT characters, single parent families, illicit sexual content including workplace affairs between co-workers and supervisors of both sexes with subordinates, violence, and murder. Christianity, the essence of our Founder’s nation, is often mocked, portrayed as a form of manipulation, or Christian leaders portrayed as criminal. Capitalism is portrayed as an evil often criminal economic system. Our government is also portrayed as a source of problems in the world. Mainstream news outlets including print and on-line sources forward narratives supporting the progressive cultural, political, and economic agenda, policies, and candidates. The advertising industry is a more subliminal medium used to promote the fundamental transformation of America.
The final tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is legal immigration policy and border security. Between 1960 and 1970, the 1965 Immigration Act began to change the composition of the US foreign-born population. Due to the ethnic and religious strife between Balkan Muslims and various Christian sects that started WWI, the 1965 Act ended a 1924 regional immigration quota system that discriminated against Southeastern Europeans including Italians, Asians, and Africans. The previously favored regions included Northwestern Europe including the British Isles, and Canada.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION
“Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.” It failed.
Many considered the 1965 Immigration Act to be an extension of the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the Johnson Administration granting immigration civil rights to the world by eliminating regional quotas. Although some Republicans supported the 1965 Immigration Act in its initial form, the Democrat Party promoted the bill in the legislature giving assurances that the bill would not adversely influence our nation, economy, and culture. When he signed the bill into law, President Lyndon Johnson said, “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.” Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with immigrants. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [The bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) testified that Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” In an October 4, 1965 article on the immigration bill, The Washington Post author wrote,
“The most important change [is that] preference categories give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.”
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), testified as follows: “The preferences established by this proposal are not entirely dissimilar from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” With hind sight as twenty-twenty, it seems fair to ask whether the supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act were actually honest about their claims that the new immigration policy would not alter the culture and ethnic composition of our Founder’s nation.
Some opponents and legislators asked critical questions painting a less rosy picture of the potential outcome. William Miller of New York wrote:
‘The number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.’ He asked, ‘Shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?'”
Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified in the Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing:
“We should remember that [the bill will] lower our wage and living standards [and] disrupt our cultural patterns. Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”
In his 1982 book America in Search of Itself, Theodore White contradicted President Johnson’s signing-day assurance that it was not a revolutionary bill, writing that the bill was revolutionary and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society. In reality, critics were correct and the assurances that the Act would not upset the ethnic mix of our society were not justified as noted by the above data on the changes in foreign-born population associated with the Act.
Data from the US Census Bureau showing the region of birth of the foreign-born population of the United States is informative regarding the cultural transformation of the United States. From 1850-1960, Europeans and Canadians averaged approximately 95% of the foreign-born population. Southern and Eastern Europeans were greatly underrepresented in the US foreign-born population prior to 1960. In 1960, Europeans and Canadians comprised 75% which was a reduction of more than 15% of the foreign-born population compared to the previous 90 years. In 1970 this group comprised 61.7%; 1980, 39.0%; and in 1990 Europeans and Canadians comprised 26.9% of the US foreign-born population which was less than one third of the 1960 level and slightly more than one fourth of the 1850-1960 level. In contrast, Hispanics comprised an average of only 2.8% of the foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 9.4%; in 1970, 19.4%; 1980, 33.1%; and 1990, 44.3% nearly 16 times the 1850-1960 average of the US foreign-born population. Asians comprised an average of only 1.7% of the US foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 5.1%; 1970, 8.9%: 1980, 19.3%; and 1990, 26.3% which was more than 15 times the 1850-1960 average of the foreign-born population. In 1990, people from Africa and Oceania composed less than 2.5% of the US foreign-born population. By 2050, the racial and ethnic composition of the US population is expected to be 47% White, 29% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 9% Asian. According to this projection, the composition of whites will decline; the composition blacks will be stable; and the composition of Hispanics and Asians will increase. Although conservative pundits and other intellectuals agree, progressives always start immigration discussions with the phrase, We are a nation of immigrants, or We are all descendants of immigrants. What they fail to say is that, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, we were a nation of European and Canadian immigrants; and after 1965, we became and nation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants .
Thirty years after implementation of the 1965 Immigration Act became law some conclusions are relevant to this discussion. A new era of mass immigration ensued in which country origins of immigrants changed radically. The European economy stabilized resulting in fewer European immigrants. Mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America and emphasis on family reunification ensured that these groups could bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations because of limits on total immigration numbers. Unfortunately, twice as many immigrants as native-born Americans did not have high school diplomas in the mid-1990’s. This contributed downward wage pressure to a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs. This issue is compounded by increasing levels of illegal immigrants who also compete for these jobs.
In 2000, sociologist Christopher Jencks predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 if our immigration policies do not change. After evaluating congressional politics, Jencks concluded that congress did not want to appear to be racist and their leaders would not direct change. Consequently, Jerry Kammer, in his 2015 concluding remarks, included a dire analysis of our national future by Theodore White concerning of the potential impact of the 1965 Immigration Act,
‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it could no longer govern itself. ‘
Kammer also included this contrarian and optimistic quote from a 1965 Immigration Act, 50th anniversary book, A Nation of Nations (2015) by Tom Gjelten, which disregards the lesson of Roman Empire history,
While immigration may swamp us, it may, if we seize the opportunity, mean the impregnation of our national life with a new brilliancy. It is only in the half century after 1965, with a population connected to every corner of the globe, that the country has finally begun to demonstrate the exceptionalism it has long claimed for itself.’
One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,
“While Gjelten doesn’t make statements about assimilation with current tides of immigrant groups, he suggest[s] that these groups who differ more widely culturally than past [European immigrants] will ultimately accept the national ethos and fit in well.”
Apparently, like most US progressives, Gjelton and the reviewer believes that we can do things better than the Romans, the Soviet Communists, the Maoists, and the Cuban Communists, and achieve an internal globalist culture of new brilliancy and exceptionalism in the United States.
Without the benefit of actually reading his book, it appears that Gjelton does not believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are exceptional guidelines for governance or that turning the tide of victory in both World War I and World War II were exceptional events in world history. It doesn’t appear that he considered our Industrial Revolution, railroads, interstate highway system, technical revolution, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter to be brilliant contributions making the United States the greatest economic power in history. As a true progressive globalist, Gjelton apparently believes that until the United States looks like the rest of the world, we cannot be either brilliant or exceptional. None of the reviews or excerpts answer the question posed by White, [With] such a change in the texture of [our] people, will the United States of America be able to govern itself? The cultural and racial diversity created by the 1965 Immigration Act has not resulted in a political and social environment of greater stability. Our educational, cultural and political elites discourage acceptance of our national ethos, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitutional capitalism, and individual freedom. The progressive elites consider and communicate that this national ethos is offensive to the rest of the world, especially the regions of origin for most of today’s immigrants. Under these circumstances, how can we expect these immigrants to fit in well? Under the current circumstances in which we are losing our national ethos, my fear is that the admonition of John Jay portends a dire outcome for the United States of America, Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed. This component of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America could help ensure that our nation will wither away. Phrased alternatively, our Founder’s nation will cease to exist.
Border security is a critical component of immigration policy. Secure borders insure that nations have control over immigration into each country. Without secure borders and immigration policies that immediately detain or expel illegal immigrants, all immigration has the potential of becoming legal immigration which is the goal for progressive open border advocates. In this situation, citizenship and related voting rights would be meaningless; the wealthy and unscrupulous could import voters to gain control of any jurisdiction; or politicians could promise immigrants free benefits for their votes. Criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and freeloaders as well as unskilled and skilled workers, artisans, entrepreneurs, technicians, and highly educated professionals could flow in and out of countries. All pretexts of economic, political, legal system, and numerical population stability and predictability would be eliminated. Determination of population based representation in our republic, as in the US House of Representatives, would not be fair with the fluid population possible without immigration control and border security. This would be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America; and our Founder’s nation could wither away.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE
The final requirement necessary for nations to persist is the ability to remain strong and defend themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies. For the most part, we have adequate local, state, and national law enforcement and legal system to ensure domestic Tranquility; but this nation has a great deal of difficulty to provide for the common defense. The primary reason for this difficulty is the fact that the Democrat and Republican Parties have vastly different priorities regarding defense and domestic expenditures. The two parties seem to have vastly different ideas regarding the necessity maintaining the world’s most powerful military force that can defend our nation on multiple battle fronts and contingencies simultaneously. Progressives and the Democrat Party do not see this level of military power as a national necessity for funding compared to domestic program spending. Military power and force size was drastically decreased in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations. Each of the intervening Bush Administrations and the current Trump Administration were confronted with depleted military forces which they attempted slowly rebuild throughout their Administrations. Unfortunately the overall trend in our military strength since the Carter Administration is downward in both numbers and capabilities. The problem was compounded during the last Bush and Trump Administrations by the long multi-front war on Radical Islamic Terrorism which has resulted in attrition of equipment due to fiscal constraints. With reduced force size, our military heroes are forced to deploy more frequently or for longer tours in theater. The result is combat fatigue, home front family difficulties for deployed forces, and potential reduction in re-enlistment numbers resulting in less experienced fighting forces.
Currently, our military cannot fight on two fronts, equipment is old and waring out with high percentage of the equipment out-of-service due to lack of repair and replacement parts. This problem and inadequate funding for continuing training means that many of our military unites are not combat ready. These problems have resulted in higher numbers of military training and mission related accidents, personnel injuries, and deaths in the last few years. In my opinion, this situation has the potential to become a threat to our national security due to increasing tensions throughout the world.
The threat of North Korean ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads capable of striking anywhere in the United States intensifies our military readiness issues. Incursion of China into the South China Sea seeking to control sea travel, trading routes throughout the south Pacific, and exert their naval power in the region is also worrying. The fact that China is expanding military forces with the goal of becoming the world’s preeminent military power is cause for additional concern. Iran’s expansion and aggression in the Middle East is troubling. Radical Islamic terrorism is growing not declining in Africa where the opportunity to train is enhanced due to weak governments unable to control terrorist activities. Other parts of the world are also subjected to Radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Threats to the safety and security of the United States of America are increasing worldwide. This aspect of the transformation of the United States of America is the most concerning to me. Without a strong military capable of defending our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic is essential to ensure that my country, the United States of America, does not wither away.
In my opinion, the progressive plan to fundamentally transform of the United States of America has been executed in an incremental evolutionary manner for approximately 170 years. The goal of this transformation has always been a unified global community and economy, a utopia, governed by Marxist principles which ensure that all people share equally in all the benefits of the world regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute to the good of the world community. Phrased another way, from each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth will be redistributed on a global scale. For this goal to be achieved, the United States of America must wither away, a really fundamental transformation. Our Founder’s nation would no longer exist.
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.
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
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.p;
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
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.
In our “Banana Republic,” top level progressive political appointees embedded in federal agencies lie under oath with impunity. The “Deplorable Class” is mad.
We the People, at least those of us who are proud members of the “Deplorable Class,” are not proud that we live in the twenty first century “Banana Republic” that is the United States of America. In our “Banana Republic,” wealthy political elites in the donor class, top level progressive political appointees embedded by previous administrations in the Justice Department, State Department, and intelligence agencies, other federal agencies and former progressive Cabinet Secretaries, lie under oath without real consequences. Conversely, conservative generals, and others, who oppose the progressive political agenda, are charged for the same “crimes” that favored elites commit with impunity. This is the reality of our “Banana Republic.” We the People in the “Deplorable Class” are getting mad.
The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for Benghazi, Hillary’s Emails, Uranium One, and the manner that money passed through the Clinton Foundation? Those who say these issues should not be further investigated because that would turn us into a Banana Republic that prosecutes political opponents forget another important characteristic of Banana Republics. A third world Banana Republic rarely prosecutes its political elites for their crimes. In many third world countries the political elites, wealthy donor class, and in many cases cartel kingpins, are above the law. Another worthy question should be asked regarding criminal progressive elites, political insiders, and the donor class. If we fail to investigate and prosecute their activities, are we acting like a third world Banana Republic? We the People in the “Deplorable Class” are getting mad.
The United States of America is a country of laws. We claim that we provide equal justice under the law. We claim that the law is blind regarding the status of all persons. What are our leaders telling We the People about our nation if the actions of our leaders convey a different message regarding the law? The current sexual harassment and sexual assault revelations where entertainment, news media, business, and political leaders are actually being held accountable for their actions is encouraging. However, in many instances the media is proclaiming a new precedent in this area, guilty when accused because women never lie about such things, or do they. We must not forget about Duke Lacrosse or the University of Virginia fraternity Rolling Stone case. This trend also smacks of the characteristics of a Banana Republic.
In my opinion, no matter what happens regarding the Clintons, one side or the other, the left or the right will say we would be acting like a third world, Banana Republic. That claim and the opinion of pundits and talking heads would be irrelevant. The critical questions are these. Are we a nation of laws that are blind to last names, wealth, power, political affiliation, or the previous office held by a spouse? Is there one set of laws for the Clintons, the political class, and the wealthy and another standard for the rest of us? Does a failed attempt at election to the Presidency or any other political office exempt anyone from criminal investigation or prosecution? If that is the case, every criminal would run for political office!
If that is the case, we truly live in a Banana Republic!
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.
Rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment is wrong, immoral, and evil. False accusations about rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment or any immoral act or crime are equally, wrong, immoral, and evil. Both can ruin lives and careers. In today’s hypercharged media and political environment, false accusations are assassinations especially when the accused is in a position of power. The political party, wealth, position, race, or ethnicity of either the perpetrator or victim does not matter. It does not matter who, male, female, or any LGBT, commits the act; the act is wrong. It does not matter the gender or gender preference of the victim, the act is wrong.
In today’s hypercharged media and political environment, false accusations are assassinations especially when the accused is in a position of power.
Unfortunately, in the current cultural and political environment, another wrong is now considered right. When the victim of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment is not a male and the perpetrator is male, the accused male is guilty until proven innocent. This is contrary to the Constitution and the Rule of Law in the United States. This is especially true when the accused is a Republican candidate or office holder who can be removed or eliminated from contention for office; the trial is conducted in all news platforms; and the media conviction will advance the progressive narrative. This is assassination through false accusations; and it is wrong, immoral, and evil. Allowing this type of political assassination is a danger to the future of our republic.
Finally, when a male is accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment and considered guilty until proven innocent and not afforded due process by any institution with power, influence, and authority over the future on the accused, that system is not Constitutional and contrary the rule of law. This was the situation at most colleges and universities in the nation where the accused were not allowed to confront their accusers. The Duke Lacrosse case and the University of Virginia fraternity case printed in Rolling Stone demonstrate how innocent lives were seriously harmed in the short run or ruined by false accusations. Admittedly, men in positions of power have used their power to avoid prosecution through intimidation and bribery. This is demonstrated by news of this issue during the past month or more. Two wrongs do not make a right. The question is, Can this nation allow the media to use its power to promote sexual assassinations by mere unlitigated false accusations?
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.
Implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law in any location or application is an affront to the “rule of law” within the borders of the United States and our territories. Sharia Law violates Article VI of the Constitution which states,
This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Most applications and interpretations of Sharia Law are incompatible with and Contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme Law of the Land. Sharia Law qualifies as a Contrary, extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. Additionally, Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam. They would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of Article VI. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing (Sharia Law in this situation) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unconstitutional Sharia Law is also incompatible with the mores of our culture.
Finally, implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law is a part of a plan, “civilization Jihad,” designed to convert western cultures into Islamic cultures. The mission statement of this plan follows:
The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Christians and Jews) so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
This plan must be thwarted throughout the United States.
Clearly, unconstitutional Sharia Law is incompatible with our “rule of Law,” cultural mores, and societal norms and should not be allowed under any circumstances anywhere in the United States of America or our territories.
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.
A formal war declaration on radical Islamic terrorism is a necessary response to radical Islamic terrorism. Radical Islamic terrorists, Islamists, declared war on Europe, North America, Israel, Christianity, and Judaism shortly after the defeat of the Islamic Ottoman Empire ending WWI. In my opinion, that was a crushing defeat for Islamists and a honest review of the history of Islam demonstrates that radical Islamic terrorism is merely the latest means used in their attempt to conquer the world and establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. Without a formal war declaration, we will continue to be limited in our ability to combat this unique enemy. The fact that this would be a war with a theocratic statist ideology, Islamism, which subscribes to the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate governed by Sharia, or Islamic Law, complicates the concept of a war declaration against Radical Islamic Terrorism. Furthermore, a war declaration against an ideology would be, to the best of my knowledge, unique modern in history.
A war declaration is necessary since radical Islamic terrorists attack non-combatants.
Although they are Islamists rather than Marxists, radical Islamic terrorists tactics are similar to the tactics of communist revolutionaries of the Cold War era of the 1950s through the 1980s. Both of these ideologies are statist in nature. Both groups employ stealth attacks on unarmed non-combatant civilians. Local radical Islamic terrorists are often affiliated with a larger international level groups that can be either Sunni or Shiite in origin. These local groups usually have at least one base of operation in each area for refuge, training, and logistical support. Consequently, relatively small groups or cells of terrorists are scattered throughout the world for eventual attack including the United States. Combating this global radical Islamic terrorism threat requires a war declaration with global reach and flexibility to confront threats wherever they become regionally or existentially dangerous. Our Commander-in-Chief and generals must be able to act quickly and decisively.
Communists and Islamists use covert operators and the internet to target disenfranchised individuals and groups like African-Americans as potential converts for potential covert operations. With the exception of Iran which is an Islamist theocracy, radical Islamic terrorists are not based in or backed by any single alliance of nations or national government. They are financed by private citizens purportedly including members of the some Middle Eastern Royal Families and organizations in numerous countries as well as illegal black market enterprises throughout the world. Their fighters do not normally wear uniforms of any nation, and consider non-combatants as both tools and targets of war, Jihad.
Islamist cells and insurgency groups embedded in countries around the world have two distinct modes of operation, violent Islamic terrorist attacks and peaceful subversion and infiltration of cultures, governments and legal systems of target countries to accomplish a Civilization Jihad. Violent radical Islamic terror attacks are unmistakable and are occurring at greater and greater frequency in target countries. Some are under rather sophisticated command and control of named radical Islamic terrorism groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda utilizing groups of terrorists involved in planning, logistics, weaponization, and fighting. Other terrorists are unaffiliated or loosely aligned to a major group with little or no support or training. These lone wolf radical Islamic terrorists choose their targets and attack timing independent of specific outside control. They are usually self-radicalized on-line by Islamist publications and videos or follow a radical Islamist Cleric locally or on-line and train themselves with information on weapons and tactics from on-line or underground sources. A small group of two or three self-radicalized Islamist terrorists like the London Bridge terrorists can multiply the damage they inflict.
The Muslim Brotherhood of North America has a plan, adopted in 1987, to take over the United States, and subjugate all its citizens to Sharia law. The plan is called Civilization Jihad. The mission statement of this plan follows:
The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Christians and Jews) so that it is eliminated and Gods religion is made victorious over all other religions.
The plan consists of five phases which could take least 100 years to complete. The phases are summarized below:
Phase One calls for discretion, as operatives arrive in America. They are to keep a low profile ” go about their business and be seen as model citizens, gaining respect within their vocations and communities.
Phase Two requires Muslims to begin to come out of the shadows, gently pushing for recognition of Sharia law within their own communities and sphere of influence, (insisting) that Islam is a religion of peace while co-opting western progressive leaders. Assure these leaders that Sharia will never be applied outside their own communities.
Phase Three When there are enough Muslims in any given city, they begin to penetrate Western society beyond their own communities, i.e. Dearborn and Minneapolis. They build more mosques than needed, funded by foreign entities. They roll out front groups and organizations like CAIR to make it appear that they have more clout and influence than they actually do, (to) pressure politicians and academia for Islamic studies and prayer areas, claiming victimization and demanding accommodations. They are to file lawsuits and cry Islamophobia at every turn, thus wearing down their Western hosts. (The United States and Canada appear to be in this phase of Civilization Jihad.)
Phase Four Muslims, now a significant minority population in the host country insist that Sharia law be woven into the hosts legal and political system. Violence from supposedly independent and disparate radical groups may also be part of Phase Four. (Many Western European countries appear to be at this phase of Civilization Jihad.)
Phase Five Muslims become the majority or ruling minority. All the veils have been pulled back and there is no more pretense of getting along, as they terminate any non-Islamic influence. Sharia law is then imposed nationwide.
This Muslim Brotherhood plan for Civilization Jihad, including the desire to inflict Sharia law on We the People of the United States, must be considered an integral component of any war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism. Civilization Jihad, as outlined, is a war declaration against western civilization, the culture and society of the United States, our Constitution, Judaism, and Christianity.
With this brief discussion of the two components of radical Islamic terrorism in mind, the need for a formal Congressional Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism demands a thorough discussion. The previous discussion supporting a formal Declaration of War against violent radical Islamic terrorism provides several arguments in favor of this war declaration and suggestions on its implementation. Highlights of the discussion include the fact that no single battlefield, theater of operation, leader, or command structure exists in the war being waged against the United States by radical Islamic terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism by citing passages contained in holy books of Islam claiming to follow the tenants of Islam and teachings of Mohammed. The proposed Declaration of War should strategically define the stages and nature of victory and require that the United States first seek cooperation and permission of the government of countries where these terrorists leaders or bases of operation are located prior to initiating combat operations against terror targets. Congress and the Commander-in-Chief should clearly define the consequences for countries refusing to cooperate in strikes against radical Islamic terrorists located in their countries which should be contained in the Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism.
Including the significant components of Civilization Jihad in the proposed of war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism has several ramifications and advantages. First, the Center for Security Policy basically states that Civilization Jihad is a declaration of war on civil society in the United States as follows:
America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger “ a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls civilization jihad.
Since the Meriam Webster on-line dictionary defines Jihad as a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty, the Muslim Brotherhoods Civilization Jihad must be considered as a declaration of holy war waged on behalf of Islam against the Constitution of the United States of America and virtually all of our civil society. Therefore, each component of Civilization Jihad, especially the plan to impose extra Constitutional Sharia law on We the People of the United States must be part of a comprehensive of war declaration on radical Islamic terrorism. Any attempt to impose Sharia law violates Article VI of the Constitution which states,
This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Since Civilization Jihad, seeks to impose a form of law, Sharia Law, which is Contrary to the Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land, Civilization Jihad constitutes a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. Since Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam, they would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of the clause, no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Sharia Law qualifies as an extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. The Muslim Brotherhood and any similar Islamist terror group supporting or conducting acts of violent terrorism, Islamist political party, small group, or individual supporting imposition of Sharia Law within the United States or its Territories or the tactics involved in Civilization Jihad should be designated as enemy combatants in the Declaration of War against radical Islamic terrorism.
In addition, a war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism would allow application of the Constitution of the United States and the several States and the relevant laws regarding treason and sedition committed by citizens and non-citizens within the United States. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Consequently, supporting or advocating Civilization Jihad and/or imposition of Sharia Law would be adhering, giving support or loyalty, to our declared enemies and giving them Aid, useful or necessary assistance in achieving an end, and Comfort, strength and hope, which is treason against the Constitution of the United States. Statutes of the United States and individual states would define prosecution of treason following a war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism and Civilization Jihad.
The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines sedition as, incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. Sedition is described in legal terms as follows:
The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a felony (1) to convey false statements interfering with American war efforts; (2) to willfully employ “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. form of government, the Constitution, the flag, or U.S. military or naval forces; or (4) to advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any such acts. Violations were punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. The law was aimed at curbing political dissent expressed by socialists, anarchists, pacifists, and certain labor leaders (during WWI).
In Abrams v. United States, 1919, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act of 1918, but the descanting opinion of Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ensured that only individuals presenting a Clear and Present Danger of immediate criminal activity were convicted. With a Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism and Civilization Jihad, including advocacy for implementation of Sharia Law, the Sedition Act of 1918 would be applicable regarding both types of terrorists.
In my opinion, radical Islamic terrorism, Civilization Jihad, and Sharia Law represent a Clear and Present Danger to the Constitution of the United States of America, our civil society, and our way of life. Our nation has been under a toxic danger “ a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society since 1987 if not before. With the rapid acceleration of Islamist activity in the world, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and North America, time is of the essence. Drastic measures are necessary to halt the advance of Islamism in the United States and other countries. The Islamists have already succeeded in co-opting western progressive leaders, or Marxists.
We must understand that we are at war with Islamism in all its forms.
We need all the tools that a formal Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism would provide.
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.
Treason is being committed by those attempting to undermine the Presidency.
The current efforts to render the President of the United States of America ineffective and unable to fulfill his duties as President in both domestic and foreign affairs constitute treason, in my opinion. The coalition of conspirators opposing the President, though uncoordinated, includes progressives in most of the television, on-line, and print news media, including liberal commentators on Fox News Channel, Never-Trump conservative commentators and Republicans, the entire Democrat Party, Executive Branch leakers, administrators, faculty members, and students at most universities and public schools, and street demonstrators including the violent black clad Antifa rioters. The assault on President Trump is, in reality, an assault on the Executive Branch of the United States government, the Institution of the Presidency, and the Constitution of the United States of America. This uncoordinated assault on the Presidency is treason.
Treason was such an egregious crime against the Constitution that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Merriam-Webster on-line definition of the four critical terms related to treason is necessary to follow the argument being presented. Treason is defined as The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. The definition of adhering is, to give support or maintain loyalty. Aid is defined as, to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end or give assistance. Comfort is defined as, to give strength and hope. Therefore, my expanded Constitutional definition of treason follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or in giving support or loyalty to enemies of the United States, giving enemies of the United States what is useful or necessary in achieving an end, assistance, or giving enemies of the United States strength and hope.
One phrase in the above definition of treason is key to this discussion, to personally injure the sovereign, the President. Again, the following Webster on-line definition of injure is relevant: to harm, impair, or tarnish standing or inflict material damage or loss. Although the President has made mistakes, in all my 70 years, the vicious, untruthful, malicious, and slanderous attacks on the Presidency are unprecedented. The listed conspirators seek to injure, harm, impair, and tarnish the standing of the current holder of the office of the President and inflict material damage to the Presidency and Constitution of the United States.
The conspirators seek only political gain, control, and power. We the People be damned.
We the People will not forget that your acts are treason. We the People will vote in 2018 and 2020!
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 Constitutional term judicial good Behavior equals opinions based Constitutional original intent.
The Constitutional term judicial good Behavior equals original intent. In my opinion, many Appellate Court and Supreme Court decisions would not be consistent with our nation’s Founders vision of judicial “good behavior.” Consequently, it is critical to ascertain the origin and meaning of the phrase judicial “good Behavior.” To progressives, judicial “good Behavior is activist court decisions that make law when the legislative process cannot, like R v Wade. To conservatives, judicial “good Behavior is judicial decisions based on the “original intent” of the Constitution and the plain meaning of the text of enacted laws. To put this in personal terms, the difference between these two perspectives on judicial “good Behavior” is the differences in the written opinions of Justice Ginsberg and Justice Scalia.
According to Article III, Section 1, the Constitutional term judicial good Behavior equals original intent in relation to term of service. The article states, The Judges shall hold their Offices during ˜good Behavior’.” Good Behavior is not used to describe either the qualifications or term of service for members of Legislative or Executive branches of the national government in Articles I and II of the Constitution, respectively. Unfortunately, the Constitution ds not define good Behavior.
The Federalist Papers, written to support ratification of the Constitution, provide the best available insight into the constitutional Framer’s meaning of good Behavior. In The Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton wrote,
Judges hold their offices during ‘good behavior,’ which is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.
The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Every act of a delegated authority (including decisions of the judiciary), contrary to the tenor of the commission (Constitution) under which it is exercised, is void.
Consequently, good Behavior, described in Article III, Section 1, is court decisions that reflect the manifest tenor of the constitution. Manifest tenor is the original intent based on the constitutional text, grammar, textural construction, and the words as defined when the Constitution and Amendments were ratified by We the People. Manifest tenor also refers to the principle train of thought or idea that runs through each article and section of the Constitution.
Hamilton also discouraged judicial activism which seeks to infer original intent regarding the Constitution or laws that extends beyond the actual text and grammatical construction of the documents. In The Federalist No. 81, he wrote,
There is not one syllable in the plan under consideration (Constitution), which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution.
Hamilton went on to write that court rulings that go beyond the manifest tenor of the Constitution would constitute “a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature. Finally, Hamilton suggested that rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution should lead to the important constitutional check the power of instituting impeachments, upon the members of the judicial department. Throughout the Constitutional history of the United States of America the legislative branch has failed to use the power of impeachment to control judges who do not base their opinions on the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Consequently, the Judicial Branch of our national government is an unchecked oligarchy, a flaw in our system, since the Constitution ds not specify any meaningful checks on the decisions of the Federal judiciary.
Additionally, disrespectful judicial rulings that usurp the will of We the People occur when jurists proport an ability to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution or craft opinions that are not based on the textural original intent, the manifest tenor of the Constitution and its Amendments. After all, We the People ratified the manifest tenor of each part of the Constitution and its Amendments. Each of the 535 members of the US Congress and the President were elected by We the People. It is the US Congress which passes legislation that becomes law when signed by the President. Consequently, State and Federal laws, and Inferior US Court opinions consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution, must be upheld by our courts because they reflect the collective will of We the People. The same is true of Presidential Executive Orders that are consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution.
Conversely, The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the ˜manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. When judicial rulings are not based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the offending jurist places their opinion above the collective wisdom of all We the People. This is true whether the opinion is that of an individual judge, a panel of judges, or a nine Justice US Supreme Court ruling, Judicial rulings that give the standing of law to progressive social policies remove the political initiative from We the People giving it to the government agencies or private entities, like Planned Parenthood, adding to Democrat power. When the elected representatives of We the People make laws about social issues, as Conservatives and the Republican Party prefer, power originates with We the People.
In accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, President Trump has nominated Supreme Court Justices and US Inferior Court Judges that will make decisions based on originalist concepts that include manifest tenor and reject attempts to “construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution. The Republican Senate has fulfilled its Article II Advice and Consent obligations and confirmed President Trump’s Judicial nominations. Consequently, progressive changes to our society should be decided through the legislative process where We the People, through our elected legislators, will determine what is best for We the People. An unelected Judiciary will no longer rule against the will of We the People. The Democrat Party will lose power; and, through his Judiciary nominations, President Trump and the Republican Senate returned power to We the People.
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 evidence is clear to those of us looking at the evidence from a spiritual perspective. When we eliminate God from our culture and society, we bury our children. We bury our brothers and sisters. We bury our fathers and mothers. We bury our law enforcement officers. The first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, John Jay, along with most of the Founders clearly stated their sentiment about the importance of Christian precepts to maintain theBlessings of Liberty,Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happinessin far less stark terms.
Most applications and interpretations of Sharia Law are incompatible with and Contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme Law of the Land. Sharia Law qualifies as a Contrary, extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. Additionally, Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam. They would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of Article VI. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing (Sharia Law in this situation) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
