Culture Archives - Page 2 of 2 - America's Crossroad

ANTIFA: BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTIONARIES

A fire that is burning in the middle of a street.

Antifa, Bolshevik revolutionaries following Vladimir Lenin’s model for communist revolutions is an apt description of the reality of Antifa, in my opinion. Vladimir Lenin believed that evolutionary progress toward communism at the national and international levels was too slow. He devised revolutionary dictatorial plans to hasten the process culminating in communist parties and revolutions in Russia, China, and countless other nations around the world. In his book, THE ORIGIN OF RUSSIAN COMMUNISM, Nicolas Berdyaev’s discussion of Lenin’s personality and revolutionary concepts explains the success communist revolutions around the world. Lenin’s attitude toward the Czar’s Russia was tempered by the execution of his brother as a terrorist which also resulted in a cynically placid attitude regarding mankind. He was not an anarchist but required order and discipline among his followers. In his speeches and writings, he appealed, to labor, discipline, responsibility, knowledge and learning, and positive constructiveness, not simply destruction. Lenin checked the collapse of Russia by despotism and tyranny using cruel policies he considered unavoidable in a revolution. He was only interested in seizure of power. Lenin dedicated himself to developing the technique of revolutionary conflict. He held a totalitarian view of life necessary for the struggle focusing revolutionary energy. Lenin permitted any method in the fight to achieve revolution. To him ‘good’ was everything which served the revolution including fraud, deceit, violence, and cruelty; ‘evil’ everything which hindered it. To Lenin, Marxism is above all the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He was not a democrat; but he asserted the principle of a selected minority. His plan of revolution did not include development of consciousness among vast masses of workmen. Lenin’s purpose was formation of a strong party representing a well-organized and iron disciplined minority relying upon the strength of its integrated revolutionary dictatorship over life as a complete whole. The very organization of the party, which was centralized in the extreme, was a dictatorship over every member of the party. Lenin’s Bolshevik Party provided the pattern of the future organizational dictatorship of the communist party but also to the dictatorship of the communist dictator over the party membership. The plan for the Bolshevik Revolutionaries of Russia formulated by Lenin became the plan for Communist revolutions throughout the world.

A crowd of people in front of a building.

To understand my characterization of Antifa as Bolshevik revolutionaries, it is necessary to understand the nature of the communist revolutions in Russia and China. Lenin envisioned Russia as the seat of world government based on the portion of Marxist philosophy suggesting the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin selected, trained, and developed a cadre of revolutionaries who would be responsible to indoctrinate and train party activists in the tactics of dictatorial revolution. Party leaders were told that authoritarian rule and government control of the entire economy would be needed to secure the benefits of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only then would the proletariat share equally in the benefits of production.

In 1895, Lenin helped organize Marxist groups in the capital into theUnion for the Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,which attempted to enlist workers to the Marxist cause. In 1902, he published a pamphlet titled What Is to Be Done? which argued that only a disciplined party of professional revolutionaries could bring socialism to Russia. Early on, Russian socialists were divided. Lenin’s Bolsheviks advocated militarism while the other group advocated a democratic movement toward socialism. Lenin made the split official at a 1912 conference of the Bolshevik Party. Lenin garnered popular support for his revolution with calls forpeace, land, and bread.The 1905 Bloody Sunday massacre and subsequent Russian revolution were the first of a series of events that eventually led to the Soviet Union. On Bloody Sunday, hundreds of unarmed Russians protesting years of food shortages and costly wars were killed or wounded by the czar’s troops. Russia entered WW I in 1914 and suffered disastrous military losses, economic duress, and extensive food shortages. After WW I, the next Russian revolution stated in early 1917 and Czar Nicholas abdicated the throne. Later that year, Lenin led the Bolshevik revolution, a nearly bloodless coup d’©tat against a series of representative assemblies, or Dumas established by Czar Nicholas II. At the end of 1917, civil war started between the Red Army, the Bolsheviks, and the White Army, a coalition of monarchists, capitalists, and democratic socialists. In mid-1918, the Bolsheviks executed the Czar and his entire family. The civil war lasted until 1923 when Lenin’s Bolshevik revolutionaries defeated the White Army and established the Soviet Union.

After Germany and its allies were defeated in WWII, Joseph Stalin who succeeded Lenin in Russia, expanded communist rule to countries invaded by Germany In Eastern Europe. The result was establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, and the beginning of theCold War.During the Cold War, Russia also attempted to expand its influence into the Middle East, North Africa, Viet Nam, and Latin America through militant communist revolutions. On June 12, 1987, United States President Ronald Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” during a speech delivered in West Berlin. Of course, President Reagan was referring to the wall dividing Germany and Berlin into Eastern Communist and Western Free Democratic sides. The wall was built by the Communists to prevent those on the east from escaping to freedom in the west. On December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed because it was economically unable to sustain its Cold War military expenditures and support for communist revolutions around the world. From the time of the Communist revolution in Russia to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the laboring proletariat of Russia and Eastern Europe never shared equally in the benefits of production or experienced promised freedom from exploitation. They just exchanged bourgeoisie capitalist for totalitarian communist overlords. Sadly, for the people of Russia, they have fallen under a new dictatorship led by a former Communist.

After a decade of agitation and riots culminating with a military revolt in 1911, the last Chinese dynasty, the Qing, ended with a revolution resulting in formation of the Republic of China on January 1, 1912. A republican government was established. In 1919 while involved in their civil war, Russian Communists sent a delegation to China to recruit leaders to communism. Chen Duxiu, a leading Chinese intellectual was recruited and became the founder of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), formally established in 1921. Chen was a Leninist supporting eventual world revolution. In their search for Far-East allies, Russian communists also determined that Sun Yat-sen, the first provisional President of the Republic of China, would accept communist support for his party, the Kuomintang or KMT, while it solidified its control of China. The KMT would later become the Chinese Nationalist Party. Chen and his Russian allies thought that their communists could control Sun and his nationalist. After Sun’s death in 1925, Chiang Kai-shek became the leader of the KMT and started a purge of the Communists. By 1927, the two-part Chinese civil war was raging.

The Nationalist expelled the Communists from the KMT and many cities where communists were massacred. In this purge, the CCP lost approximately 15,000 of its 25.000 members. The remainder of the CCP fled into the countryside. To prepare for future battles, the CCP formed the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army of China, better known as the “Red Army.” Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung, was appointed provisional commander of the Red Army in August. Mao’s Red Army unsuccessfully attempted to defeat the nationalist in the cities of Hunan and Changsha. He retreated with his decimated forces into the nearby mountains. In the rural areas and mountains, Mao centralized power, trained a cadre of disciplined professional communist revolutionaries, organized the peasants, and built bases of operation and headquarters that he expanded during and after the Japanese invasion. By 1935 Mao had become the party’s Politburo Standing Committee leader and Red Army commander.

The war with Japan lasted from 1937 to 1945. The Communists and Nationalists paused their civil war and joined forces to fight the Japanese, but skirmishes between the two occurred throughout the war. By 1940, cooperation had almost ceased, and the war was fought separately by Communists and Nationalists. The Chinese Nationalist Army took the brunt of the fighting with the Japanese and suffered greatly. The CCP used the end of the war to expand its territory. The Japanese invasion stirred a sense of nationalism among peasants which they previously lacked and set the stage for a communist revolution. The CCP had a doctrine, long-term objectives, a clear political strategy, disciplined leadership, and an army. After the defeat of Japan in WWII and Japan’s withdrawal from China in 1945, Mao became Chairman of the CCP. For about a year the Communists and Nationalists negotiated unsuccessfully for peace.

When the Chinese civil war resumed, the Nationalists had a 3-1 military advantage. The Nationalists prevailed militarily for the next two years of civil war conquering cities while failing to gain control rural territory, CCP strongholds. Nationalists also failed to gain popularity due to corruption. The CCP withdrew tactically from the cities while launching intellectual and studentdirect actionprotests against the Nationalists in the cities. The protests were met with heavy-handed suppression. Corruption and heavy-handedness caused division in Nationalist leadership resulting in desertion of nearly two-thirds of the Nationalist military by early 1948. In the fall of 1948, Chiang Kai-shek determined that he could regain the advantage with one significant battle in Manchuria. Although the Nationalist army was numerically superior, they were soundly defeated. Consequently, the remaining 600,000 Nationalist troops and about 2 million sympathizers retreated to the island of Taiwan. On October 1, 1949, Chairman Moa Zedong officially proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at Tiananmen Square.

The foreign policy of the PRC was not as hostile to the non-Asian world as USSR foreign policy was to most of the world including China. The PRC pursued economic and technological development, global economic intervention, and international diplomacy rather than the global revolutionary intervention and weapons exports preferred by Russia. In 1972, Richard Nixon became the first President to visit the PRC. In December 1978, China announced the Open-Door Policy. For the first time since the CCP won their civil war, the PRC was opened to foreign investment. The normalization of ties culminated in 1979, when the U.S. established full diplomatic relations with the PRC. In 1983, the US State Department changed its classification of China to “a friendly, developing nation” thereby increasing the amount of technology and armaments that could be sold to China as a deterrent to potential USSR hostilities. In 1986, China gained observer status with The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, an international treaty lasting from 1948 to 1994 to promote trade and economic development by reducing tariffs and other restrictions. GATT was superseded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995.

In 1989, as many one million students began nearly two months of protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Protests spread to as many as 400 Chinese cities. Grievances included inflation, corruption, greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. In mid-June, CCP leaders ordered the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to clear the square and end other demonstrations throughout the country. While the PLA was clearing the square, the famousTank Manphoto of one man standing in front of a line of tanks appeared worldwide. The photo came to represent the repressive nature of China under the CCP. The toll of the subsequent massacres was disputed and ranged from hundreds to thousands of protester deaths and injuries. Subsequently, the CCP made widespread arrests of protesters and supporters, expelled foreign journalists, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press, strengthened the police and internal security forces, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. These restrictions have continued to this day. The west responded with temporary arms and trade embargos and strained diplomatic relationships. China became a pariah state for a relatively short period of time.

Since Tiananmen, China has worked domestically and internationally to reshape its image from a repressive regime to a benign global economic and military partner. In my opinion, the Chinese image and reality are not synonymous. CCP efforts to soften its world reputation and make significant internal economic changes were successful and culminated in admission of China to the World Trade Organization WTO in December of 2001. China has been able to maintainfriendly developing nation status granted by the US in 1983 in the WTO. This status has given China enormous economic advantages while competing withdevelopednations like the United States.

While Russia and China pursued different strategies regarding the spread of communism internationally following their respective revolutions, their internal revolutionary plans were virtually identical. Both communist revolutions followed popular revolutions against monarchies and subsequent establishment of weak representative republican governments. These governments failed to resolve the economic problems caused by their respective monarchies which allowed communist revolutionaries to gain popularity with promises ofpeace, land, and bread.In both Russia and China, the people felt that they were being exploited by the wealthy and ruling classes. Both communist revolutions followed the model developed by Lenin. Lenin and Moa spent considerable time selecting and training a small cadre of disciplined professional communist revolutionaries completely dedicated to a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. This cadre of revolutionaries agreed with Lenin that good’ was everything which served the revolution including fraud, deceit, violence, and cruelty; ‘evil’ everything which hindered it.Both revolutions sustained heavy initial losses which hardened the resolve of their leaders and members. These hardened survivors became even stronger leaders who were sent throughout their countries to establish revolutionary cells in both urban and rural parts of their countries as these movements grew. These Bolshevik revolutionaries were ready and willing to fight and die for the cause.

My characterization of Antifa as Bolshevik revolutionaries is, in my opinion, accurate. Antifa has at least 200 affiliated groups or cells in the United States. The Wikipedia Antifa article is a contradiction in terms. The first paragraph of the article states,It is highly decentralized and comprises an array of autonomous groups that aim to achieve their objectives through both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform.This description parrots the mainstream news, media, academic, progressive, and Democrat view of Antifa. My question is which came first,the chicken or the egg?Did these groups write the article, or do they parrot what the article says as the reality of Antifa for public consumption, mere propaganda? Antifa agrees with Lenin and Mao when they claim thatpolicy reformis too slow and change must be forced throughnon-violent and violent direct action.Although the article claims that Antifa is composed ofhighly decentralized autonomous groups,thesegroupsare organized to achievetheir objectiveswhich implies common objectives; andtheirdirect actions are conducted to achievetheir objectives.When Antifa cells, orgroups,arrive in cities throughout the United States, sometimes internationally, unload rental trucks full of riot gear, march under the same flag with trained precision todirect actionevents,protests,and conduct disciplinedviolent direct actionthat include political violence, assault, arson, and property destruction, We the People are told that Antifa is an ideology not an organization.

In the section of the Antifa article titledPublic reactions,Academics and scholarsappear to justify a vigilante view of Antifa’sviolent direct actionas follows:

Historian Mark stated that [Given] the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it’s clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions.’

Alexander Reid Ross¦ has argued that Antifa groups represented one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways.'”

Historian and Dissent magazine editor Michael Kazin wrote that non-leftists often see the left as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view.’ Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat was worried that Antifa’s methods could feed into what she said were false equivalencies that seek to lump violence on the left with attacks by the right.'”

Excuse me, but violence is violence. Supporters of law and order understand this simple concept about right and wrong. Violence is violence! Violence by those on the left is equivalent to violence by those on the right. Clear thinking adults understand that these are notfalse equivalencies.Furthermore, the statement by Ruth Ben-Ghiat supports my contention that academics and scholars and most of the news media on the left support and encourageviolent direct action,riotous actions perpetrated by Antifa. My contention that Antifa are Bolshevik revolutionaries acting as vigilantes is further supported by the following statement by Peter Beinart:

“Antifa believes [that]¦ in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not.

In my opinion, Antifa is organized as a vigilante group of Bolshevik revolutionaries.

At this point in this discussion, I must state unequivocally that I abhor all forms of white supremacy and racism. The first section of the article, what most people read, also states,Some scholars argue that Antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far right and that Antifa’s violence such as milkshaking is not equivalent to right-wing violence. Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between Antifa and white supremacism.Antifadirect actionis described as milkshaking not the reality of Antifa members beating men and women to a pulp, setting fires, destroying businesses, attacking law enforcement officers, headquarters and other government buildings including courthouses. Leftistexpectsand news media expect us to believe what they tell us about Antifa not what we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Again, these are the tactics of Bolshevik revolutionaries. One last question,In the last fifty years, whatwhite supremacistgroup or groups have caused one billion dollars in damages throughout the United States over a single summer?

According to the article, individuals involved in Antifa hold left-wing anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views. Most Antifa members are anarchists, communists, and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, Bolshevik revolutionaries in my opinion. The idea of direct action is central to the Antifa movement. The termdirect actionis used by political activists to describe economic and political acts requiring physical power to achieve their goals which are opposed by authorities. Antifa often engages inviolent direct action,political violence, assault, arson, and property destruction, riots to thepolitically incorrect.Scott Crow says that Antifa adherents believe that property destruction ds not “equate to violence.” According to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, Antifa activists feel the need to participate in violent direct actions because “they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So, they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist.Therefore, according to Antifa, our government and the media are racist and must be confronted byviolent direct actions.The idea that our government and media are racist is consistent with the ideas of Marxist Critical Race Theorists and Black Lives Matter activists. Violent direct action also describes the tactics of the Bolshevik revolutionaries during the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions.

The article also describes the organizational structure and membership of Antifa as loosely affiliated with no national chain of command. Antifa groups share “resources and information across regional and national borders through loosely knit networks and relationships of trust and solidarity.” According to Mark Bray, members have high expectations of commitmentto Antifa and each other. Activists typically organize protests via social media, websites, peer-to-peer networks, or encrypted-texting services. Antifa activists dress in black and cover their faces to thwart surveillance and create a sense of equality and solidarity among participants. The progressive news media and the left would have We the People believe that Antifa is just an ideology because its 200 plus cells do not have a Lenin, Moa, or Duke to lead a united front in theirdirect actioncampaigns. However, their cell leaders share resources and information, organize by social media, websites, peer-to-peer networks, or encrypted-texting services; and they are joined by high expectations of commitment and solidarity to Antifa and each other. As Lenin required, Antifa cell leaders and members are adisciplined cadre of professional revolutionaries.Antifa is operated by a committee or council of cell leaders, a board of directors, not a commander, CEO, or chairman. Consequently, Antifa is an international anarchist, communist, organization with a significant operation in the United States. Antifa employs the tactics of the early phases of the communist revolutions in Russia and China. Antifa are vigilante Bolshevik revolutionaries.

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 yourPatriot Visions,start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

SAVING OUR ECONOMY FROM COVID-19

A word cloud of many words related to unemployment.

Saving our economy will require innovative thinking. The question is, Will the innovation come from progressives and the Democrat Party or capitalists, entrepreneurs, and the Republican Party? In my opinion, the best solution will come from capitalists and entrepreneurs with the assistance of the Republican Party at the state and national level. However, ethics, morality, empathy, and benevolence will be required of capitalists and entrepreneurs or our economy could easily fail. In other words, saving our economy will require Godly capitalists and entrepreneurs not Godless immoral capitalists.

Covid-19 has devastated our economy, especially small businesses and their employees, over 50% of the economy. Today, less than 2% of the Covid-19 cases result in deaths, tragic as each death is. This death rate is less than 9/100 of 1% of our 320M population, a 20% decline since last summer when 2.8% of the cases resulted in deaths. By the end of this year, our nation will lose around 350.000 citizens to Covid-19. To put this tragic loss in perspective, the annual death rate for cardiovascular disease and cancer are both greater than our annual Covid-19 losses this year. In 2017, according to Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2020 Update – Professional Heart Daily | American Heart Association cardiovascular disease caused nearly 859,000 deaths. Similarly, in 2018, according to An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC there were 599,274 cancer deaths. This sad perspective will be a necessary consideration for saving our economy.

Saving our economy will require reductions in Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, economic shutdowns, and school closures causing small business failures, unemployment, evictions, foreclosures, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. To gain some perspective, a comparison of two economic responses to the pandemic is appropriate. For this comparison consider the response of Florida, California, and New York. The October 2020 unemployment rate for each state was 6.5% in Florida, 9.3% in California, and 9.6% in New York according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida unemployment was more than 40% lower than that of California and New York. This is important since Florida has not closed its economy while the California and New York economies have been closed much of the year.

Consequently, the mid-December Covid-19 statistics for these states must be compared to evaluate the effects of economic closures. In Florida, 20,050 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,116,973 cases, a 1.8% case fatality rate, which is 9/100s of 1% of the 22 million Floridians. In California, 20,854 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,528,177 cases, a 1.4% case fatality rate, which is 5/100s of 1%, of the 40 million Californians. In New York, 34,983 Covid-19 patients died out of 764,966 cases, a 4.6% case fatality rate, which is 17/100s of 1% of the 20 million New Yorkers. Although New York was among the first states struck by the pandemic and the nation has subsequently learned a great deal about the disease, the New York case fatality rate is extreme in comparison to Florida and California. New York senior citizens with the virus were placed in elder care and living facilities with healthy residents resulting in rapid spread and high death rates. This action was inexcusable and must never be repeated especially when available beds in a hospital ship and convention center were not used for these senior citizens.

The final class of data to consider in a discussion of the means of saving our economy is how Covid-19 spreads in our communities. In many respects, the data is contradictory among states. In Louisiana, NPR reports that bars account for 14% of the cases and restaurants 13% of the cases. In contrast, contact tracing in New York shows that restaurants and bars account for a combined total of only 1.4% of the cases while household and social gatherings accounted 74% of the cases which is the same as the 74% close contact and community spread reported by North Dakota. Arkansas contact tracing data shows that restaurants and bars account for only 3% of the cases. In Illinois, restaurants account for 4% of the cases, bars account for 3%, and religious activities account for 5%. Interestingly, community events, (protests?) account for 7% of the cases, more than religious activities, bars, and restaurants. The Illinois contact data is the most complete evaluated; and it shows that activities that appeared to be that of essential workers contributed to most of the cases in the state, about 35%.

When governors and big city mayors close their economies or small businesses, they are usually not following the science. They are using their power to show their constituents that they are doing something, even if that something is not supported by science. The above data shows that small businesses including restaurants and bars as well as religious activities are not significant sources of Covid-19 spread. Dr. Fauci observed that community spread made it almost impossible to predict how many cases there will be. The facts demonstrate that community spread between people with no known contact with other infected individuals, travel to an area where the disease occurs, or spread among essential workers and household and social gatherings is more important than spread occurring at schools, religious gatherings, small businesses, bars, and restaurants. The fact that Covid-19 can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic and unknowingly transmit the disease is also an important consideration when evaluating how to deal with the economic impact of the spread of Covid-19. With asymptomatic community spread and a significant part of our population involved in essential work, does it really make sense to close our economy, small businesses, and religious activities? Will doing so, contribute to saving our economy?

Returning to the comparison between Florida and California, comparisons of the unemployment and death rate data will provide difficult answers to these two questions. First, by applying the California Covid-19 death rate, with extensive economic closures, to the Florida population with few economic closures, Florida would have suffered almost 8,600 fewer deaths. By applying the Florida death rate to the California population, California would have suffered 15,600 more deaths. Second, by applying the unemployment rate of California to the Florida population, Florida would have 616,000 more unemployed. Applying the Florida unemployment rate to California that state would have 1,120,000 fewer unemployed. Putting it brutally, California’s comparatively closed economy may have saved 15,600 lives at the expense of 1,120,000 jobs. Conversely, Florida’s comparatively open economy may have cost 8,600 lives while saving 616,000 jobs. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

Using Covid-19 death rates and unemployment levels from one state to predict unemployment and Covid-19 mortality in another state is mere speculation used to provoke argument and discussion. After all, no two states have the same climate which affects outdoor activities and indoor gatherings. State populations have different age structures, racial and ethnic ratios, and ideological and political affiliations. No two state economies are the same. Each state has a unique business structures affecting the size of their industrial, financial, technology and service sectors, large and small retail establishments, and residential rental and home ownership ratios. These differences make prediction of Covid-19 death rates and unemployment in one state based on data from another state useful discussion tools, but such predictions are simply food for thought as We the People, governors, and big city mayors evaluate the potential impacts of our leader’s economic decisions.

It is useful to recall the early scientific Covid-19 models predicting 2-3 million US deaths in the first year of the pandemic. These predictions shocked us into submitting to successive two-week, national quarantines or lock downs. Except for essential workers, we stayed home and did not work. Many of us were fortunate enough to work from home potentially altering the way some types of work will be done in the future. We closed our schools. We agreed to wash our hands and sanitize surfaces at work and home. We observed social distancing and stopped personal contact with others including our relatives in senior centers and our dying loved ones in hospitals, and eventually most of us started wearing face masks to protect ourselves and others once the science convinced us of face mask efficacy. We flattened the curve and reduced Covid-19 deaths to 350,000 rather than millions. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

The last consideration regarding these devastating numbers is the other impacts of economic closures on people. School closures and unemployment impacts suicide rates, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, family abuse, evictions, foreclosures, late payments on mortgages, rent, and loans, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. Most websites discussing suicide rates are unhelpful or totally unreliable. For example, the World Population Review site has two graphic depictions and a table titled, Suicide Rates by State 2020 all with identical data. Unfortunately, the first line on the table states, * Rates are per 100,000 people. Data for calendar year 2018. Covid-19 death statistics are immediately available, but suicide data takes two years to compile and report.

A July 2020 Townhall report titled, CDC Director Compares Rate of Suicides to COVID-19 Deaths summarizes concerns regarding school closings and other issues associated with closing our society and economy.

Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said in a Buck Institute webinar that suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19 among high school students. Redfield argued that lockdowns and lack of public schooling constituted a disproportionally negative impact on young peoples’ mental health.

“But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools,” Redfield said. “We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So this is why I keep coming back for the overall social [well] being of individuals, is let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and their safe.”

A doctor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, CA claimed the facility has seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury, said a nurse from the same hospital.

And while health authorities will not have verified data regarding suicides and drug overdoses in 2020 for two more years, local reporting indicates that suicide fatalities have increased year-on-year.

According to the American Medical Association, More than 35 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality, [and] concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder.

School closures cause other problems for families, especially single parent families. Essential workers cannot stay at home to monitor their children’s on-line education without risking their jobs. The stress leads to the mental issues described above. For families fortunate enough to have one parent who can work from home, the strain of balancing work and school can be debilitating, especially when young children are involved. In the best of situations, educators indicate that our children are losing ground. If parents lose their jobs because they must care for children due to school closures, they usually face economic disaster and the associated mental health issues. Since K-12 students are among the lowest risk group for contracting or transmitting Covid-19 or suffering serious effects of the disease in the absence of underlying conditions, opening our schools would have a major impact in saving our economy.

In my opinion, saving our economy will require national and state governments to act on behalf of We the People without regard to the accumulation of political power. With meaningful government assistance, capitalists and entrepreneurs acting with empathy, benevolence, and uncommon moral and ethical standards offer the best hope for saving our economy. Another round of national government Covid-19 aid like the payroll protection plan for small businesses and their employees, small business loans, extension of unemployment benefits, and eviction and foreclosure moratoriums would reduce the impact on We the People caused by the ongoing pandemic until vaccines end the Covid-19 crisis. Capitalists and entrepreneurs could provide a bridge between government measures and people’s ability to regain their financial stability. For example, banks, mortgagers, loan companies, and other financiers could offer reduced no penalty payment plans with commensurate repayment period extensions. Residential, commercial, and industrial property owners could offer similar reductions in rent and lease payments. It is not unreasonable to offer the suggested payment reduction plans and extensions to businesses, mortgagees, and tenants with sound pre-Covid-19 payment histories.

Our economy should start to recover as more people get vaccinated, but most of our population will not be immunized for six to eight months. At that time, it is reasonable to expect the economy to move into a period of rapid recovery. Consequently, the suggested credit, rent, and lease payment reduction and extensions should last at least one year. This would allow people to recover financially and resume pre-Covid-19 payment levels. This plan would allow property owners and lenders to keep good people and businesses as tenants or owners with a lower risk profile. Without such a plan, properties could remain vacant, producing no revenue, and incur extra costs related to foreclosures, evictions, and potential litigation. With the entire economy weakened, new tenants and owners could be scarce and pose a higher risk of failure as small businesses, new tenants, and mortgagees.

This plan would reduce unemployment, mental illness including suicides, drug abuse, and family abuse, and help families cope with school closures. Of course, the plan would also reduce financier’s short-term income for about one year; but it would promote long-term stability economic expansion thereby saving our economy.

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.

TWITTER VERSUS CONSERVATIVES

Twitter versus conservatives and the GOP, Republicans, is a reality; and I have recently experienced it. On November 12. 2020 after logging into my Twitter account at about 1PM, I learned that all the accounts that I was Following had been deleted.

These accounts included President Trump, who has also been harassed by Twitter, Vice President Pence, Republican members of Congress, Tea Party leaders, and Tea Party accounts, conservative and Republican student group accounts, Conservative think tank accounts, and black conservatives like Candace Owens. These Following accounts were removed from my Profile sometime in the 10 days prior to November 12.

I immediately attempted to file a complaint about the problem. First, I went to the Help Center with the More link on my home page. At the bottom of that page, I clicked on Contact us, Experiencing an issue on Twitter? Let us know how we can help and clicked the File a Report link. On that page, I clicked the View all support topics link which took me to the Harassment link under the Report a violation column as shown below.

This link took me to a page with the heading, Someone on Twitter is engaging in abusive or harassing behavior. On this page, I checked Harassment under What are you reporting and Directed at me under These actions are. The page asked for the URL of offending Tweets or

A screen shot of someone on twitter is engaging in abusive or harassing behavior.

A twitter account has been blocked by the group.

it stated, If what you are reporting appears outside of a Tweet please provide details in the text field below. In that text field below, I detailed the deletion of those accounts I was Following as shown above. Under the heading starting with Someone on Twitter, shown above, the following statement was written in red: You missed some Fields! We’ve highlighted them for you in Red It was the URL field which the form stated, If what you are reporting appears outside of a Tweet please provide details in the text field below. I entered two possible URL’s for Twitter and Not a Tweet, in that field (See Above); but Twitter would not accept the complaint. In each of my attempts, I clicked Submit as shown below and received the Red error message shown above.

A close up of the email field in a computer

At about 2:30 PM on November 12, I gave up and logged out of Twitter. Later that evening, I logged in to Twitter; and, to my surprise, my profile looked different. The accounts that I was following had magically reappeared. I guess I should say, ALL’s well that ends well; but it smacks as Harassment to me. This harassment is an example showing that Twitter versus conservatives is a reality.

A twitter feed with the following hashtags :

Unfortunately, the above incident is not the first time that Twitter has caused problems for me. The last time, Twitter presented a Halloween trick to me by refusing to post a Tweet I attempted to post in response to another Tweet. I tried to post the Tweet a few minutes later; but Twitter would still not accept the post. This is a second example showing that Twitter versus conservatives is a reality. In both situations, Twitter never explained or attempted to justify its actions. Twitter acted against me because it is Twitter; and Twitter can do anything it pleases; especially, when conservatives and Republicans are involved.

A person is posting on twitter with an image of a baseball player.

MAKING A RACIST OLD WHITE MAN, https://americascrossroad.com/racist-old-white-man is an article from my blog, AMERICA’S CROSSROAD. It is the story of a man who changed from a young man who hated racism to a man who has lost respect for the Black community at large. To many, if not most, on the left, the fact, that I no longer respect the black community at large, makes me a racist. The question that Twitter and the left refuses to ask is a simple question; Is my very personal story of making a racist old white man an anomaly, a symptom of white privilege, or systemic racism. The fact is that my article, MAKING A RACIST OLD WHITE MAN, is an affirmative answer to another simple question. Are the race riots, looting, fires, and violence carried out by members of the black community that have occurred for decades and those following or in association with the recent BLACK LIVES MATTER demonstrations and their leaders, subsequently justified by both black and white progressives making racists of white people like me in all walks of life throughout the United States? If my story is not unique among white people in the United States, then social media giants, progressives, progressive black leaders specifically, and the black community at large might want to reconsider their strategy for accomplishing an end to racism in the United States.

It is my fervent prayer that we can end racism in the United States!

JUST A THOUGHT.

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.

MAKING A RACIST OLD WHITE MAN

A baseball card of george crowe with the st. Louis cardinals — George Crowe from Indiana Central University to the major leagues.

When I say that I am now a racist old white man, I must also say in the strongest possible terms that is not where my heart is, nor has it ever been. My parents did not have a racist bone in their bodies; and I was raised to reject bigotry in all forms. My parents graduated from the Teachers College at Indiana Central University, now the University of Indianapolis after WWII. My father left the university to fight in WWII and returned after the war where he left his future wife at the university to study. According to their website, Indiana Central University” opened its doors in 1905. From its beginning, the University has been coeducational and open to all races. One of my mother’s best friends was a black woman, born and raised in Indianapolis. Years later, I listened to my mother and her friend reminisce and laugh during a phone call about their university days together. My father was a student trainer in the athletic program where George Crowe, a black athlete, played basketball and baseball for the university. He was the only black player in the conference and started his major league baseball career with the Boston Braves in April of 1952. He retired as a St. Louis Cardinal in 1961. He was named to the National League All-Star team in 1958. He hit the 11th pinch-hit home run of his career in 1960, which at the time set a major league record. I recall watching a Cardinal game on TV when my father said that he was proud to have known George Crowe in college.

I was raised in the north east part of Albuquerque, New Mexico. There were no black students in my elementary or middle schools, and my high school had only one black student. Since seniors attended classes in the morning and underclassmen attended in the afternoon, I never saw him. I did learn that he was courageous and funny from his B Team football coach, a family friend. The team used alternating half backs to send plays into the team. When it was time to send in the first play of the first game, coach called the name of the back he wanted to carry the play into the game, he said Kuhn, asking for Ray Kuhn (pronounced coon). When he turned to give the call to the player, he saw a black half back with a huge grin on his face waiting for the play call. Coach started laughing uncontrollably and had to call time out so he could stop laughing, regain his composure, and call the play. He said, The kid had a plan, and he was going to carry the first play into the game regardless of whose name I called. He had guts. I agreed. At the University of New Mexico, the University of Montana, and Oregon State University, I had little interaction with black students because of the curricula I was pursuing. As a married student with a part time job and active church life, my campus life was limited. Nothing to this point in my life indicated that I would become a “racist old white man.”

Nothing in my experience to that point moved me toward bigotry or racist attitudes; but unrest and racial rioting started to make me have concerns about the black community. During my three years of active duty as an Army Officer, all my interactions with black soldiers but one, with understandable circumstances, were positive; and the one did not change my attitude. Enumerable black trainees passed through our training programs, and several black Non-Commissioned Officers served in my company and battalion. I had a great working relationship with all of them. On the last day of a Drug Education and Race Relations Counselor training class, the instructor asked each of us to describe our honest feelings about race relations. I shared that I was reluctantly becoming a racist. The shocked instructor stated his surprise at my brutal honesty and asked what I meant. I indicated that I could not understand why blacks considered that riots, arson, looting, assaults, murder, and lawlessness in general were justified under any circumstances. I referred to the 1967 Detroit Riots and the riots that followed the assignation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I observed that national leaders of the black community like Rev. Jesse Jackson claimed the lawlessness and mayhem was understandable considering centuries of racial injustice in the United States and Dr. King’s assassination. I noted that one sin does not justify a multitude of sins. The riots of 1967 and 1968 were the starting points of my evolution into a “racist old white man.”

A black and white picture of the detroit riots.

A history.com article on the 1967 Detroit Riots stated the following:

In the aftermath of the Newark and Detroit riots, President Johnson appointed a National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, often known as the Kerner Commission. In February, 1968 seven months after the Detroit Riots had ended, [and less than two months before the assignation of Dr. King], the commission released its 426-page report.

The Kerner Commission identified more than 150 riots or major disorders between 1965 and 1968. In 1967 alone, 83 people were killed and 1,800 were injured”the majority of them African Americans”and property valued at more than $100 million was damaged, looted or destroyed.

Ominously, the report declared that Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white”separate and unequal. Reaction to last summer’s disorders has quickened the movement and deepened the division. Discrimination and segregation have long permeated much of American life; they now threaten the future of every American.

However, the authors also found cause for hope: This deepening racial division is not inevitable. The movement apart can be reversed. Additionally, the report stated that What the rioters appeared to be seeking was fuller participation in the social order and the material benefits enjoyed by the majority of American citizens. Rather than rejecting the American system, they were anxious to obtain a place for themselves in it.

Sadly, nothing has changed.

Instantaneous rioting and carnage still follow real or perceived law enforcement abuses. All law enforcement officers, involved in lethal or injurious Use of force incidents involving black suspects, are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the greater black community, black leaders, and the majority of the Democrat Party. The broadcast verdicts are pronounced before investigations even begin. Although peaceful protests usually follow these guilty verdict pronouncements, the protest juries all too often become black rioters supported by their progressive allies and other anarchists. The punishment pronounced by these riot juries may result in arson, looting, assaults, or murders. Those punished by the riot juries are rarely the perpetrators of the original law enforcement sin. Riots are still justified by the greater black community, their leaders and Democrats because the rioters are simply seeking [equal justice and] fuller participation in the social order and the material benefits enjoyed by the majority of American citizens as stated by the 1968 Kerner Commission. With each riot and its justification, the heart of this “racist old white man” becomes more hardened.

Again, I say, Sadly, nothing has changed. The riot list grows over the last 60 years including Detroit 1967 and 1968 with at least 33 black and 10 white deaths, 1200 and more injured, 2,000 buildings burned, and well over $100 million in damages; Miami 1980 with 18 dead, 370 injured, and $100 million in damages and destruction; Los Angeles 1992 with 2 Asian, 28 black, 19 Latino, and 15 white deaths, 2300 injured, 1100 buildings destroyed, and $1 billion in property damage; Baltimore 2015 where information on deaths and injuries was too time consuming to retrieve, $9 million in damage and destruction to 350 businesses and two homes, and $20 million in government expenses related to riot control and personnel injury claims etc.; Portland, Seattle, Washington DC, Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, Kenosha, and Denver to name the worst in 2020 with a yet to be determined death toll, injury total, damage, looting, and governmental costs. The unfortunate deaths of more black people in these riots is one example of what I refer to as “black self-genocide.” When national black leaders justify each riot as understandable for the centuries of unequal justice at the hands of people afflicted by “white privilege,” the mind of this “racist old white man” remains unchanged.

The justification and excuses provided by the general black community as well as black and Democrat leaders remains the same. Additionally, the tactic devised by Mao Tso Tung for the Chinese Communist Revolution, the fish in a school of fish tactic in which activist fighters are embedded within large groups of peaceful protesters, was acknowledged by the Baltimore mayor during the 2015 riots. A Wikipedia article wrote the following:

Baltimore [Democrat] mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, “most protesters were respectful but a small group of agitators intervened”. She also stated that “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate. “The phrase “we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well” was interpreted by some conservative-leaning news sources as an indication that the mayor was giving permission to protesters to destroy property.

Two days later, the mayor’s Director of Strategic Planning and Policy, Howard Libit, released a statement clarifying the mayor’s remarks:

What she is saying within this statement was that there was an effort to give the peaceful demonstrators room to conduct their peaceful protests on Saturday. Unfortunately, as a result of providing the peaceful demonstrators with the space to share their message, that also meant that those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate. The police sought to balance the rights of the peaceful demonstrators against the need to step in against those who were seeking to create violence. The mayor is not saying that she asked police to give space to people who sought to create violence. Any suggestion otherwise would be a misinterpretation of her statement.

It defies logic to say that we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that or those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate does not mean that providing space to destroy or incite violence does not require permission to participate in destruction and violence. If I tell a group of boys that they can use the space in my front yard to play football, I give them permission to play football in my yard.

With each riot, my “racist old white man” heart becomes more hardened! I hate what you are doing to me. I hate the anger that you are provoking in me. I lose respect for the black community when I hear chants directed at law enforcement officers like Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon, or who do we want to kill, Cops; when do we want to kill them, now, or No justice, no peace. No peace does not equate to peaceful protests. That statement means that if whites do not submit to black demands there will be no peace. Cities will burn down; and they are.

A red heart with a missing piece of it — Please, Can’t we all get together and get along?

I know one cure. My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ shed his red blood as a sacrifice for the sins of every human being. He offers salvation and peace. Every life matters to Jesus Christ. We all have red blood like the blood Jesus shed for us.

Finally, one critical question remains. How many “racist old white men,” like me, are being made by the race riots devastating the United States today? Similarly, How many racists in general are being made by these endless nights of rioting? The response of this “racist old white man” is this blog article. Others may choose a more active and violent response.

MY PRAYER IS FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION!

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.

BLACK SELF-GENOCIDE

Black self-genocide is a term that I use to describe deaths or injuries to black people caused directly or indirectly by some behavior or activity common, but not unique, in black communities and culture described in detail below. I am disgusted by every example of excessive force used by law enforcement officers involving black suspects or black innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time resulting in injuries or deaths. Unlawful excessive force by law enforcement officers involving guns or illegal and unauthorized physical restraints like choke holds disgust me. I am equally disgusted by assassinations, murders, or injuries of law enforcement officers. I am disgusted by the murder and assault of every human being, including black on black crimes, because all lives matter to me. To many reading this article, this all lives matter stand means I do not understand the injustices suffered by the black community for centuries because I suffer from the genetic disease white privilege.

Consequently, I admit that I am a racist old white man. I admit that I am a racist old white man not because I am a racist but that is what you know in your heart that I am, a racist. I am not a racist by birth or heritage, the environment where I was raised, or my personal experiences as an adult. I am a racist old white man because over the last six decades, I have gradually lost respect for the black community at large, most of the nationally acclaimed black leaders, and most members of the Democrat Party, especially progressives. The riots that have periodically destroyed our cities for six decades are one example of what I call black self-genocide. The riots are always justified by claims of systemic racism perpetrated by white racists which now includes every white person living in the United States because we all suffer from the genetic disorder of white privilege.

I have also lost respect for the greater black community because it has allowed itself to become the victim of black self-genocide. Indicators of black self-genocide include ramped black gang violence resulting in the death of thousands of black Americans, now including young children; debilitating drug abuse resulting in countless more deaths; abortions eliminating countless black babies in the womb; destruction of the nuclear family leaving countless single moms to raise unaborted children in poverty who often succumb to gang membership, death, or drug abuse; and a culture that no longer respects law enforcement officers teaching blacks to flee from the law, not cooperate with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, disobey law officers, or resist arrest often resulting in serious injuries or deaths. Most of the twenty first century events that have involved use of excessive force by law enforcement officers started with the black suspects, subsequent victims, who fled from the law and/or resisted arrest. Had these blacks simply complied with or obeyed the legal orders and instructions of law enforcement officers, they would not have been injured or killed, more black self-genocide. Sadly, simple acts of disobedience or resistance result in injury or death of suspects or victims usually lead to massive and destructive riots, additional injuries, loss of lives, property destruction, theft, and millions to billions in costs to reclaim lost property and rebuild communities. Unfortunately, many of the injuries and deaths caused by the riots are to blacks and other minorities, additional back self-genocide. The black self-genocide described is a tragedy for black Americans specifically; but it is also a tragedy for every citizen of the United States.

In my opinion, one group of black leaders has the greatest opportunity change black community attitudes which result in black self-genocide, black Biblical Christian clergy and congregational leaders. These leaders understand that Biblical teachings leading to salvation and understanding through Jesus Christ offer real solutions to the problems of the greater black community. Such teachings would prevent the attitudes that lead to black self-genocide. Changed lives bring about changed outcomes. Changed outcomes for the greater black community should be the prayer of everyone in the United States.

DID WE ELIMINATE GOD TO BURY OUR CHILDREN?

A picture of the founding father, george washington. 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.

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR FOUNDER’S NATION

CONTENTS

VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE

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.

A man in a hat and a quote — 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

A group of people standing next to each other. — “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.

OUR SICK SOCIETY

A quran is open on the table in black and white. — Unfortunately, in our sick society, a walk on the beach can lead to sexual harassment.

It is my strong opinion that the wave of credible high profile sexual harassment and rape accusations during the last two months are symptoms of our sick society and culture. Joseph Stalin purportedly said,

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

In contrast, George Washington made a very important statement about the relationship between Religion and Morality and the continuing success of the United States of America in his Farewell Address to the Nation when he wrote,

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. “ The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

When President Washington wrote, With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, he was referring to the many sects and denominations of Christianity and an important number of Jews inhabiting the United States at the time, our Judeo-Christian heritage. Shared Judeo-Christian values would be essential to the future political prosperity of our nation. It is our common religious and moral values that Stalin and modern Marxists and progressives seek to undermine. Those seeking to undermine our patriotism, morality, and spiritual life claim the tribute of Patriotism in vain in the words of the Father of our Country.

Unfortunately, the Godless Marxists on the left have succeeded; and we now have a sick society. The underlying infection contaminating our culture and society is the fact that We the People of the United States of America no longer agree that Religion and Morality are indispensable supports leading to a healthy culture and society, our political prosperity. Our abandonment of meaningful Religion and Morality as indispensable supports of our culture and society is the disease at the heart of our sick society and all forms of criminal activity and social problems in our nation. Among other social issues, these problems include murder, assault, rape, drug addiction, thefts, all white collar crime, school dropout rates, single parent families, and all forms of sexual harassment.

Two strains of thought that infected our culture and society which significantly contribute to the current sexual harassment epidemic are the sexual revolution and feminism. The Sexual Revolution, led by Hugh Hefner and Play Boy magazine, Larry Flynn and Hustler magazine, Play Girl magazine, other similar periodicals, the pornography industry, all forms of sex therapy, and The Howard Stern Radio Show, has been praised by the print and news media as a liberating advance for personal satisfaction and relationships in our country. After his death, Hefner was praised for his leading role in the sexual revolution in the United States. Howard Stern regularly discusses and promotes lude sexual behavior in both public and private settings as fun, perfectly acceptable, and natural behavior. Women are regular guests discussing their sexual exploits both as initiators and participants in all varieties of casual sexual interactions. Women often offer laughing encouragement to men discussing their exploits on Stern’s program. On the Access Hollywood tape involving Donald Trump and Billy Bush, Natalie Morales provided laughter and verbal encouragement for the men involved. Natalie Morales got a pass; Donald Trump was elected President; and Billy Bush lost his job. On these type venues, popular music and sports stars brag about the number of women willingly enjoying sex with them where ever they travel in the United States. Sex is portrayed as nothing more than a sensually enjoyable, purely biological act between willing consenting participants that is without moral consequences or meaningful emotional attachment between participants. If the sex is one and done, it served its purpose, immediate sensual, personal gratification. Relationships that are based primarily on good sex are now perfectly acceptable. To Biblical Christians like me, this behavior is symptomatic of a sick society.

Although sexual harassment revolves around the use of power, influence, intimidation, or force to garner sexual favors or unwanted sexual contact, with the exception of rape, the general sexual behavior on display in virtually all of the current sexual harassment situations is depicted every day on public and cable television, in the movies, throughout the music industry, advertising, and most novels. How many times each day does a movie show 007 grabbing a resisting woman, sticking his tongue down her throat, and ending up having sex with her that she absolutely enjoys and often voluntarily participates in additional sexual encounters, to name one movie series example. Illicit sex is depicted on most television dramas. In S. W. A. T., a female police supervisor had an affair with a male subordinate. In SEAL Team, it’s a newbie and a female university graduate student. In The Good Wife, it was the bad husband, the good wife and her boss and at least one other man who she pursued, and the old senior partner who roamed his office in his underwear. In Vikings, one of the queens in the series rapes a competing king who is her chained prisoner. In Suits, etc., it was etc. Sex sells men’s and women’s fragrances and clothes, etc. It is all depicted as common place, acceptable, and no big deal for our sick society. After all, All’s fair in love and war.

Leaders of the Women’s or Feminist Movement have always promoted equal employment opportunity, equal pay for equal work, equal educational opportunities, and parity for women with men in all areas of life. However, it is my opinion that the desire of Feminists to promote women as equal participants and beneficiaries of the sexual revolution also contributes to the current sexual harassment epidemic in our country. Feminists demanded the freedom to pursue men as equal participants in the sexual revolution. Women should be free to experience all the sensual freedom and exhilaration of the sexual revolution as either instigators or willing and equal participants. Feminists have also led the way to ensure that women would be equal to and as free as men from the unintended consequences of unrestricted sex, unwanted pregnancy. Birth control pills were not enough. Feminists demanded abortion on demand and later the morning after pill. Free love, or free sex, without consequences or obligation is the operative thought, word, or phrase. Again, to Biblical Christians, such an attitude is symptomatic of a sick society.

Of course, the critical word for this discussion about sex is willing. When anyone is not willing, freedom to participate becomes sexual harassment or rape, period. The problem is that the culture ushered in by the sexual revolution teaches that sex is nothing more than a naturally instinctive physical interaction which is sensually exhilarating and pleasurable for the participants. Emotions, personal attractions, and long term compatibility are secondary to the sexual interaction between the individuals. Unfortunately, our popular culture also teaches men that women may not be as fully aware of their willingness and desire for sex as men and often need some encouragement or convincing to reveal their desire. This assumption is wrong. Willing consent does not require encouragement, convincing, or force. No is not maybe or convince me. Contrary to popular depictions, one thing does not automatically lead to another. A warm kiss does not constitute an invitation to a sexual encounter. In all situations, men must honor a woman’s wishes regarding sex. Failure to listen to the word no or stop or understanding that simply withdrawing from an embrace also means no or stop is sexual harassment or rape.

We the People of the United States of America must deal the problem of sexual harassment and rape that has occurred at the highest levels of our culture and society. We must also determine whether these problems are independent issues or symptoms of a deeper moral crisis and sick society in our country. Are we “collapsing from within?” Have the Godless voices in our nation succeeded in their efforts to undermine our patriotism, morality, and spiritual life? If so, is it time to reconsider our commitment to George Washington’s vision for our nation when Religion and Morality once again become indispensable supports leading to a prosperous, healthy culture and society that is safe and rewarding for all our citizens?

NEWS NARRATIVES STIMULATE FAKE NEWS

A large fire and smoke cloud is coming from the top of the twin towers. — News narratives stimulate fake news; and opinion reported as fact is fake news.

News narratives stimulate fake news. The fact that news agencies formulate a narrative designed to guide public opinion, including political news, is general knowledge. Accordingly, news stories are selected or rejected to promote or reinforce the “narrative. Conversely, stories that do not support the “narrative are eliminated or buried in the back of the publication, or buried at the end of a report behind other irrelevant information.

The issue is not new. The narrative of the news media concerning the Viet Nam War was changed after the North Viet Nam Army and Viet Con Communist forces launched the Tet Offensive.

In February 1968, in the wake of the Tet Offensive, the respected TV journalist Walter Cronkite, who had been a moderate and balanced observer of the war’s progress, announced that it seemed ‘more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.'”

Walter Cronkite down played the fact that the Tet Offensive was repelled by United States and South Vietnamese forces suffering one tenth the casualties of the attackers. Although South Vietnamese forces proved quite capable during the counter offensive and communist forces were severely weakened, the Tet Offensive was characterized as a defeat. To me, this misrepresentation of facts constituted fake news. The news changed the perception of the war and drastically increased anti-war sentiment in the United States. Decades later North Vietnamese generals admitted that they were defeated but understood that they only had to delay long enough for the anti-war sentiment in the United States to end the war politically giving them victory.

In my opinion, Walter Cronkite should have ended his nightly news program saying, That’s the way we choose to portray it month, day, year, instead of saying, That’s the way it was month, day, year. The same is true for most news today.

Fake news has been in the news lately as well. Once a news narrative is posited, fake news is often started on Internet social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, or other Internet News outlets. Unfortunately, traditional standards of Journalism such as source vetting and multiple source conformation, do not apply at many of these sources. Some of these Fake News stories originate with unfriendly foreign governments, like Russia or North Korea, intent on manipulating public opinion in our political process, foreign affairs, socio-economic system, and culture. Fake News has been treated as legitimate news by traditional print and mainstream broadcast news agencies without proper vetting when the fraud fits the Narrative.

Legitimate pols can become fake news, or least a misrepresentation of public opinion, when specific responses fitting the narrative are emphasized because the answers fit the narrative. Pols can also be manipulated by the order and nature of the questions leading respondents to the desired headline opinion that fits the narrative of the news agency involved. In this situation, the headline and first section of the story, or news, reinforces the narrative. Opinions that mitigate or modify the narrative are buried later in the story or left out hoping the public does not go to the complete pols for a more realistic view of the opinions of the entire pol creating fake news through omission.

The 24/7 “news” cycle that evolved with cable television introduced an abundance of editorial style expert analysis, opinion programs, and opinion segments as part of hard news programs. Internet news outlets are also heavily involved in editorial and opinion writing. Some influential bloggers also get involved in news dissemination, analysis, and opinion. These outlets often blur the distinction between news, editorials, and opinion. When the editorial opinion writing and punditry matches the narrative, opinion and expert analysis often turns into headlines and lead stories. This is especially true when the editorials and opinions concern the outcome of elections, the future of the economy, a corporation, how healthcare will change, or what the tax plan will contain, etc. This news is often just hours and pages of viral speculation. In many situations the punditry from one outlet is subsequently debated on another outlet. When opinion is reported as fact, the result is, in reality, fake news.

In my opinion, the majority of news outlets in the United States and the world are dominated by progressives and disseminate news based on the progressive narrative. This narrative opposes Biblical Christianity, the Biblical traditional family, reduction or elimination of influence of Christianity on our culture, personal responsibility and morality, and favors progressive culture, economic principles, and centralized government over Biblical Christianity, capitalistic economic concepts, and limited government.

PROGRESSIVES PROMOTE AN AMORAL SOCIETY

The terms amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchy represent a progression and degradation of societal behavior and cultural norms. It is my contention that virtually every segment of society, culture, and the population in general in the United States is currently in one or more of these stages of degradation. Politics now includes anarchy based on video releases showing that rioters have been hired by one party to disrupt campaign events of other parties. The idea that politics is a blood or combat sport demonstrates clearly that morality, ethics, and lawful behavior are the tactics of political losers. Politics is now amoral. Some businesses are amoral, unethical, and unlawful. Such businesses could be called godless immoral capitalists. These businesses constitute one of the left’s greatest arguments against capitalism. Some communities in our largest cities are characterized by anarchy at best and urban warfare at worst. The sexual assault environment on far too many of our nation’s college campuses could be termed sexual anarchy. Unfortunately, these problems have been a part of humanity from antiquity. Left to our “raw nature,” humans are at best amoral.

Adam Smith wrote that one of the primary functions of government is controlling the raw nature of man especially as it pertains to business and commercial ventures. Such control would extend to labor management relationships, business competition, and fair and equal access to capital and land. In spite of the fact that progressives view themselves as good and virtuous, they think that legal control of the “raw nature of man” should extend to economics and virtually all aspects of society and human interaction except sexuality and abortion. In their amoral view, the rest of humanity, including the religious, lacks virtue and sufficient intellect to control their “raw nature.” Since Biblical Christian intellect is clouded by a restrictive institutionalized moral code and outmoded view of human interactions and personal responsibility, our approach to controlling the “raw nature of Man” is not acceptable to progressives. This has been the view of philosophers on the left for at least two centuries.

Many on the left are members of various organized religious groups. Many of these groups are among what Christian conservatives term cultural Christianity. They often pick and choose what parts of the Bible they consider relevant today which contributes to the general amoral societal attitude. One prominent Democratic activist even stated that there should be a revolution in the Catholic Church because it was not sufficiently democratic. That is to say religion, Christianity, should become amoral and accept the current mores of society.

On the other hand, followers of Biblical Christianity understand that Christianity is a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior for the purpose of individually sharing the love of Christ and serving the world in Christ’s name. Christianity is not a social club or a business. Biblical Christians understand that God’s word expressed in the Bible is our guide for service and morality. Biblical Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said in the following statement:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfilled them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19, NIV).

The teachings and laws of Christianity do not change as cultural mores change. This is the major difference between Biblical Christianity and cultural Christianity. It is the difference between Christian morality and ethics and the amoral nature of society today.

In Biblical Christianity, the concept of repentance, turning away from a lifestyle and associates that lead to temptation and violation of God’s laws, becomes a natural act of love through Christ. When a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation, Jesus told her accusers that the one who is without sin should start the punishment of the woman. After her accusers all left, Jesus forgave her and admonished her to repent saying,

Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11b, NIV).

The woman did repent and soon became an important member of the early Christian church. Biblical Christians follow Christ and the teachings of His Word, the Bible.

Understanding that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior, many believe that the pace towards social and behavioral anarchy in our nation is increasing at an exponential rate. Mass media, telecommunications, the news media, pop music, the movie industry, the Internet, and social media all promote various levels of amoral, unethical, and unlawful behavior leading to many of the aspects of anarchy observed in our society today. Behavior that was once illegal is now legal. Language and Behavior that was once considered immoral is now accepted and commonplace. In addition, both our courts and the education system have condoned and in some cases promoted the increasing amoral nature of our culture. Moral relativism has become a hallmark of our culture, education system, and the legal system.

Progressives have long sought and promoted the decline in morality that is taking place in our country today. Two examples from the philosophical left include Marx and Bukharin. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:

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

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

religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord (p. 415).

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the philosophy behind legal education began to change in a similar manner. The concept that the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the original intent, was the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of statutes and the mention of God and Biblical precepts was eliminated as valid principles in understanding the law. Changes in the precepts and understanding of law started at the Harvard Law School and soon became the standard in the teaching and practice of law at all our universities and courts. The new amoral standard was that case law and precedent was more important than the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Two statements by legal scholars and jurists demonstrate this point. 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.

Approximately 50 years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice from 1902-1932, offered a similar view of the law stating,

[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.

In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent or manifest tenor of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People and the legislative process.

It is my opinion, that increasing the incivility and coarseness of our culture was part of the progressive plan to change the United States of America. Our nation is becoming more and more amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchistic. The role of Biblical Christianity and the Biblical family which teaches individual responsibility and accountability is incompatible with the progressive vision for a global society and global wealth redistribution. Progressives have a plan and a vision for our country. They feel that they are patriots seeking the best future for the United States of America and the world.

The founders of our nation also had a plan. Our two founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are the foundation of their plan. The 85 detailed essays on the Constitution known as The Federalist Papers were a commentary on the Constitution written in support of its ratification. Many conservatives feel that these three works delineate the best and brightest future for the United States of America and serve as a model for all who desire freedom for themselves and their country regardless of where they are in the world. We are also patriots.

The question is, which vision will prevail, the amoral progressive vision or the Founders’ vision? Every person in the United States of America has that critical choice to make in each and every election.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: