Founders Archives - America's Crossroad

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.

A FLAWED CONSTITUTION SOLUTION

In my opinion, We the People of the United States of America need a Constitution solution because our Constitution is flawed since it provides no meaningful checks or balances on decisions rendered by Federal Judges. In spite of this issue, the Founders of our nation had a profound, providential vision for the future of the United States of America. They based their vision on the fact that the people of this nation shared a common Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage included a common religion, a common moral and ethical code, a common industrious nature based on the colonization of a new world with new and unknown challenges, and common participation in a successful revolutionary war fought against one of the leading military powers on earth. The faith of the Fathers of this nation in its people allowed them to frame a constitution based on limited government and maximum freedom for the people. Freedom for the people is dependent on shared moral and ethical values, virtue. The Framers demonstrated faith in the governed by their choice of the first three words of the constitution, We the People.

The lack of Constitutional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch has been debated from the time of ratification debates to modern debates over judicial activism which Constitutional conservative argue requires a Constitution solution. In The Federalist Papers, supporters of the proposed Constitution inferred that judicial decisions consistent with the manifest tenor, context and meaning, of the Constitution is good behavior as a jurist. The Federalist No. 78 states,

Courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.

The Federalist No. 81 states,

In the first place, there is not one syllable in the plan under consideration, which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution

Justices of the federal judiciary no longer agree with the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who stated in The Federalist No. 49,

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from the people themselves; who, as the grantors of the commission (Constitution), can alone declare its true meaning and enforce its observance.

Finally, in The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton discussed impeachment of Federal judges writing:

And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check (on the Judiciary), which the power of instituting impeachments would give to (the Legislative Branch) upon the members of the judicial department. This alone is complete security. There never can be danger that the judges would hazard the united resentment of the body (Legislative Branch) entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means (impeachment) of punishing their presumption by degrading (removing) them (judges) from their stations (the court).

The Framers intended that federal judges should rule based on the Manifest Tenor of the Constitution” and its amendments. They further inferred that decisions not adhering to the manifest tenor of the Constitution would not be consistent with good Behavior as a jurist. Finally, they argued that judges issuing rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution should be impeached for their judicial actions. Since Judges have never been impeached for lack of this “good Behavior,” we need a Constitution solution.

In the Anti-Federalist, Robert Yates argued that the threat of impeachment for rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution” did not provide realistic checks or balances on the Judiciary. President Thomas Jefferson disagreed with the power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws given to the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson wrote,

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide], and it would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Abraham Lincoln expressed similar concerns in his First Inaugural Address as follows:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government in to the hands of that eminent tribunal (Supreme Court).As a result, some would say, we live under a dictatorship of the federal judiciary, an oligarchy.”

A page of the constitution with the words amp;quot; circle iii amp;quot;.

An Amendment is a Constitution solution that would control judicial activism.

In the absence of impeachment, the only remedy, or flawed Constitution solution, We the People have for an unrestrained Federal Judiciary, is a Constitutional Amendment. The proposed Amendment should allow any member of the United States House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President to introduce legislation that would overturn any Federal Court decision at either the inferior or Supreme Court level. The legislation would move through the legislative and executive branches like any other legislation. However, the Amendment should provide realistic and specific time constraints including priority scheduling of congressional committee and floor debates. It should require a simple majority in both houses of the Legislative Branch and a Presidential signature to overturn any Federal Court decision. In the case of an executive veto, a two-thirds majority of both houses would overrule the veto. In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment of this nature is needed since the Federal Courts have shown their disrespect for the will of We the People. Our courts show disrespect by overturning both State Constitutional Amendments and state referenda passed by a majority of We the People in several states. Court decisions also demonstrate disrespect for We the People when they ignore the “manifest tenor of the constitution” ratified by We the People. The proposed Amendment is a true flawed Constitution solution.

One contentious issue related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment is its impact on previous court decisions enacted outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution which many have called Judicial Activism. My suggestion is for the Amendment to establish a joint legislative committee to review previous court decisions. This committee should have a limited time frame for actions, one to three years. Any recommendation for Congressional action to reverse standing Federal Court decisions should require a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature and signature of the president for reversal. .A Presidential veto could be overturned by a second 2/3 vote in both houses of the Legislative Branch.

I still believe our Constitution is the best ever conceived throughout world history. However, We the People have allowed the Federal Courts to act as an oligarchy for decades. Is it now time to correct its one major flaw?

We need a flawed Constitution solution!

POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND THE CONSTITUTION

A building with the capitol in the background. — The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution.

The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution. The first two problems are primarily Constitutional issues which influence the political problems facing the United States. The first Constitutional issue is the fact that the Judicial Branch is unchecked in Constitution. In my opinion, the only remedy for this issue is a Constitutional Amendment. The second Constitutional issue is problem of anchor babies born in the United States who have illegal immigrant parents. There is no clear answer to this question. However, Amendment XIV, Section 5, of our Constitution, ratified in 1868, offers the following potential solution: The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Amendment XIV was clearly written to address all issues related to the citizenship of former slaves following the Civil War. Section 5 gives Congress the power to formulate appropriate legislation in this matter. Unfortunately, the Congress has not even investigated or proposed legislation to solve the issue since it is one of those political problems that could adversely affect elections. Failure to attempt to solve political problems demonstrates to We the People that the system is rigged. Keeping the anchor baby issue alive helps some politicians maintain political power. The issue is not the issue, maintaining political power is the issue for these type politicians. They simply seek to get re-elected. Change is necessary.

Third, the question about the wisdom of forming additional political parties continues to be one of the more personally confusing political problems facing our nation. During the 2016 election campaign disgruntled conservatives in the Republican Party seriously considered forming a third, conservative party. In the United States, we have a constitutional republic not a parliamentarian system like that of Great Britain or Israel. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. Consequently, when more than two political parties gain significant electoral participation, the result could be election of a President having a plurality of votes rather than a majority of votes. The situation contradicts one of the major tenants of the republican form of government, majority rule.

For example, President Clinton only garnered approximately 45% of the popular vote both times he was elected. Votes for the two conservatives, President Bush and Ross Perot, totaled at least 55%, in 1992. The same situation occurred in the next presidential election when the Republican candidate was Senator Dole. Again conservatives garnered approximately 55% of the vote. President Clinton claimed a mandate in each election; but he never had a majority vote of the citizens. Of course, our Electoral College system modifies and mitigates the relationship between votes cast by citizens and Electoral College votes. President Clinton did have significant Electoral College victories under our constitutional system in both elections.

If, as a nation, we believe that our national leaders, President, Representatives, and Senators should serve when they are elected by the majority of our citizens, provisions would be required when there are more than two popular political parties. The only way to elect national leaders with a majority of the popular vote would be to require runoff elections when no candidate achieves a simple majority. In the case of the presidential election, this requirement would be state-by-state to maintain our Electoral College system. Such a system would prevent the election of the liberal presidential candidate when the majority of the citizens voted for conservative presidential candidates which occurred in 1992 and 1996. States could follow suit if they chose to do so for state and local elections. Of course, such a remedy would require the long and rancorous procedure of a constitutional amendment. Such a process would also be expensive.

Fourth, one of the more personally vexing political problems facing the nation is the Senate filibuster which violates the democratic republican principle of majority rule. In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:

“(This) contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays “ continual negotiation and intrigue “ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated.

It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed.”

In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:

In such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making (decisions), where two thirds of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.

Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.”

Hamilton’s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Recent problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation and policy decisions can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring a 60 percent vote in the Senate rather than a simple, up or down, majority vote. Failure to act shows We the people that political problems prevail in the legislative branch of our government, specifically the Senate filibuster.

The fifth and final group of political problems facing our nation is the manner in which too many of the bills passed in congress link or embed unrelated initiatives and problem solutions into one piece of legislation. The procedure is often done accommodate the opposition to get votes or hide unpopular activities or programs from the voters. The result is often passage of unwanted laws that are not supported by the majority of We the People. Such acts reinforce the perception that the desires of We the People are irrelevant to those we elect to represent us or serve as our President. We the People do not elect national leaders to do what is expedient; we elect our leaders to do what is right; and what we elected them to do.

Each item of legislation should be approved individually by a simple majority. For example, linking bills that the defund Planned Parenthood and fund the Defense Department or emergency defense funding is unconscionable. It ensures failure of both bills or angers We the People. Each should be considered on their own merits and given an up or down simple majority vote. We the People do not appreciate the games played by our elected officials in Washington, DC. DC games demonstrate to We the people that the system is rigged. These types of DC games demonstrate the severity of the political problems plaguing the Legislative Branch of the United States government.

The political problems outlined in this discussion represent a short list of issues that We the People expect our national leaders to address and solve. So, get busy and
JUST DO IT!

PROGRESSIVES PROMOTE AN AMORAL SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.

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

[Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more.

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

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

A man in a hat and a quote — Progressives prefer an amoral society devoid of deep Christian influence.

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

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

VOTER FRAUD MATTERS

A train with the words " all aboard trump trains ". — The Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.

The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.

For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.

Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.

SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.

THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE.
WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!

PROGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY

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

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

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

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

Working men have no country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEFT’S EDUCATIONAL DICTATORSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later to a similar group, Lukacs stated,

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

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

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

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

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

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

What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROGRESSIVES OPPOSE CHRISTIANITY

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

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

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

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

In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because

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

The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIBLICAL CHURCH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIBLICAL FAMILY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OUR ORDAINED CONSTITUTION

A close up of the constitution of the united states — Our ordained Constitution is not secular. It provides a system of governance set apart to serve God.

Progressive pundits and commentators on the left claim that the Constitution of the United States is a totally secular document because it contains no reference to any deity. However, it is my contention that our ordained Constitution includes the word “ordain” for a specific purpose. Our ordained Constitution provides a system of governance set apart to serve God and bring glory to his Name.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia stressed the importance of the meaning of the words found in the Constitution as they were defined when the document was written, original intent. Fortunately, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), is accessible today. Johnson’s dictionary was the preeminent dictionary used by the majority of Americans when both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were written. This dictionary defined the words used by our nation’s Founders and the Framers of our Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America reads,

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain (set apart to be an instrument for the service of God) and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.”

Johnson defined Ordain as follows:

TO ORDAIN, v. a. [ordino, Lat. ordonner, Fr.]: 1)To appoint, to decree; 2)To Establish; 3) To settle, t0 Institute, to set in office; 4) To invest with ministerial function, or sacerdotal power.

Meletius was ordained by Arian bishops, and yet his ordination was never questioned.

When Johnson defined ordain as To invest with ministerial, or sacerdotal power, his definitions of sacerdotal and sacred are essential to understand the definition of ordain and the Framers use of ordain in the Constitution. These two critical words were defined by Johnson as follows:

SACERDO’TAL. Adj. [Sacerdotalis, Latin.] Priestly; belonging to the priesthood.

If ample powers, granted by rulers of this world, add dignity to the persons entrusted with these powers, behold the importance and extent of the sacerdotal commission.

SACRED. Adj, [Sare, French; Sacer, Latin.]: 1)Devoted to religious uses; holy; 2)Dedicated; consecrate; consecrated.

The fact that sacred and sacerdotal share the same Latin root, Sacer, is a clear indication that our ordained Constitution was intended to be set apart, consecrated, as an instrument for the service of God by its Framers and the citizens who ratified the Constitution.

Johnson’s definition of the word establish found in the Preamble immediately after ordain is further evidence that the Framers of the Constitution used ordain as a clear statement that their vision of the Constitution as a document set aside for the service of God. Johnson defined establish as follows:

TO ESTABLISH. v. a. [etablir, French]: 1) To settle firmly, to fix unalterably; 2) To settle in any privilege or possession, to confirm; 3) To make firm; to ratify; 4) To fix or settle in an opinion; 5) To form or model¦.”

All five meanings of establish; in Johnson’s definition were synonymous with the first three, meanings Johnson’s definition of ordain. Had the Framers intended the secular meaning of the word ordain; to appoint or decree, to establish or settle, or to institute, they would not have also included the word establish in the Preamble of the Constitution. That would have been unnecessarily redundant. Concise construction, words, and grammar, were important considerations to the Framers.

Again, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America states,

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, ¦do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In my estimation, based on the definition “ordain” and the definition of the words used to define the spiritual connotation of “ordain,” the original intent of the Framers for the Constitution, was to devise a system of governance that would bring glory to God. The Founders provided We the People with our ordained Constitution.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: