Category: Education

PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES

PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES CONTENTS

    Progressive Vision for Families

    Traditional Biblical Families

     Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

     Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

     The Biblical Christian Response 

     Progressive Vision for Families

Progressives vs traditional families have been the focus of social and cultural debate since the early 19th century. In the 1848 publication, The Communist Manifesto section “Proletarians and Communists” Marx summarized the communist or progressive position on families up to that time when he wrote the following:

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

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

In 1927, Robert Briffault published The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions where he wrote:

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

In Briffault’s opinion, the traditional “patriarchal” Biblical family is a distortion of humanity and society which must be eliminated for the Marxist vision for society to be realized. Traditional, Biblical families promote “individualism” which has no place in a truly “communist,” Marxist, progressive society. Additionally, PROGRESSIVES OPPOSE CHRISTIANITY provides a thorough discussion of progressive animosity toward all aspects of Biblical Christianity including the family. Marxist progressive philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists have been writing about and conducting sociological and psychological research “designed” to evaluate the “harm” caused to people by patricentric, patriarchal, traditional, Biblical families. Interestingly, progressives only started to publicly show their hostile Marxist attitudes toward the traditional family using the terms patricentric and patriarchal as pejorative descriptions of traditional families in the past few years.

The progressive cultural worldview of the family summarized by the above quotes were the predecessors of the current cultural worldview of families. LGBTQ+ families now include same-sex couples, two wives or mothers, two husbands or fathers, or two same-sex people and a bi-sexual person. Any of these people, in this vision for families, could also be trans-sexual or queer. It is difficult to keep up with the new types of gender identity regularly added to the progressive sexuality gender acronym. The latest, hopefully last, new acronym, 2SLGBTQIA+, means Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, where the plus reflects the countless affirmative ways in which people choose to self-identify. The progressive ideology and worldview on gender and sexuality is central to their attacks on traditional, Biblical, families. 2SLGBTQIA+ “genders” have a direct impact on the gender/sexual composition of “family” according to progressives. Consequently, the progressive worldview defines family as simply “kinship arrangements or the organization of a household.”

Traditional Biblical Families

In contrast, the patricentric, patriarchal, traditional, Biblical family has consisted of a husband or father, a wife or mother, and their children for thousands of years. This is the family model even in most non-Judeo-Christian cultures and societies. The exceptions are polygamous cultures where men are allowed more than one wife and female dominated matriarchal cultures. In some matriarchal cultures, wealth is transmitted to the youngest female of the family since she has the greatest potential longevity. However, the polygamy of the Old Testament kings of Israel and Juda was not in accordance with God’s plan for families. The Old Testament narratives of these families showed the problems they generated for generations and decades that followed.

Seven Principles from Genesis for Marriage and Family by Todd S. Beall provides perspective on the Biblical Christian worldview concerning traditional families. The following discussion is a summary of Beall’s article. He notes that God states His creation was “good” seven times in Genesis 1. Mariage was not man’s idea but essential to God’s plan for Creation. God created marriage. In marriage, the two together become one, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. God made humans to have meaning in life by living together in families. Genesis 1&2, provides the narrative of God’s creation of marriage and the family as follows:

Genesis 1:26 “God created man in His image; in the image of God, He created him….  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them…. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.’”

Genesis 2:18 It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him…. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 [Adam said] ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.’ 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Consequently, marriage involves the creation of a new family unit. Husband and wife are to leave their father and mothers. As God prepared Noah for the flood, He reaffirmed His plan for marriage and families in Genesis 7:7 where we read:

“Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.”

In Mathew 19:4-6 Jesus reaffirmed God’s creation plan for marriage and the family when he said,

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.’”

God’s marriage plan has been for a man and a woman to become one flesh physically, emotionally, and spiritually since creation. Mariage is a divine institution ordained by God for service to him.

Perhaps Matthew Henry’s observation that the woman was “not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved” best describes the marriage relationship between husband and wife before the “Fall.” After the “Fall,” described in Genesis 3, this relationship changed. Eve was deceived by the serpent and ate fruit from tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” and convinced Adam to eat the fruit as well in disobedience of God’s command. Their disobedience brought sin to the world. After they confessed their sin, God punished each in a way that affect men and women for the rest of human existence. As a result, differences in the functions of men and women in the marriage relationship were amplified. In Genesis 3:16-23, we read,

“To the woman he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’ 17 To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return….’ 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.”

The Genesis 3:16-19 narrative implies that the husband-wife relationship was marred after the Fall. Since Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent, Satan, God told Eve that childbearing pain would be “very severe” and her husband would “rule over you.” These scriptures imply that childbearing and rearing would become the primary function of the women in marriage discussed below. The function of the man would be head of the family and provision of food, shelter, and security for the family. As first in human creation, Adam was held responsible for the disobedience of both himself and Eve and their sin since he “listened to [his] wife” instead of resisting the temptation she proposed to him.

The different functions or roles of men and women, and the tension that original sin brought into Biblical marriage, illuded to in Genesis are clearly stated in the New Testament. The family leadership of men in marriage is discussed in 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22–33 with this caveat:

25 “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, … 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.”

The New Testament continues Biblical marriage instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, and Romans 5:12-19.

In her article, “Music and Marriage: Harmonizing the Roles,” Lindsay Edmonds, provides the following illuminating analogy concerning Biblical marriage.

“Good music, she says, requires both a melody and a harmony or accompaniment:

“They are both very important parts to convey the full harmony of the song. Although the melody is often more prominent than the accompaniment, without the accompaniment and background harmonies the melody has no support or fullness. It does not sound as rich and beautiful without this proper balance. Likewise, in comparison, in a marriage relationship we have two very equally important roles between a husband and a wife, but each has a completely different function. Without one or the other we do not have the full array of beauty and design that God created to be displayed in the marriage relationship, which is then a reflection of the Father and Son’s relationship in the Trinity. If the roles are reversed and the woman is showing disrespect in her attitude towards her husband to such an extent that he feels unworthy and unable to lead his family, we have a conflict of balance. It will sound more like a train wreck than sweet music.”

The question that both the husband and wife must ask themselves and each other is, “Do we want our marriage to demonstrate to the culture around us that our marriage is a “train wreck [or] sweet music?”

In the Biblical worldview of marriage, the only Godly and acceptable sexuality is that which occurs between a husband and wife in the context of marriage discussed above. Consequently, pre-marital sex of any type, polygamy, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are violations of God’s law and creation’s plan for marriage and sexuality: and therefore, condemned by God. Beall’s article provides numerous Old and New Testament scriptures and narratives demonstrating these Godly facts. The article also describes how devastating moral compromise and favoritism can be to current and future family relationships, potentially causing problems lasting years or generations. In the last section of the article, Beall demonstrates that God blesses repentance and forgiveness within marriage and family relationships to restore family relationships through His grace and love.

When children become part of the Biblical family, God’s word provides additional instruction about these relationships. Some of these instructions include the following:

Exodus 20:12 – “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

Deuteronomy 4:9 “Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them [God’s precepts] known to your sons and your grandsons.”

Deuteronomy 11:19 “You shall teach them [God’s precepts] to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.”

Psalms 127:3-5 “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him.”

Proverbs 13:24 “He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”

Proverbs 19:18 “Discipline your son while there is hope, And do not desire his death.”

Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go. Even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Psalm 103:13 “Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him.”

Joel 1:3 “Tell your sons about [God’s punishment for disobedience] , And let your sons tell their sons, And their sons to the next generation.”

Colossians 3:20-21, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.”

1 Timothy 3:4 “[A man] must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect.”

1 Timothy 5:8 “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Perhaps the most impactful guidance regarding the parent child relationship in Biblical Christian families is found in Ephesians 6:1-4:

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’ — which is the first commandment with a promise—’so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on earth.’ Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”

Obviously, the contrast between the cultural worldview of families, “kinship arrangements or the organization of a household,” and Biblical worldview for families is striking. This contrast is at the heart of the progressives vs traditional families debate. As Biblical Christians deal, with these contrasting worldview issues, we are engaged in spiritual warfare at the personal, local, state, national, and global level.

Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

Spiritual warfare is at the heart of the progressives vs traditional families debate and the contrast between the cultural and Biblical worldviews competing for the soul of our nation and the world. The essence of this Spiritual Warfare is the battle between good and evil.  The battle between good and evil began when “Lucifer, son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12 KJV), Satan, one of the three archangels, cherubim, or cherubs created by God, rebelled against God before the rest of creation occurred. Lucifer said,

“I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God: I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (Isaiah 14:13-14 NIV).”

In response to Satan’s rebellion, God drove him from his presence saying,

“You were anointed as guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.  You were on the holy mount of God …. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you … and you sinned.  So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub…, your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.  So I threw you to the earth…. (Ezekiel 28:14-17 NIV).”

Some of the lesser created heavenly hosts apparently followed in this rebellion and were also cast out of the presence of God according to Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4.

The contrast and antithetical nature of the attitude and innermost desires of the heart and soul of Satan and the heart and soul of God’s one and only Son, Jesus Christ, is incomprehensible even to those who are followers of Christ.  Biblical Christians understand the following:

“(Our) attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasp, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on the cross!  Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2: 5-11 NIV).”

Satan attempted to exalt himself.  He was humbled and will ultimately be defeated.  Jesus Christ the one and only Son of God, in contrast, humbled Himself, became a man, died on the cross for the remission of the sin of mankind, and was exalted by God the Father.  Jesus is a glorious Savior!

Since God created man in his own image (Genesis 2:27), humanity became the focus of Satan’s spiritual warfare against God because man was created in the image of God.  Satan seeks to keep us from having a close personal relationship with God. In spiritual warfare, Satan seeks to separate people from God’s love. The pattern Satan followed in his fall from grace with God became the pattern he uses almost without exception when he tempts us to disobey God and to rebel. First, Satan became proud and arrogant.  Secondly, Satan thought he had the power or ability to make himself into a god.  When Satan tempts us, he appeals to our pride convincing us that we have the power or ability to please God or earn his approval by our own deeds, to become like God, or to become a god ourselves.  When we fall for these temptations, our fate is the same as that of Satan.  We are

“dead in (our) transgressions and sins… when [we] followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan), the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient…, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-3 NIV).”

Without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as savior, we, like Satan, are condemned for our rebellion and sin!

As previously noted, the contrast between the cultural worldview and the Biblical worldview is stark and originates in the heart of Satan who seeks to separate every person from the love of God. Every Biblical Christian deals with spiritual warfare, temptation, on the personal level. We are also affected on the local, state, national, and global level. Unfortunately, the spiritual warfare conducted by those advocating the ungodly cultural worldview have gained the upper hand in virtually every aspect of our culture. Even in the United States, Biblical Christians are being persecuted, chastised, and/or “canceled,” and even arrested for expressing Biblical views about marriage and families, sexuality, gender identity issues, educational curricula, parental rights, and freedom of speech. These issues are also at the heart of the progressives vs traditional families debate. In many of these situations, the First Amendment rights of Biblical Christians are being trampled upon.

In the United States, progressives control virtually every method of communicating their ideology and cultural worldview. Progressives control education from Pre-school to Ph.D., Marxism PP, pop music, motion pictures and television, theater, news media in virtually all its forms, and print, audio, and visual advertising. These communication media promote all aspects of the cultural worldview. The most recent gender acronym is 2SLGTBQIA+, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, where the plus reflects the countless affirmative ways in which people choose to self-identify. Can a person “self-identify” with identities that are not related to gender? Can a bar tender “self-identify” as a clinical psychologist? Many already serve a similar function for their patrons. After all, Joe Rogan moved from a MMA fighter to announcer to commentator to a nationally syndicated cultural commentator. Is there a limit to “self-identity” possibilities? Where gender is concerned, the possibilities seem limitless. Gender identity issues dominate this worldview and the progressives vs traditional families debate.

From the Biblical perspective, progressives promoting gender affirming care at all ages, but especially for children, through hormone therapy, chemical sterilization, and sex change operations, are positioning themselves to the place of a god, as Satan tried, by altering God’s creation of males or females. Basically, these “experts” are saying, “God doesn’t have a clue about ‘gender;’ but we know better.” When children under the age of 18 are involved, gender affirming care of this nature, and school promoted changes in a child’s preferred gender pronouns, becomes a progressives vs traditional families and parental rights issue especially when these type treatments and changes are promoted and carried out without parental consent.

Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

In the early 1900’s, progressives began formulating a plan and projects designed to gain control of public education in the United States. Stalin summarized the progressive cultural worldview vs the Biblical worldview debate as follows: “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.” They planned to use education to convert the United States from a nation that revered our Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalistic economic system to an atheistic or at least agnostic socialist or communist nation. Around 1970, Hergert Marcuse, the father of the modern left, postulated critical refinements of the plan. First, he said that an “educational dictatorship” was required to change western minds, or socialism would not succeed. Progressive ideology, Marxism, already dominated our public universities and most private institutions’ faculties and curricula in the social sciences, liberal arts, and especially education. The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, demonstrated the staged demise of Marxism and its hidden influence accomplished by exchanging overt Marxist references for indirect terminology, as follows:

“Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism, … argues that while the intellectual legacy of Marx has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences – so that … Marxism is ‘dead’ – as an efficacious political doctrine….”

The editors go on to contradict the verdict that “Marxism is ‘dead’” as follows:

“But it is precisely the distinctive explanatory power of Marxist thought in many areas, …and its capacity to generate … a body of rational   for a socialist society, which seems to many thinkers to make Marxism an enduring challenge to other modes of thought.”

Consequently, it is safe to conclude from these two statements that Marxism is not “dead;” but, Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that have “been largely assimilated into modern social sciences” using language not easily associated with Marxism, socialism, and communism. Secondly, Marcuse believed the working class was no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States. Instead, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between “radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other ethnicities and other colors, the unemployed, and the unemployable.” Accordingly, these groups could be molded into the revolutionaries needed to affect radicle change in the United States.

Subsequently, numerous curricula have been developed for groups that Marcuse thought could become a “subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States.” Departments and curricula for “marginalized… ethnicities and other colors” and the “socially marginalized” were subsequently developed including Black, Native American, Hispanic, Women’s, and Gender Studies. New curricula, programs, and groups were developed by the radicle progressive Marxist faculty and graduates of these disciplines including Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, the Lincoln Project, and the 1619 Project. ANTIFA, the useful puppet minions of the radicle, progressive, Marxist left, appears to be a movement made up of the violent, “marginalized… outcasts and outsiders” of our society.

In his 1965 publication: Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse described how to establish his “educational dictatorship” and influence public discourse as follows:

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left…. [If movements from the left are blocked], their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements… [from the right].”

In classrooms and campuses from preschool to Ph.D., as well as society in general, “toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements… [from the right]” has been “withdrawn” by “undemocratic means,” like violent ANTIFA protests, the “Political Correctness” movement “Cancel Culture,” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, DEI, and Inclusion, Social, and Government, ISG, laws, requirements, and programs.

Since Marcuse promoted his educational dictatorship and educational program and curricula refinements, the progressive cultural worldview now dominates virtually all our society. About one-third of the Millennials and virtually all of Gen Z who have a college degree from a public university or community college and many with a public high school diploma have been educated under the Marxist curricula described above. Consequently, more and more leaders in corporate America were exposed, either overtly or covertly, to curricula where “Marx [is] largely assimilated” into virtually everything they learned. These leaders are prepared to use US corporations, government from the local to national level, and our legal system to promote progressive ideology, programs, and ranking programs like DEI and ISG. The federal government is requiring DEI and ISG rankings as part of finance applications where applicants must prove how “WOKE” they are to qualify for capital financing. Applicants must have adequate policies and employee training in DEI and ISG in place to qualify for financing and get the best interest rates. With their Marxist education, “Wall Street,” Disney, Target, and Budweiser executives, among others, are willing coconspirators in this type of social engineering which promotes Marxism and equal outcomes based on categories of people like race and gender, rather than individual merit. Those who do not fit progressive “diversity” categories or profess ideological views contrary to progressive orthodoxy became outcasts, both culturally and professionally. For this reason, conservatives and those of us with a Biblical worldview have found some alternative acronyms for the reality of DEI including the following: Division, Exclusion, Intimidation; Division, Exclusion, Indoctrination; and Division, Exclusion, Intolerance. Sadly, this thinking also impacts the progressives vs traditional families debate.

The Biblical Christian Response

The contrast in worldviews in the progressives vs traditional families debate demands a proactive Biblical Christian response. We must unite and prepare to become political and Biblical activists. Progressive educators introduced their anti-family curricula from our colleges into pre-schools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, or from Preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP. Parents saw the radical and pervasive anti-family 2SLGBTQIA+, anti-American, and CRT principled curricula being taught to their children during Covid virtual classes. Biblical Christian parents finally discovered that progressives control all levels of public education and much of the curricula is progressive, Marxist, propaganda designed to indoctrinate children and produce present and future activists. Biblical parents learned why so many young children participate, some speaking out, in progressive protests about gender issues, climate control, abortion issues, and the evals of capitalism. The debate, which illustrates the stark contrast between the progressive cultural worldview and the Biblical Christian worldview, has become more heated and political. Parents are demanding curricula changes and their rights as parents to be involved in their children’s education. Education is at the heart of accomplishing Stalin’s vision for America. Consequently, the progressives vs traditional families debate is, in reality, the progressives vs the United States of America as we know and love it debate.

Although most Biblical Christians and our leaders have avoided politics and political activism in favor of evangelism for over 100 years, politics and activism, along with evangelism, are now necessary to stem the tide of the Godless progressive tidal wave sweeping across the United States and the world. As Biblical Christians consider our response to the progressive educational dictatorship in public education and the predominant cultural worldview, we should consider the Biblical fact that Jesus, the disciples, and Paul did not hesitate to confront the political leaders of their time, Sadducees, Pharisees, governors, and kings in their seats of power, synagogues, and palaces. If Jesus did not avoid evangelism in the public arena by confronting political leaders, Biblical Christians should not avoid political activism today.

The first response of Biblical Christians must be to unite. We must join forces, set our denominational differences aside, and join with para-church evangelistic and disaster relief ministries. In the United States there are about 75 million Catholics who generally support traditional Biblical family values, morality, and ethics, especially in Hispanic communities. The US population also includes 18.5 million Baptists including 3.1 million African Americans in the in the National Baptist Convention, 8-10 million Mormons, and at least 4 million US citizens in other Biblically Christian denominations. In addition, an undetermined number of Muslims are actively supporting traditional family values. Therefore, those who support the traditional family values, a Biblical world view, and our Judeo-Christian Heritage total at last 110 million US citizens eligible to vote in our elections. This is a silent majority that must be politically activated and silent no more if we are to save the United States of America as we know it.

This would require voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns in all communities supporting traditional family values and religious freedom including Biblical Christians, Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims. If only half of these citizens vote as in most past elections, increasing their election participation by 50% would result in potentially 30 million more votes for candidates professing a Biblical worldview and support for traditional families, morality, ethics, and respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States of America.

The second response of Biblical Christians in the progressive vs traditional families debate and the contrast between the cultural worldview and the Biblical worldview is to gain sufficient understanding of the Marxist, progressive, cultural worldview to become confident participants in this debate. While voting is critical to stemming the progressive tide in the United States, informed Biblical Christians and Conservatives must become activists. We must not be afraid to speak for our Biblical worldview with candidates at every level, at school board meetings, and at candidate forums and debates. We must also not be afraid to organize and participate in non-violent, MLK style, public demonstrations and protests in opposition to laws and public policies that violate our Constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or adversely impact our traditional, Biblical Christian family values and worldview. On this website, AMERICA’S CROSSROAD, the “BLOG CONTENTS” tab lists relevant articles by categories.

Moms for liberty and Capitol Ministries each provides materials that inform member/activists about our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights and how to organize and structure new chapters.  Moms for Liberty stresses more grassroots activism at the local level to influence local political action and school board elections to change education of our children from the bottom up including training parent activists and schoolboard candidates. These chapters promote candidates with a Biblical worldview who support parental rights, school curricula that are not anti-Christian, anti-traditional family, anti-American, Critical Race Theory, gender identity, and other Marxist concepts and propaganda. Capital Ministries tends to be a top-down ministry that seeks to identify existing political leaders and office holders and established businesspeople who have a Biblical worldview but have not actively expressed that worldview or need mentoring to become effective ministers of the Gospel in their sphere of influence and potential political leaders. Both these groups provide resources that can promote and train politicians and elected officials, organize and support local chapters for people who share a Biblical Worldview, support traditional families, religious rights and freedom, the Constitution, and our capitalistic economic system. Both groups can help advance Biblical values in the progressives vs traditional families debate. The question is, “Can these two organizations join forces, set their approach differences aside, and work together with the religious groups noted above to save the United Stares of America that we all know and love?”

Finally, around 60% of the voting age US population are not college graduates. Some of these attended college but lack degrees; and, therefore, were not fully indoctrinated in progressive ideology, Marxism. These citizens form the working middle and lower classes in the US. Many do not share progressive cultural worldview holding a more traditional view of family, freedom, our Judeo-Christian, Biblical worldview, and Constitutional capitalistic heritage. This group has worked for a living, paid to learn their trade, or became successful in the “school of hard knocks.” Many in this group, which have been abandoned by progressives because Marcus told progressives that they were no longer potential revolutionaries for Marxist causes in the United States. “America First,” “Make America Great Again,” members of the Republican Party identified this group as potentially strong, conservative additions the Republican voting bloc in 2016. The question is, “how many of these potential voters hold a traditional or Biblical Worldview. Those of us seeking to add numbers to the Biblical worldview voting bloc should not forget these potential Biblical worldview supporters. All we know is that many became new Republican voters and helped elect Donald Trump President in 2016. How many in this group can be added to the 110 million previously discussed? Could we persuade 5 million, 10 million, more? With each group discussed, the silent majority gets bigger and bigger.

In the progressives vs traditional families debate, the deeper issue is the Marxist, progressive, cultural worldview vs the Biblical worldview debate which has become more and more heated and political in the last 5-10 years. The problem is that Christians have failed to stand up for Biblical Christian values and the Biblical worldview for more than a century. We have given Marxist progressives free reign to control the dialog. We have not listened to Christ when he said in Matthew 5:15-16,

“No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven”

Today’s Christian “bushel basket” has been our churches and homes. Progressives have pushed their Godless values, morals, and ethics into every corner of our society; and we did nothing to stop them. We stayed in our church and home “baskets” and let them change the United States of America for the very worst.

It is time for Biblical Christians to get out of our church and home “baskets.” It is time to unite, work together, and return the United States of America to the “Nation” that God ordained it to be.

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

 

 

CHRISTIANS TRAIN YOUR CHILDREN

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

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

Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4, states,

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

“The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I anointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is encouraging to know the following:

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

HISPANIC ALLEGIANCE TO DEMOCRATS?

CONTENTS

Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is more puzzling to me than Black allegiance to Democrats. As a person who lived in New Mexico twice in my life totaling 30 years, my insight regarding Hispanics comes from personal experience and relationships. Hispanics are predominately Catholic and support traditional Christian values, including the traditional Christian family composed of a father, mother, and their children, the sanctity of life including the unborn, a quality education, hard work, and the value of the individual in the sight of God. Many own small businesses. Since the Democrat Party no longer supports traditional values, small and medium size businesses, and individualism, Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is puzzling to me.

A woman with long brown hair wearing a black jacket.Two recent South Texas Republican primaries and a special election demonstrate, Hispanics may be turning to the Republican Party. Mayra Flores flipped a 100-year Democrat House seat when she won a special election in June 2022. She will have to run again in November 2022. In two other Rio Grande Valley Republican primaries, Monica De La Cruz won outright, and Cassy Garcia was the highest vote getter and leads in polls for the May runoff. The winner will run against incumbent Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar. In a Virginia Republican House primary, Yesli Vega, won the party nomination. Vega said of Hispanics, “They are hard workers, and many have fled their native countries to come here to America to seek better opportunities not just for themselves, but for their children, for their families. Some folks have escaped socialism. These four Hispanic women clearly show a potentially seismic Hispanic shift from Democrat to Republican, especially if they all were to win seats in the US. House in November. Hispanics may be realizing that today’s Democrat Party with its near total rejection of traditional values and conservativism, no longer represents the values traditionally held by many Hispanics. Many are questioning Hispanic allegiance to Democrats and taking a closer look at the Republican Party.

Democrats Should be concerned about the Hispanic vote in 2022 and beyond.

Is Hispanic Allegiance to Democrats Justified?

Heritage

Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is complicated by heritage. Many Hispanics in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California trace their heritage to Spanish settlers who lived in these areas before British settlers came to the thirteen colonies. New Mexico serves as a good example of this complexity. My Albuquerque New Mexico boyhood next door neighbor and friend’s mother came from the poor side of the Baca Spanish Land Grant family of central New Mexico. She, like many New Mexico Hispanics, call themselves Spanish not Mexican because of their lineage. Spanish explorers led by General Francisco de Coronado  searched for the Seven Golden Cities from 1540 to 1542.They looked for these cities in what are now Arizona, discovering the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, the Colorado plateau, wintered along the Rio Grande River between today’s Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, moved their base camp to  Palo Duro Canyon in Texas, and sent an expedition north to Kansas. The expedition was considered a failure because there were no Seven Golden Cities or riches. Spanish explorers were in today’s Southwestern United States 67 years before James Town was founded. Over the next 165 years Spanish settlers moved into the Rio Grande River valley and other river valleys of New Mexico.

Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded in 1606 by Spanish settlers one year before James Town was founded. Santa Fe became the Spanish territorial Capital of Nuevo Mexico in1610, 10 years before the Pilgrims landed on American soil. Santa Fe is the oldest capital in the United States. Albuquerque, currently New Mexico’s largest city, was founded along the Rio Grande River in 1706.  In addition to Spanish Land Grants, Spain granted water rights to Land Grant owners and communities that are legal today. Consequently, many New Mexicans trace their lineage to sixteenth century Spanish families who lived in their state before the Pilgrims landed.

Another example of the complicated history of New Mexico Hispanics is the fact that many have Jewish heritage. The people of the Spanish Empire were threatened by the Spanish inquisition from 1478-1834. For centuries before 1400, the Jewish community in Spain flourished and grew despite periods of severe anti-Semitism. During the fifteenth century, Spanish Jews fell into three categories, converts to Christianity and those who refused to convert, and professed converts who practiced Judaism in secret perceived by the monarchy and inquisition as their greatest Jewish threat.  All were persecuted. During the peak of the inquisition,160,000 Jews accepted exile from Spain rather than convert to Christianity in 1492. The inquisition also spread to the larger Spanish American colonies of Mexico and Peru. As New Mexico was colonized by Spain many of the most remote, isolated, and secluded Hispanic enclaves and small communities were founded by Spanish Jews fleeing the inquisition. These communities tried to hide from colonial leaders; and when they were discovered, many Jews feigned Catholicism and continued their secret practice of Judaism like many of their ancestors had done in Spain. These Jews tried to hide due to the brutality of the inquisitors fearing torture and death. The brutality of the Spanish inquisition finally ended in1834 in the empire.

Although most New Mexico, Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism over the centuries. Many families maintained some Jewish traditions. For example, several years ago, an Albuquerque, television news program aired an Easter Passover segment with a Catholic Priest of Jewish decent. He recounted his annual pilgrimage to a well-hidden grotto in the state. He said that the Ten Commandments were carved in Hebrew in the rock at the back of the grotto. He said that he was a faithful Priest, but made the annual plumage to honor the Jewish part of his heritage. Obviously, Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is influenced by heritage.

Immigration

There are now two significant groups of Hispanic immigrants in Florida. The large Cuban population of south Florida. Cuban Americans, or their parents, fled Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba for freedom and opportunity in the United States. Another group of Hispanic immigrants to Florida are the Venezuelans who fled that county’s socialist dictatorship. Both groups have little patience for the socialist tendencies and progressive social values of Democrats. As a solid Republican voting bloc, these Hispanics are an exception to Hispanic allegiance to Democrats.

Despite supporter denials, the 1965 Immigration Act transformed the ethnic and racial demographics of the United States since the act was passed. The chart below demonstrates how the immigration act changed the racial and ethnic make-up of the U.S. population. The Black proportion has remained stable at around 12%. The Hispanic population has almost tripled from 6.4% to 18.7%.  In 1980, the Hispanic population was aboutA bar graph showing the demographic profiles of us population, 1 9 8 0-2 0 2 0. half the size of the Black population. The Hispanic population is now 55% greater than the Black population. The Asian population has also increased from 0.2% to5.9%, a 30-fold increase. The only group that has declined during this period is the White population which has decreased from79.4% to 57.8%, a 37% decrease. The effect of illegal immigration on this population and demographic data could not be determined.

The attitudes of many Hispanics about the United States, America, and immigration may surprise many. For example, during a late twentieth century discussion with a Hispanic rancher and landowner in Northeast New Mexico about the business of ranching, illegal immigration came up.  The Hispanic rancher disdainfully called illegals, wetbacks referring to illegals wherever they crossed our border regardless of their race or ethnicity. Hispanics whose families have lived in what is now the United States for centuries and those who immigrated legally probably have a different attitude toward illegal immigration than many non-Hispanics. Probably, the 2020 census vastly under counted the number of Hispanics because illegals feared participation in the census. Democrats seek a path to citizenship for illegal Hispanics because this group is seen as potential Democratic voters. Hispanics citizens living in Southern border states adversely impacted by illegal immigration are questioning their Hispanic allegiance to Democrats.

Education

Hispanics, like most Americans, are dissatisfied with public education in their communities. Covid19 school lockouts and remote learning affected Hispanic students, like most minorities, more dramatically than White students. Many Hispanics object to their children being subjected to Critical Race Theory, CRT, Critical Gender Theory, CGT, and Queer Theory, QT, in the public schools their student attend. The time spent on these topics robs them of the time that should be spent on core curricula. This issue is confirmed by a 2017, Pew Research Center article by Drew Desilver,  U.S. academic achievement lags that of many other countries which is discouraging. Fifteen-year-old U.S. students rank 24th in science and reading, and 38th in mathematics, compared to students in other countries of the world. The 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, sometimes called the national report card, for reading and math. The chart below shows the education gap between Hispanic (Green), Black (Orange) , and White (Blue) students. The scores are on a 500-point scale.

A line graph showing the number of jobs in each area.

The Educational Opportunity Monitoring Project: Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps

All U.S. students are below 300, Moderately Complex Procedures and Reasoning. The White students are at the Numerical Operations and Beginning Problem Solving level, 50% of the top score and well below the rest of the World. No parent, including Hispanics, should be satisfied with public education in the United States today. New Mexico is a majority Hispanic state which has been controlled by Democrats since 1932, 90 years, ranks 50th in quality of Education, with a high school graduation rate of only 74%.

Marxist progressives, who control our public schools have controlled curriculum designed to fundamentally change our nation. The Miseducation of America by David Goodwin, President of the Association of Classical and Christian Schools, is a review of the Fox Nation series, The Miseducation of America. Goodwin observes that progressives started their transformation of American education in 1907 with the Gary Plan. The progressive goal was complete removal Christianity and traditional values from Americ’s schools and elimination of Americ’s Christian identity. This identify perpetuated the Western Christian, Judeo-Christian values, the idea that men, all people, should be educated to be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of both the body and mind is important. Goodwin describes the conflict between the progressive vision and the Christian vision for America as follows:

The progressive narrative tells us that our civilization today is the result of human progress over time, and now that science rules the day, they can improve civilization even further if given enough power and control¦. [The] Christian narrative teaches something else. Our present culture and civilization will remain great only insofar as it aligns with Truth. Because Truth is fixed and unchanging, we should guard our society from influences that conflict with it, and we should strive to pursue Truth¦. The Progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew what they were up against. As long as the Western Christian philosophy defined our culture and civilization, the progressive agenda would be limited¦. Progressive philosophies, such as Critical Theory, Marxism, and the influence of the Frankfurt School, dominate education. Today, our schools are far from the engine of freedom that classical Christian education once was.

The progressive thinkers behind this plan were, and still are, primarily atheistic Marxists who used Frankfurt School concepts of critical theory to challenge all aspects of Western civilization, Biblical Christianity, and capitalism. In the late 1960’s, Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt School critical theorist and Father of the new left, observed that a propaganda based educational dictatorship would be required before radical Marxist change could occur in Western Europe and the United States. Marcuse determined that working class labors were no longer a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in western society and culture. Consequently, he identified anti-capitalists, radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, exploited, persecuted outcasts and outsiders of ethnic minorities, people of color, the unemployed, and the unemployable as trainable revolutionaries. Ethnic and gender study programs were established in most universities to train the envisioned revolutionaries. CRT, CGT, and QT, were, and still are, useful tools for these revolutionaries. The educators trained for this transformation of our nation now teach our children, including Hispanics, from Preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP. The Democrat Party supports state departments of education, school boards, and teachers’ unions promoting social indoctrination curricula that take time from teaching reading, science, and math. Consequently, Democrats are failing to properly educate our children, including Hispanic students. The question is, Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified.

Poverty

In his 2020 United States Census Bureau article, Poverty Rates for Blacks and Hispanics Reached Historic Lows in 2019, John Creamer observed that the poverty rate for the United States was 10.5%, the lowest since 1959. Poverty declined rapidly between 2017 and 2019 for all race and ethnic groups, especially Hispanics and Blacks. In 2019, the poverty rate for Blacks was 18.8%; and for Hispanics, it was 15.7%, both historic lows, but double the rate for Whites.

A chart showing the median household income for blacks and hispanics.

Household income for these two groups also increased more rapidly between 2018 and 2019 but remained $20,000 below White household income. Poverty in the general Hispanic community has been a problem for 70 years primarily in large metropolitan areas controlled by Democrats who have failed to solve this problem. In New Mexico, controlled by Democrats almost entirely since 1932, economic growth and poverty are major issues. The state ranks 40th in per capita consumption, 48th in per carta disposable income, and 43rd in teen pregnancy rate which usually corresponds with single female parent families. Fatherless families are a major contributor to poverty. Since Democrats have been unable to relieve Hispanic poverty, is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified?

Crime

Poverty is also corelated with crime. According to the 2015 article, Latino Populations and Crime in America by Idelisse Malave and Esti Giordani, 22% of inmates in federal, state, and local prisons/jails are Hispanic. Information on Hispanic crime is hard to find because the FBI has not collected data over the years by ethnicity. This is unfortunate since Hispanics make up about 19% of the U.S. population with a large share of children under eighteen. In California and Texas, two states with large Hispanic populations that do track ethnicity, Hispanic felony and misdemeanor arrests were 40% and 36%, respectively. Nine out of ten Hispanic federal offenders were convicted of one of two offenses: immigration and/or drug trafficking related crimes. Hispanics account for almost half (46%) of all documented gang members in the United States. Around 16% of Hispanic prisoners under state jurisdiction were convicted of drug related crimes. Hispanics accounted for over 45% of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) federal arrests and convictions in federal court. Surprisingly, the authors reported that despite the high numbers of documented Hispanic gang members, only 3% of young Hispanics aged sixteen to twenty-five said that they are now or have ever been in a gang. In contrast, the authors also reported that about 25% of second-generation youth have been convicted of committing a crime, compared to 17% of immigrant Hispanic youth. The charts below provide an interesting story about crime victims. 44% of Hispanic victims are Hispanic; 48% are White. Similarly, 35% of Black victims are Black; 50% are White. In contrast, 88% of White victims are White; only 2.4% of White victims are black, and 8.2% are Hispanic. Sadly, Hispanic on Hispanic crime is worse than Black on Black crime.

A pie chart showing the number of victims attacked by hispanics.

Race and Crime: Who Attacks Whom? 

Hispanics have a different view of Law enforcement than African Americans according to the authors of this article, when they wrote:

Surprisingly, Hispanic communities, living within walking distance of crime and drugs, and with residents frequently stopped and questioned by local and federal law enforcement, still have confidence in this justice system. Many Hispanics believe that law enforcement officers actually do a good job of protecting them and that the courts treat them fairly. As more and more data surfaces, will their confidence erode?

Education, poverty, and crime all have an interrelated impact on the quality of life and opportunities afforded residents of every community including the greater Hispanic community. In states with large metropolitan areas controlled by Democrats, Democrats often control state governments as well. In some instances, Democrats have been in control for 70 to 100 years or more. Has education, poverty levels, or crime rates improved under the thumb of Democrats? If the answer is no, then it is reasonable to ask this question, Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still justified?

The Assault on Hispanic Culture

As an outsider, the assault on Hispanic culture and society seems to contribute to many of the issues adversely affecting Hispanics. From my perspective, asking pointed questions designed to promote critical thinking and dialog, is the least provocative way to approach the issues. First, Does the progressive assault, on traditional values, morality, and ethics in the overall American culture and society, contribute to Hispanic issues related to education and the noted racial and ethnic disparities in education, poverty and fatherlessness, healthcare, and crime? The answer to problems related to these issues is a resounding yes for both Whites and Hispanics; but Why?

A quote from joseph stalin on the side of a black background.

The answer lies in the Frankfurt School’s application of critical theory to move people and cultures to accept atheistic Marxist progressive ideology as the bases of governance and society. Critical theory uses every academic discipline and most aspects of our culture to promote the revolutionary, transformational change they envision for the United States. Three of the most important disciplines used by critical theorists to accomplish their goals are psychiatry, psychology, and sociology. Research projects are developed and statistically designed by researchers in these disciplines to support the tenants of critical race theory, critical gender theory, Queer Theory, and attack Christianity, traditional values, and our system of governance.

Elimination of Christianity and our traditional Judeo-Christian values as major influences on American culture and society, is the primary goal of Marxist progressives. In my opinion, progressives oppose Christianity for several reasons. First, both Judaism and Christianity teach that each individual is important to God; and individualism is an anathema to Marxists since their success depends of the individual’s subjugation to the collective. Consequently, the individual is worthless compared to the value of the collective. In contrast, Biblical Christianity teaches that the individual has infinite value because God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV). The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that

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

As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. Marxist philosophers have expressed their disdain for the role of Christianity in promoting the individual. Ludwig Feuerbach wrote,

Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism¦. The essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man¦. [In the relationship between] ‘I and Thou,’ [Christ had become] ‘Thou.’ [Religion was misdirected].

Engels observed that the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly, the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.

The second reason progressives oppose Christianity is the relationship between the Christian Church and traditional Christian family to the nurture and training of each generation of Christian individuals. Evangelism, conversion of non-Christians, is a primary task of Christian churches and individuals. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God. While discussing the church and religion in The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote, 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 A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Nikolai Bukharin wrote, religion [especially Christianity] must be opposed actively [since it would take too long for it to] die out of its own accord.

The traditional Christian family with a father, mother, and their children is another reason progressives oppose Christianity. The Christian family serves the same basic function as the Christian church with the primary emphasis on their children. This family model does not fit the preferred progressive family model. It is both hierarchical and patriarchal, an anathema to LGBTQ+ activists and social Marxists. Marxist, progressive opposition to the traditional family is clear. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote:

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

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

In The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, Robert Briffault observed that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future family is not traditional. He concluded:

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

Friedrich Engels viewed the Bourgeois, traditional Biblical family, as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution. Michele Barrett defined family as simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household. This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Christian family in relation to raising strong Christian individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.

Thirdly, progressives oppose Christianity because of the relationship between individualism and capitalism. They understand that Christianity produces individuals who are confident, self-reliant, well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, potential capitalists and entrepreneurs. Progressives know that virtually every major corporation was founded by one or a few individuals who had confidence in our Constitutional, capitalistic, economic system to risk starting their business. Since Marxist progressives oppose capitalism, Christianity must be opposed and every level. A fact that most progressives refuse to admit.

The cultural weapons used by progressive Critical Theorists to deliver their ideas to the people of the United States for this assault traditional values include the news media, movie industry, music, television, advertising, fashion, and literature. Movies, television, music, and literature routinely portray extra-marital sex, including bi-sexual and homosexual characters, and unmarried co-habitation as acceptable. The behavior occurs in most prime-time television programming and advertisements viewed by our children. On these venues, children are exposed to hundreds of violent acts each year. Although criminals usually suffer consequences for crime in hourly dramas, seasons long series like the Sopranos and Empire depict the lavish wealth potentially generated by crime and drug empires. The events portrayed tell children that non-traditional sex and families are acceptable, and carefully done, crime pays.

Democrats have moved to the far progressive left. Democrats support open borders and illegal immigration, education that is failing Hispanic and other minority students who suffer the most, programs that fail to improve the economic wellbeing or reduce poverty of Hispanics and most minorities, defunding police leaving Hispanic neighborhoods less protected, criminal justice reform that returns criminals to the streets almost immediately without real punishment, and an assault on traditional values important to Hispanics. With all that Democrats do for Hispanics. Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified?

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.

 

 

CORPORATE WELFARE AND DISNEY

A couple of mickey mouse and minnie mouse standing next to each other.Corporate welfare and Disney in Florida represent the worst of corporate welfare and the use of tax breaks and incentives to attract big business and corporations to states and cities. While businesses, like Disney, bring employment and tax revenue to an area, big business does not control the people, government, or public education of the area they move into We the People, through our legislative representatives and state executive branches, control our government and education. Business can lobby government, but businesses do not have a vote in government by and for the people. In Florida, the relationship between corporate welfare and Disney became toxic when the woke Disney openly opposed and criticized the cultural norms, traditional values, and parental rights supported by the majority of Floridians.

House Bill (HB) 1557 signed by is Governor Ron DeSantis on March 28,2022 is central to this controversy. The bill, Parental Rights in Education,

œreinforces parents fundamental rights to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child’s mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.

Parents have every right to be informed about services offered to their child at school, and should be protected from schools using classroom instruction to sexualize their kids as young as 5 years old.

Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nu±ez said, ‘This bill refuses to allow school boards and teachers unions the ability to hide information about students from their parents Throughout this legislative session, this bill has been maliciously maligned by those who prefer slogans and sound bites over substance and common sense. Fortunately, Governor DeSantis and I believe that parents should have a say.  We will not back down to woke corporations and their same tired tactics that are steeped in hypocrisy. As a mother of three, I am committed to protecting the rights of parents.

The phrase don’t say gay does not appear anywhere in the legislation. The legislation is exactly as its title portrays. It is parental rights legislation, not anti-LGBTQ legislation. In my opinion, it is a misrepresentation of the text and intent of the legislation to claim otherwise.

A young boy in a winter coat and hat.

Disney, the corporate bully and ungrateful corporate welfare recipient that they are, stated very openly and publicly that they would work to have the legislation reversed or rescinded. Disney does not care that most Floridians favor the œParental Rights in Education Act, and it passed both houses of the Florida legislature by strong margins. For Floridians, corporate welfare and Disney is proving to be a source of great consternation. When it comes to the bully Disney, Governor Ron DeSantis is proving to be a tuff Ralphy.

Consequently, Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation today, April 22,2022, that stripped Disney of its corporate welfare benefits dating back to the mid-1960’s when Florida was wooing Disney for its Disney World complex. Of course, progressives and officials in the two counties containing Disney World are complaining that they will be forced to spend around $2,000 per household to pay for the lost infrastructure and public service funds and debt that the corporate welfare and Disney arrangement previously provided. Unfortunately for Disney, Floridians would only pay for the lost corporate welfare if Floridians vote to accept those obligations or fail to vote to reject the obligations.

Park Meadows Mall in Douglas County, Colorado, is an example of a mechanism that Floridians should use to avoid paying for the corporate welfare that Disney will lose. In the early 1990’s a mall development group started exploring their development options. Of course, they proposed tax levies and bond issues to cover required infrastructure on the county and communities surrounding the proposed mall site which was located on unincorporated county land. The people in the area revolted and quickly and successfully petitioned the state to form the city of Lonetree, Colorado, in the area surrounding the proposed mall site. Despite threats by the mall developers to move the mall to a different location, the people of Lonetree rejected all local tax levies and bond issues which they would have to pay. As a result, the mall developers financed the infrastructure costs by adding a required percentage Infrastructure Surcharge to every mall store purchase. Consequently, the people of Lonetree did not incur additional taxes; and the infrastructure costs were spread among all the mall customers from all the state and out of state tourists. Florida and the affected counties should require Disney to add a similar surcharge to all Disney attractions and purchases. Then, the world would pay for the lost corporate welfare and Disney obligations.

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

 

ANTIFA: COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARIES

A fire that is burning in the middle of a street.Antifa, communist 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;Revolutionarie’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 communist 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 communist 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 the &lig;Union 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 for &lig;peace, 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’état 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 communist 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 the &lig;Cold 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, Vladimir Putin.

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 in many cities 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 student &lig;direct action protests 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 famous &lig;Tank Man photo 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 maintain &lig;friendly developing nation&lig; status granted by the US in 1983 in the WTO. This status has given China enormous economic advantages while competing with &lig;developed nations 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 of &lig;peace, 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 communist revolutionaries were ready and willing to fight and die for the cause.

My characterization of Antifa as communist 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, &lig;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, &lig;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 that &lig;policy reform is too slow and change must be forced through &lig;non-violent and violent direct action. Although the article claims that Antifa is composed of &lig;highly decentralized¦ autonomous groups, these &lig;groups are organized to achieve &lig;their objectives which implies common objectives; and &lig;their direct actions are conducted to achieve &lig;their objectives. When Antifa cells, or &lig;groups, arrive in cities throughout the United States, sometimes internationally, unload rental trucks full of riot gear, march under the same flag with trained precision to &lig;direct action events, &lig;protests, and conduct disciplined &lig;violent direct action that includes 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 titled &lig;Public reactions, &lig;Academics and scholars appear to justify a vigilante view of Antifa’s &lig;violent direct action as follows:

&lig;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 not &lig;false 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 encourage &lig;violent direct action, riotous actions perpetrated by Antifa. My contention that Antifa are communist 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.

Antifa is organized as a vigilante group of communist 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, &lig;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. Antifa &lig;direct action is 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. Leftist &lig;expects and 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 communist revolutionaries. One last question, &lig;In the last fifty years, what &lig;white supremacist group 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, communist revolutionaries in my opinion. The idea of direct action is central to the Antifa movement. The term &lig;direct action is 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 in &lig;violent direct action, political violence, assault, arson, and property destruction, riots to the &lig;politically 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 by &lig;violent 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 communist 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 &lig;high expectations of commitment to 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 their &lig;direct action campaigns. 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 a &lig;disciplined 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 communist 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 your &lig;Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

 

 

 

US EDUCATION IS MARXIST PROPAGANDA

 

Marxist propaganda dominates the education system in the United States from preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP. Around 1970, Herbert Marcuse stated that an educational dictatorship was required before the people of Western Europe and the United States would accept radical progressive Marxist thought necessary for radicle change. From the 1950’s through 1970, Marcuse taught Marxist critical theory at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis and the University of California, San Diego. He supported the world-wide Viet Nam anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. During an anti-war symposium discussion period in Berlin, summarized in The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. 1994, a student asked him this question, What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change? In his response, Marcuse admitted his helplessness, as follows:

“In order for new demands to develop, the mechanisms that reproduced the old demands would first have to be abolished; while, on the other hand, in order to abolish those mechanisms, the demand for them to be abolished would first have to be created. The only solution he could envisage [to cause radicle change] was an ‘educational dictatorship.‘”

A group of graduates in caps and gowns posing for the camera.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party, conservatives, and Biblical Christians failed to understand the goal of the Marxist plan for an educational dictatorship. The goal of their Marxist propaganda was to abolish those mechanisms hindering radicle change by abolishing teaching of everything positive about the United States. The sad and frightening result of our failure to understand the left’s goal for our education system is that the Marxist propaganda taught to our youth has succeeded in undermining our belief that the United States and our heritage has been an overwhelming force for good in the world. Marxist propaganda taught in our schools has succeeded in creating the demand to eliminate the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, support for our capitalist economy, and the positive influence of our national power and influence in geo-politics.

In the United States, progressives were working toward an educational dictatorship with curricula dominated by Marxist propaganda long before Marcuse verbalized the reality of their efforts. Calls for the left’s educational dictatorship were clearly outlined in The Communist Manifesto and subsequent Marxist rhetoric. Around 1990, they controlled higher education and had trained preschool through high school teachers. By the start of the twenty-first century, progressive Marxist ideology was taught from preschool to Ph.D., and the 2008 election probably saw the first group of voters indoctrinated throughout their educational experience by Marxist propaganda.

In his 2017 publication, The End of the Experiment: The Rise of Cultural Elites and the Decline of America’s Civic Culture, Stanley Rothman called Herbert Marcuse “the Father of the New Left.” Marcuse was a member of The Frankfurt School, a group of Marxist philosophers who called themselves Critical Theorists to avoid close association with Russian communist revolutionaries. They were Marxist philosophers and social scientists with the Institute for Social Research, founded in the early twentieth century, at Germany’s Frankfurt University. Before the Nazis gained total control of Germany, most members of The Frankfurt School escaped, with their extensive library, to Columbia University via Switzerland. After WWII, many members of The Frankfurt School returned to Germany, but Marcuse and several other Critical Theorists remained in the United States.

Marcuse, through his writing, teaching, and rhetoric pioneered the mechanisms used to institutionalize the progressive left’s educational dictatorship and its curricula of Marxist propaganda. Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal art and social science discipline. Therefore, Marxist propaganda is incorporated in the curricula of philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, journalism, geography, the arts, and literature, to name a few. His progressive ideology regarding the role of art and man’s erotic nature in the true liberation of humanity and emancipation from bourgeoisie, capitalistic, society have also been incorporated into curricula at every level resulting in a major impact our society, culture, heritage.

Marcuse also formulated the strategies now being utilized by far-left progressive Marxist radicle revolutionaries seeking to transform the United States into a nation governed by the principles and philosophy of Karl Marx, socialism. He was one of the early radicle elites to use language from the critique of Soviet or Nazi regimes to characterize developments in the advanced industrial world. Today, this language is commonly used by progressive educators at every level, news anchors and commentators, and pundits as they characterize Republicans, conservatives, and capitalists who are not woke enough.

In his 1965 publication: Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse described how to establish his educational dictatorship and influence public discourse as follows:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. [If movements from the left are blocked], their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements [from the right].

In classrooms and campuses from preschool to Ph.D., as well as society in general, toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements [from the right] has been withdrawn by undemocratic means, the Political Correctness movement and Cancel Culture.

Marcuse also described the groups of revolutionaries that the educational dictatorship could teach to become the radicle intellectuals needed to transform the nation our Founders envisioned into a socialist nation. A 1997 review of social and political theorist writings indicated that Marcuse believed the working class was no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States. Instead, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other ethnicities and other colors, the unemployed, and the unemployable. Accordingly, these groups could be molded into the revolutionaries needed to affect radicle change in the United States. Subsequently, numerous curricula have been developed for groups that Marcuse thought could become a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States. Departments and curricula for marginalized ethnicities and other colors and the socially marginalized were subsequently developed including Black, Native American, Hispanic, Women’s, and Gender Studies. New curricula, programs, and groups were developed by the radicle progressive Marxist faculty and graduates of these disciplines including Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, the Lincoln Project, and the 1619 Project. ANTIFA, the useful puppet minions of the radicle, progressive, Marxist left, appears to be a movement made up of the marginalized outcasts and outsiders of our society.

Since one of the major goals of Marxism is equity of outcomes and distribution of the benefits of society, leaders of the educational dictatorship promote equity programs that reduce opportunities for gifted and exceptional students to advance their education at their own pace. These students are held back as long as possible to minimize their potential advantage over their peers. Critical Race Theory has a similar objective. The Marxist educational dictatorship has incrementally abolished support for teaching the critical role of our Judeo-Christian heritage, Christianity, the Christian Church, and Christian Family with a father, mother, and their children, and Judeo-Christian morality and ethics. This heritage was essential to our national success and history as the United States became the greatest nation in history.

Marxist educators slowly decreased support for the ideals of The Declaration of Independence that all men’s freedom is endowed by their Creator and that our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all Amendments were ordained as documents set apart for the service of God. The Marxist propaganda disseminated in the educational dictatorship also began a methodical campaign to defame our Founders as racists because many Founders owned slaves who had been sold into slavery by their fellow black Africans. Conservatives of all stripes failed to understand that the Marxist educational dictatorship would also abolish support for our capitalistic economy, the rule of law and law enforcement, and a military strong enough to defend our nation against Marxist and former Marxist regimes and other dictatorships. Marxists throughout the world always support each other. These regimes include China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and other South and Central American Marxist regimes, Islamist dictatorships like Turkey, Iran, and Syria, as well as the Islamic terror groups throughout the world.

Obviously, the Republican Party, Conservatives, and Biblical Christians fail We the People when we did not understand the goals of objectives of the left’s educational dictatorship. Additionally, we failed to understand that the attitude of our people toward their Judeo-Christian heritage, our constitution, the rule of law and law enforcement, capitalistic economy, and way of life could be changed through an incremental Marxist propaganda campaign in our schools. Consequently, over half of our youngest generation now favor socialism over capitalism according to one national poll; and the leaders of many of our largest corporations and Big Tech support the progressive socialist agenda and policies. Marxist progressives dominate our mainstream news outlets, commentators, and pundits. Recent news articles indicate that many corporate executives support and promote many progressive, Marxist initiatives currently dominating our public discourse. In addition, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google now actively practice intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left, political correctness and cancel culture, using undemocratic means as Marcuse suggested. Although these corporations are not government agencies, they have failed in their patriotic duty to uphold the spirit of Amendment I of the Constitution by abridging the freedom of speech [and] of the press. In my opinion, since these public forums are licensed, sanctioned, and protected by congress, they should not be exempted from the requirements of the Constitution regarding freedom of speech [and] the press!

Three critical issues face the Republican Party, Conservatives, and Biblical Christians. Solving these issues will be a daunting task because we will have to reverse over fifty years of Marxist propaganda spread throughout our population by the left’s educational dictatorship. First, we must challenge the Marxist educational dictatorship that has been established in the United States of America before it is too late. Secondly, Conservatives must counter the Marxist left’s stranglehold on our education system by promoting conservative faculty and administrative participation in our universities. Thirdly, we must develop curricula that promotes all the positive facts of our national heritage. These facts include our Judeo-Christian heritage, our Founders and Founding Documents, the rule of law, our military as a force for freedom throughout the history of our world, and the progress we have made to fulfill the hope of The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments. For the sake of the United States of America, failure is not an option. Our freedom is at stake!

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

OUR UNITED STATES “WITHERS AWAY” UNDER DEMOCRAT CONTROL

 

Our United States withers away under Democrat control. In my opinion, this will occur due to the progressive information and entertainment industries, and the socialist, progressive wing of the Democrat Party, the philosophically Marxist left cabal. The combination of globalism and multi-national corporations will also be a factor as our United States withers away.  For a thorough discussion of globalism and free trade, consider the GLOBALISM articles listed in the BLOG CONTENTS tab of AMERICA’S CROSSROAD. The left also controls our education system where Marxist philosophy is taught to our children from preschool to Ph.D. (Marxism PP). This educational dictatorship now includes curricula developed by The Lincoln Project, Critical Race Theorists, and Black Lives Matter which may be the subject of later articles from America’s Crossroad. Consequently, most of our younger citizens now prefer socialism over capitalism. Since the left controls entertainment, pop culture and music, the advertisement industry, literature and the publishing industry, and social media, the left controls the sights, sounds, and language of our culture. Most of the messages portrayed by this cabal are anti-Christian and anti-religion, anti-traditional family, anti-capitalist, anti-law enforcement, anti-military, and reject the idea that We the People have been a largely positive force in the history of our nation and the world. Consequently, the left rejects the positive nature of our heritage as citizens of the United States of America.

The phrase, the state withers away, was coined by Friedrich Engels in the 1892 English translation publication, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.

Some claim that Engels was not referring to states as nations but as the system of laws that subjugated and exploited the laboring class, proletarians, to the will of those who determined labor wages and owned and controlled the other two means of production, land and capital, capitalist or the bourgeoisie. Engels and Marx envisioned an inevitable evolutionary process leading to classless socialist states where the means of production are controlled by all the people sharing equally in the benefits of production.

However, in the section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx and Engels unambiguously pronounce that the phrase the state withers away refers to countries and nations as follows:

A picture of karl marx with the caption " karl marx ( 1 8 1 8-1 9 0 6 ). "

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

Working men have no country.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie [upper ruling class, landowners, and capitalists], to freedom of commerce, to the world market.

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

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

According to Marx and Engels, when competition between states is eliminated, the state, as individual nations, withers away. By the early twentieth century, the idea that the state withers away took an ominous turn for the worst as revolutionary Marxists sought world domination under dictatorial communism. However, in twenty first century western civilization, our laws  give significant power to workers and labor unions creating a tenuous balance between the rights of capitalists and laborers. Some would say that capitalists still have an advantage in these laws. Others disagree, saying the balance is determined by supply and demand. That is the subject of much debate.

For this discussion, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions of state, nation, country, border, nationality, and character. are appropriate. State is defined as

a politically organized body of people especially; the political organization of such a body of people; a government or politically organized society having a particular character usually occupying a definite territory.

Nation is defined as follows:

A community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government; a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status.

Country is defined as an indefinite usually extended expanse of land;the land of a person’s birth, residence, or citizenship; a political state or nation or its territory. Border is defined as a boundary especially of a country or state.

Nationality is defined as follows:

A legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state; membership in a particular nation; political independence or existence as a separate nation; a people having a common origin, tradition, (songs, stories, and chronicles) and language capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.

Character is defined as follows:  

A feature used to separate distinguishable things into categories, a group or kind so separated; the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation; main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish.

The above definitions will provide a framework for discussion of the way Democrat control will ensure that our United States withers away.

First, it is critical to understand the collective nationality and character of the United States of America. Until the mid-twentieth century, we were a people having a common origin, tradition, (songs, stories, and chronicles) and language [English] constituting a nation-state sharing a complex of mental and ethical traits serving to distinguish the United States from other nations. We the People shared a Judeo-Christian heritage. Our laws and values are based on British Common Law with its Judeo-Christian based code of morality and ethics as is our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. 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] has blessed it [ 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.

John Jay 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.

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.  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 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.

The Father of our Country clearly stated our shared Judeo-Christian religion, morality and values were central to the collective nationality and character of We the People of the United States. 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.”

Secondly, our state and nation, the United States of America, has an internationally recognized border which constitutes the boundary separating our nation from the other nations of the world. Without defended or secure borders, independent nations would not exist. Since the actions and rhetoric of progressives and the Democrat Party demonstrate that they favor open borders, their policies will ensure that United States, as we know it, withers away. Military border defense is only an issue when nations are at war, but border security is critical when formulating a nation’s immigration policy. The progressive, Democrat, vision of immigration policy for the United States is to make our nation into a microcosm of the world demographically, culturally, economically, and politically. During the 2020 Presidential campaign and the first week of the Biden Administration, President Biden announced that the borders of the United States would be open to all commers with little actual restrictions related to their legal status. The administration claims that the border is closed; but the reality of over 100,000 documented illegal border crossings each month, which does not include an untold number who get away, tells the truth. The southern border of the United states is open to all. When they arrive, these illegal immigrants get promised free food, medical attention, eventually a hotel room, transportation to a location of their choice, and all the social services given to legal immigrants and citizens. Most, but not all, seeking asylum get a court date a few years in the future, but most never appear hoping for a future path to citizenship. At least 10% of these illegals also get to spread Covid-19 to our population. This transformative vision is a radicle change to the character, the complex of mental and ethical traits marking a nation, of the United States. Therefore, the character of our nation withers away.

Conservatives have a different vision. The Constitution of the United States begins by stating; We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Our Constitution does not say we the people of the world. Conservatives understand that if immigration policy turns our nation’s character into that of the world, the United States will cease to be the beacon of freedom and hope for the world. Conservatives know, unfortunately, that progressives and the Democrat Party misrepresented the impacts of the 1965 Immigration Act on the character and texture of [our] people. In a 2015 article evaluating the 50-year impacts of the 1965 Immigration Act, Theodore White evaluated the potential impacts of progressive immigration policy in the United States as follows:

A shadow of people and an american flag

‘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. ‘

Rome failed, and conservatives believe that the United States could fail if we do not change the transformative nature of our immigration policies. Put a different way, the United States of America, that existed for the first 185 years of our history, withers away.

The actions of progressives and the Democrat Party are making the United States into a socialist nation by their actions and policies related to Covid-19 recovery. Current actions and policies of the new administration and the current actions of progressives, Democrat governors and big city mayors, will create a class of citizens dependent on governmental assistance and support, socialism. Progressive, Democrat governors and mayors continue to lock down their citizens and shut down their economies, small businesses, bars and restaurants, and schools. The result is permanent small business failures and record unemployment.  The longer the shutdowns last, the greater the adverse impact will be on our economy and unemployment.  Many small business owners invested their entire life’s savings in their businesses and may not recover financially. Some of these entrepreneurs could go from employers to employees or the unemployed. They could even lose their homes and become renters, or in the worst cases, homeless. The result is that these citizens could require governmental assistance and support caused by the progressive response to the pandemic.

This is the beginning of socialism, wealth sharing and governance based on the philosophy of Karl Marx and his followers. The philosophy of Marx can be summarized as wealth redistribution from each according to their ability to each according to their need regardless of their willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. Of course, those unable to contribute to the good of society due to physical or mental incapacity deserve our compassion and care. Consequently, as progressives and the Democrat Party lead us down this ever-increasing pace toward socialism, the character and essence of the United States withers away.

The racist, bigoted, woke progressives of our news media, social media, cancel culture, pop culture, and the Democrat Party will call conservatives like me the racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, fascists, and Nazis because our opinions are not woke enough. Conservatives are simply nationalists who want the United States of America to succeed as it did for the first 185 years of our history. It was the United States that fought a Civil War to end slavery in our country and eventually most of the rest of the world, won freedom during WWI and WWII, ended the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and built the strongest economy in the history of the world. If conservatives allow them, progressives and the Democrat Party will ensure the United States of America, as we know it, withers away.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.