Category: Individualism

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may be realizing that today’s Democrat Party with its near total rejection of traditional values and conservativism, no longer represents the values traditionally held by many Hispanics.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.

 

 

CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS MARXIST

 

Evolution of Critical Race Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Race Theory Revolutionaries and Tactics

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

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

Marxism, Critical Race Theory, and Black Lives Matter

A statue of karl marx in front of trees.

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

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

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

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

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

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRAT POWER OR GOP PEOPLE POWER

 

A split picture of mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi
Democrat Power is their party’s objective while Republicans seek to return power to the people.

Democrat power is the goal of virtually every plan and action undertaken by the Democrat Party. In politics, actions and policy platforms not words define motivations. By their actions and party platforms, the Democrat Party clearly demonstrates that they value power not people, that is We the People. Admittedly, the Republican Party also seeks political power. The essential difference is the means each party uses to gain power; and how each party uses their power. These critical differences were the essence of the 2020 election at every level in our society.

For the past five or six decades, the Supreme Court with a five or six progressive Justice majority has been critical to Democrat power in the United States. Additionally, progressive judges in the inferior US courts were also an important component of Democrat Party power. Progressives in the Democrat Party used the progressive US judiciary to promote their agenda when they could not pass the agenda through the Constitutional legislative process. The progressive US courts used two parts of the Constitution to accomplish the changes they desired. First, they used the authority of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, to make judgements on the Constitutionality of laws. Second, they used the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution which states, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Thus, decisions of the US Supreme Court or inferior courts, when case appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court, became the law of the land.

Undoubtedly, Roe v. Wade, is one of the most politically and emotionally charged US Supreme Court cases in our history. The U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7“2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s Constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law). In my opinion this decision, and the scholarly legal discussion on the right to Privacy, is inconsistent with judicial good behavior.

The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays anonymously written in support of ratification of the Constitution by three authors under the pseudonym, Publius. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, one Publius, discussed good behavior for judges in the US Judiciary.

Judges hold their offices during ‘good behavior,’ which is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.

The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Consequently, good Behavior is court decisions that reflect the manifest tenor of the   constitution. Manifest tenor is original intent based on the Constitutional text, construction, grammar, and the words as defined when the Constitution, Amendments, or laws were ratified by We the People. Manifest tenor also refers to the principle train of thought or idea that runs through each article and section of the Constitution and law under consideration.    

In The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton wrote,

There is not one syllable in the plan under consideration (Constitution), which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution.

The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade violates both of Hamilton’s prerequisites for judicial good behavior. First, the decision did not concur with the manifest tenor of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Privacy is not found in any part of any definition of liberty. Since it is not even a synonym for liberty, Privacy is also inconsistent with the principle train of thought or idea that runs through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the idea that Privacy is an implicit concept with respect to liberty is nothing less than divining the spirit of the Constitution. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is one of the main reasons that We the People have a flawed Constitution lacking any meaningful Constitutional check on the Judicial Branch of our government. Is the best solution to this problem a Constitutional Amendment? Is the idea worth considering? This idea might end the rancor associated with the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Additionally, disrespectful judicial rulings that usurp the will of We the People occur when jurists proport an ability to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution or craft opinions that are not based on the textural original intent, the manifest tenor of the Constitution and its Amendments. After all, We the People ratified the manifest tenor of each part of the Constitution and its Amendments. Each of the 535 members of the US Congress and the President were elected by We the People. It is the US Congress which passes legislation that becomes law when signed by the President. Consequently, State and Federal laws, and Inferior US Court opinions consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution, must be upheld by our courts because they reflect the collective will of We the People. The same is true of Presidential Executive Orders that are consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

Conversely, The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. When judicial rulings are not based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the offending jurist places their opinion above the collective wisdom of all We the People. This is true whether the opinion is that of an individual judge, a panel of judges, or a nine Justice US Supreme Court ruling, Judicial rulings that give the standing of law to progressive social policies remove the political initiative from We the People giving it to the government agencies or private entities, like Planned Parenthood, adding to Democrat power. When the elected representatives of We the People make laws about social issues, as Conservatives and the Republican Party prefer, power originates with We the People.

in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, President Trump has nominated Supreme Court Justices and US Inferior Court Judges that will make decisions based on originalist concepts that include manifest tenor and reject attempts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution. The Republican Senate has fulfilled its Article II Advice and Consent obligations and confirmed President Trump’s Judicial nominations. Consequently, progressive changes to our society should be decided through the legislative process where We the People, through our elected legislators, will determine what is best for We the People.  An unelected Judiciary will no longer rule against the will of We the People. The Democrat Party will lose power; and, through his Judiciary nominations, President Trump and the Republican Senate returned power to We the People.

The legislative Powers mandated by Article I of the Constitution were crafted by the Founders and Framers to create tension between the House of Representatives (House) and the Senate. The House was crafted as a federalist body where the states have greater power because the number of Representatives is population based. Representatives also face election every two years. Consequently, they are more responsible to We the People of their state. The Senate was crafted to be a more nationalistic body giving more attention to the issues of the national government. They only face election by We the People of their state every six years. The tension created was amplified by the differences in the powers and responsibilities delegated to the House and Senate by Article I and Senatorial approval of International Treaties, Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls, Supreme Court Justices, Inferior Court Judges, and all other Officers of the United States in accordance with Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The Framers had great confidence in the virtue of We the People and did not anticipate the rancor that soon developed with the rise of political parties. Unfortunately, the Constitution provides no remedies for the problems political parties created. The tension created by the two parts of the Legislative Branch is compounded by the struggle for power, control, and leadership of the House and Senate by political parties. The Senate filibuster further complicates legislative power struggles. With Senate filibuster rules, 40 Senators control the legislative process at the expense of the other 495 members of the Senate and House adding more tension to the political struggle for legislative power. Thus, the combination of the two parts of the legislature and a minimum of two political parties created at least a four-way power struggle for control of the Legislative Branch of our government. Before any piece of legislation can go to the President for approval, legislators must overcome the four-way power struggle that the Constitution forces on them. This complicated struggle, all too often, prevents passage of legislation. When this occurs, legislators often cause difficulties and harm to We the People.

A quote by rahm emanuel

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Pelosi, has placed the command of Rahm Emanuel, former President Obama’s Chief of Staff, above the welfare of We the People. The Democrat Party continually adds funding for progressive, some might say socialist, projects, programs, and social initiatives unrelated to Covid-19 to needed economic, medical, and Covid-19 relief bills. Furthermore, Speaker Pelosi has refused to negotiate or compromise on relief packages since the first compromise, Covid-19 relief legislation was approved by the legislature and signed by President Trump. The unrelated additions included projects and funding that they could not do before the crisis such as Kennedy Center funding and unrestricted funds to progressive cities and states to bail out unfunded pension plans and debt incurred prior to the pandemic. Speaker Pelosi uses this tactic in the hope that she will increase Democrat power in the Legislature with little regard for We the People.

A similar tactic to increase Democrat power, perfected by Speaker Pelosi, is to add unrelated project funding to needed projects or essential government services legislation. For example, the requirement to add an additional percentage of a federally funded construction projects for art. Physical conservatives say that the art does not contribute to the function of the project. However, the art projects are something that artists could not do before the project requiring the art. Another common Democrat legislative tactic is adding smaller unrelated project or program funding to essential budget appropriation bills. For example, low priority Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, and Department of Education funding could be added a Defense appropriations bill. Physical conservatives who would object to the non-defense spending in separate bills are often forced to approve the entire bill as a compromise to secure essential Defense funding. Sadly, the House, under leadership of both parties, often fails in its duty to pass appropriation bills for each of the 12 Cabinet Departments before the government is forced to close due to the lack of funding. The House fails in this duty more times than it succeeds. When this occurs, emergency omnibus bills are passed to keep the government operating. Speaker Pelosi has mastered this art of appropriation bill failure. This tactic is a Democrat power play allowing Democrats to interject progressive projects and programs into the legislation which must be passed; or the government will have to shut down, thereby not letting a serious crisis go to waste.

Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim to be for We the People, their policies and social initiatives promote increasing Democrat power for their party, the Federal government, and various forms of collectives like unions. Collective type organizations emphasize centralized power versus individual, We the People power favored by conservatives and the Republican Party. As one example, programs like Obamacare, single payer health insurance, or Medicare-for-all promote collective management or socialistic control of healthcare which means that bureaucrats not individuals and their doctors make most healthcare decisions in our country. In contrast, conservatives and Republicans prefer at least free market healthcare insurance where individuals and families have total control of their healthcare insurance giving power to We the People. A FORGOTTEN AMERICAN’S ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE PLAN offers a proposal for complete transformation of healthcare in the United States.

One of the more devious ways Democrat power is garnered by party leaders, is the never let a serious crisis go to waste legislative maneuver perfected by Leader Pelosi. Covid-19 relief legislation is the best recent example of the tactic. She crafted legislation filled with funds for programs and projects unrelated to Covid-19 that were at least 2-3 times more expensive than Republican alternatives. She has refused to negotiate for months. The result has been no Payroll Protection Plan financial relief for small businesses and their employees, business closures and failures, increasing unemployment, expanding food insecurity, rental evictions, and foreclosures. The insidious result is more people become dependent on government benefits like unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the same time, Democrat Governors and big city Mayors mandate, business shutdowns, capacity limits, and school closures forcing many parents to stay at home without pay increasing the financial burdens on We the People. Apparently, Speaker Pelosi believes that delaying Covid-19 economic relief until after the inauguration of President-Elect Biden will proffer credit for the relief to Biden and the Democrat Party. On December 7,2020, Speaker Pelosi said that she was now willing to negotiate “because we have a new President” verifying that Democrat power was more important to Democrats than “We the People.” Obviously, party leaders believe their tactics will increase long term Democrat power.

On the other hand, the Republican Party under the leadership of President Trump, Senate Majority leader McConnell, and House Minority leader McCarthy emphasized targeted legislation. Their plans would provide Payroll Protection Plan funds to small business owners and their employees, unemployment benefits that did not provide incentives to stay on unemployment, payments to individuals, and funds to assist states with personal protective equipment and distribution of Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments. Republican proposals provide power to We the People, small business owners and employees, and individuals,

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.

REPUBLICANS: ACT STRATEGICALLY CONSERVATIVE AND TACTICALLY LIKE DEMOCRATS

 

Two men in suits and ties standing next to each other.
Republicans, unite, formulate a long term legislative plan, formulate bills to accomplish the plan, compromise, and pass the bills like Democrats.

The Republican Party, unlike the Democrat Party, appears to value egotistical arrogance and individualism over party. Republicans show little if any willingness for internal compromise to achieve purportedly common objectives. In my opinion, Republicans actually value individualism over the good of the nation and unity for the sake of governance. Consequently, unless Republicans adopt an attitude of unity, the Republican Party may not be able to govern effectively in the foreseeable future. In the US House of Representatives, Republicans may as well be three of four distinct parties because that is how they function. Republicans in the US Senate appear to have at least two factions, moderates and RHINOs and conservatives equally individualistic and unwilling to compromise. Finally, many Republicans in the legislative branch appear to be more allied with Democrats in opposition to President Trump.

My opinion is based on the absence of effective realistic action based on campaign rhetoric and failure to pass major promised legislation in a timely manner. The mere fact that Republicans promised to Repeal and Replace Obamacare for at least six years without ever agreeing among themselves to an actual piece of legislation to accomplish their promise to constituents is astoundingly incompetent. If an effective and meaningful replacement is not enacted before 2018, that failure should result in primary challenges to the whole congressional Republican delegation in the US House of Representatives and Senate. The same should be said about making personal tax reductions permanent, border control, meaningful immigration reform including a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals solution, and an end to local “Sanctuary” policies.

On the other hand, the Democrat Party is philosophically Marxist especially in relation to individualism. For Democrats, individuals submit to the good or will of the group as a whole. Consequently, individual Democrat legislators are more likely to compromise and follow the party line to pass legislation even when bills do not satisfy all of their requirements. Democrats are more willing than Republicans to take an incremental approach to accomplish their strategic long term goals. In addition, the divisions within the Democrat Party are primarily related to the pace of implementation of governance based on Marxist philosophy such as varying income redistribution plans related to taxation, environmentalism and climate change, healthcare, education, regulation, welfare, and other statist policies. The strategic objective of the Democrat Party is a US society where all citizens share equally in the benefits of society regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute to society. Democrats place no time constraints for accomplishment of this goal making an incremental approach and compromise quite acceptable. This is always true when the compromise leads toward the final goal.

Congressional Republicans must abandon their pride, arrogance, and egotistical individualism and start working together for the good We the People and the United State of America. Time for accomplishment is running out. Healthcare solutions, all immigration issues, permanent personal tax rates must be completed before the 2018 election. Congressional Republicans must remain strategically conservative while adopting the tactical attitude of cooperation employed by the Democrat Party in the US Congress.

Without healthcare and tax reform, Republicans will lose control of the US House and Senate.

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.

BIBLICALLY, ABORTION IS MURDER

 Within Biblical Christianity, the sanctity of life is an essential part of the belief system of each Christian who has a personal relationship with God through Christ. Consequently, Biblical Christians oppose abortion. Understanding the sanctity of life starts with the Sixth Commandment,

You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13, NIV).

Murder is further defined in Exodus 21:12 & 14 as follows:

Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my alter and put him to death (NIV).

A baby is in a bowl with pink stuff around it.
Abortion is opposed by Biblical Christians since, according to Exodus 21:22-24, abortion is murder in God’s sight.

Exodus 21:13, describes what we call manslaughter today. It is not punishable by death. As described in Exodus, with the exception of manslaughter, murder is murder. Abortion is murder because God cherishes each individual life, at all stages.

God’s law provides equal protection for a baby in its mother’s womb just as it protects any other person. At fertilization, an egg becomes a genetically distinct person who can be genetically identified as a distinct human being not a cancer or parasite requiring elimination by abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 states

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely; If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (NIV).

Therefore, if a person takes the life of a baby in a mother’s womb by abortion, that person murdered the baby in the womb.

Finally, 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 (NIV).

Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4, states,

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 (NIV).’

Most expectant Mothers experience reactions by their baby to outside stimuli. Shortly after Mary conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit, she went to visit her relative Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with her son, John the Baptist. Luke 1:41 & 44 follows:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting the baby leaped in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Elizabeth told Mary) As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy (NIV).

God’s plan for each individual starts before conception and continues throughout their life.

God knows each individual before they are conceived through His creative process. How, then, can we, as a society or as an individual, terminate the life of a baby in the womb by abortion.

That baby was set apart and anointed for God’s purpose.

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

 

 

 

PROGRESSIVES OPPOSE CHRISTIANITY

 

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

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

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

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

In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because

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

The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIBLICAL CHURCH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIBLICAL FAMILY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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