Category: Marxist Philosophy

The philosophical bases for the ideology of the left side of the political continuum.

ANTIFA: BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTIONARIES

 

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

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

A crowd of people in front of a building.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWITTER VERSUS CONSERVATIVES

 

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

A twitter profile with the name of dr. Champlin

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

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

A screenshot of the select topic page.

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

A screen shot of someone on twitter is engaging in abusive or harassing behavior.
A twitter account has been blocked by the group.

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

A close up of the email field in a computer

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

A twitter feed with the following hashtags :

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

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

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

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

JUST A THOUGHT.

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

MAKING A RACIST OLD WHITE MAN

 

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

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

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

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

A black and white picture of the detroit riots.

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, nothing has changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY PRAYER IS FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION!

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

BLACK SELF-GENOCIDE

 

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

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

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

A man in black gown holding up a bible.

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

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.

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.

GLOBAL FREE TRADE: REALLY?

 

The idea of global free trade or that the global market place is an open free market place is a damn lie. This damnation is spread by the World Trade Organization, progressives, many of whom are closet capitalists, globalists, international conglomerate capitalists, so called free-traders, conservatives, RINO’s, business pundits, and most intellectual elites. The lie comes from deep in the elitist Washington, DC, globalist swamp.

A red and white background with the word globalization written in it.
There are at least 6 reasons that the idea of global free trade is a damn lie!

Global free trade does not exist when 1) countries refuse to allow any category of products made in the United States (US) into their country, and we allow the same category into our country; 2) countries impose high tariffs on any category of products imported into their country, and we impose tariffs that are a fraction of those imposed by so-called œtrading partners; 3) other countries subsidize production of categories of products, and we do not subsidize production of the same category of products; 4) other countries do not impose costly environmental, health, and safety regulations on energy and production facilities that are required in the US; 5) other countries tolerate theft of intellectual property for new or improved products from US businesses without paying for use of the intellectual property or imposition of penalties when these products enter US markets; and 6) other countries manipulate international money markets for their benefit. If the so called global free trade experts were honest, they could add to my list of real global free trade impediments. Whether or not the announced Trump Administration tariffs will be good for our economy and labor force in general, the argument that tariffs violate free market principles is void because global free trade does not exit. The argument is based on a lie. No true global free trade market exists.

The result of globalism, as now practiced, is global wealth redistribution. The $800 billion US trade deficit is global wealth redistribution. Virtually all of the so-called œFree Trade agreements involving the US constitute wealth redistribution since they result in trade deficits with the other countries involved. The reality is that the redistribution has cost the US labor force jobs, lost wages, and lowered benefits which were transferred to labor forces in developing countries.

In my opinion, most progressive policy initiatives are based on Marxist philosophy, especially wealth redistribution. Similarly, capitalists seek to expand markets and increase their profitability which requires decreasing costs and opening of new markets in developing countries or increasing income, especially disposable income, in new and existing markets resulting in increased customer purchasing power. Although the ultimate goal, increasing consumer or personal incomes and buying power, is the same for both progressives and capitalists, the method of accomplishing the goal is drastically different. Interestingly, globalism often unites progressives and capitalists when nationalism, protectionism, and tariffs are the subject of debate and discussions.

Unfortunately, US laborers have borne the brunt of the adverse effects of globalism, lost jobs lost opportunities, stagnant wages, and regional economic decline. Through factory relocations to the developing world, capitalists achieve their goal of reducing capital improvement and labor costs, and increased factory productivity. Progressive globalists achieve their goal of global wealth redistribution when new factory wages increase the standard of living, opportunity, and economic development in the regions where new facilities are opened.

Global free trade is a globalist myth. Until a global free market actually exists, the experts should stop insisting that tariffs will impede free trade. Global free trade does not exist. The œexperts should simply tell us that tariffs will increase costs and prices and are the same as taxes. However, if the threat of tariffs, force our so-called trading partners to open markets, reduce their own tariffs, end their subsidies, clean up their own environment, end intellectual property theft, and stop currency manipulation, then tariffs could start progress toward an unfettered global free trade where all the people of the world could move toward greater prosperity.

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.

 

TARIFFS, GLOBAL MARKETS, CAPITALISM, AND LABORERS

 

Proposed and existing tariffs will affect global markets. Announced tariffs on steel, aluminum, washing machine, and solar panel imports into United States (US) markets are currently a major economic issue in the news nationally and globally related to global markets. The Trump Administration commitment to renegotiate international trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Paris Climate Accord, and trade sanctions related to efforts to end the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs further complicate discussions about tariffs and global markets. Global markets also complicate projections of the impacts of tariffs on the global and US economy and the potential for retaliatory tariffs or other market reactions by other nations. Trade wars are the fear of tariff opponents.

A red and white background with the word globalization written in it.
Tariffs, global markets, and trade agreements affect and threaten manufacturing capacity in the US.

The Trump Administration claims that the US is in danger of losing adequate steel and aluminum capacity to manufacture military equipment during a time of war. The purpose of proposed tariffs is to correct these critical steel and aluminum production capacity issues as a matter of national security. Although US steel and aluminum imports from China are below 10%, the fact that China often floods the world market with these products drives the international price down. Flooding US markets with Chinese steel or aluminum in this situation, often through other countries, makes it even more difficult for US firms to compete in global markets. Since these prices are determined by global markets, China does not have to flood US markets with steel and aluminum to force prices too low for US companies to be competitive. The issue is whether or not tariffs could be maintained long enough to rebuild US steel and aluminum and whether or not global retaliation and potential trade wars would negate the effect of the tariffs.

Causes for the significant decline of US manufacturing in general as well as our steel and aluminum industries are complicated by global markets. Our previous federal tax codes, environmental, health, safety, labor, and zoning regulations add to the costs of products manufactured in the US. Environmental impact assessments, zoning issues, and permitting often take years to complete for large projects adding significant costs and delays for new facilities or expansions. These extra costs, which many of our competitors in do not incur, adversely influence US product competitiveness in global markets. In addition, any construction or natural resource extraction project in the US that is opposed by a significant part of the population can be delayed by demonstrations due to the right of the people peacefully to assemble. Legal actions in our state and federal courts often delay or halt these type projects  which can reduce capacity, increase costs, and decrease our competitiveness in global markets.

In the US, we value clean air and water and the health, safety, and well-being of our labor force. Consequently, the extra costs that we require our manufacturers to incur, and the resultant competitive disadvantage these costs bring, is also part of the calculation that corporations make to locate manufacturing facilities in the US or to locate or relocate facilities to less restrictive countries. For the labor force in Western Europe, North America, and especially the US, progressives and the labor movement have achieved comparatively high wages and benefits compared to other parts of the world. The success of progressives in the environmental and labor movements has resulted in contradictory outcomes related to national and global aspirations which directly influence global corporate capital expenditure decisions related to global markets.

The result is a globalism contradiction for the left, the labor movement, and US capitalists. One of primary goals of progressives on the left is wealth redistribution or income equality on both the national and global scale. In the US, the labor movement has gained wages, benefits, and safe healthy work environments that are the envy of much of the world. Unfortunately, progressive and labor successes in the US are significant reasons for the decline of US manufacturing and competiveness in global markets. The total costs of expenses related to labor, the additional costs related to the anti-capitalist progressive environmental agenda, and progressive taxation resulted in factory closures in the US as corporations relocated factories and jobs to developing countries. The factories built in developing countries are new state-of-the-art facilities built at lower costs and greater worker productivity capacity than the outdated US factories that were closed or remain in the US. The compensation for laborers in the developing countries raises the standard of living for them that multiply as it spreads in local communities. Labor costs in the developing world are usually far lower than similar costs in the US but often much higher than wages before new factories open. In the US, factory closures increase the size of the labor pool for a declining number of manufacturing jobs in old factories now competing with state-of-the-art developing country facilities. Under these circumstances, the US manufacturing labor force is faced with declining number of jobs in old productively disadvantaged factories which can result in lower or stagnant wages and benefits. This is the globalism contradiction for the left. Consequently, in global markets, wealth is being redistributed, but the redistribution is from the labor force in the western industrialized nations to the labor force in the developing nations of the world.

The globalism contradiction for US capitalists and capitalists in the rest of the industrialized west is closely related to the success of progressives and the labor movement and the resultant cost of manufacturing land, labor, and capital improvements. Since the purpose of international manufacturing conglomerates is to maximize corporate profit, cost reduction is an essential responsibility of corporate executives and board members. This necessity stands in direct contradiction to the goals of nationalism, patriotism, and any since of obligation to the labor force, communities, states, and the United States of America, all of which, supported US corporations as they gained economic dominance in global markets. In my opinion, corporations founded in the United States, should give significant consideration to the fact that they would not be in their current global economic situation without the United States of America. These corporations have a debt to pay to We the People who supported their rise to positions of global economic power. This obligation is at the heart of the globalism contradiction for US capitalists.

The tariff and trade negotiation package announced by the Trump Administration is a complicated and aggressive plan to reinvigorate the US steel and aluminum industries and our manufacturing in general in global markets.  During a time of war, the United States must be able to support its military with the best equipment available and supply the needs of the population supporting any war effort. This requires a complete manufacturing base. This is one of the primary objectives of the Trump Administration’s goal to Make America Great Again.

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.

NATIONAL ISSUES REQUIRE SOLUTIONS

 

A crowd of people holding signs and standing in the street.
The political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.

The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that’  significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.

For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.

Solutions to the DACA’  immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.

The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.

We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,

‘JUST DO IT!’

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

A crowd of people holding signs and standing in the street.
The political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.

The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that  significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.

For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.

Solutions to the DACA  immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.

The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.

We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,

JUST DO IT!

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR FOUNDER’S NATION

CONTENTS

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

Our Founder’s nation, like every nation that cannot defend itself, maintain geographic integrity, and loses its unique culture, economic and political identity will wither away as Marx and Engels stated it. The Marxist left, whatever name they have used throughout the last two centuries, communists, socialists, Critical Theorists, humanists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats have accomplished a significant transformation of our Founder’s nation using their plan to transform America. Progressives used the tools provided by our Constitution and culture in a relentlessly incremental process to transform the United States into a nation that our Founders never envisioned.

A man in a hat and a quote
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation.

From colonial times until the Constitution was ratified and well into the twentieth century, We the People of the United States shared a strong, significant Judeo-Christian heritage which the Founders clearly understood. In the late eighteenth century, the majority of the population was of British descent, spoke English, and attended one of the many Protestant denomination or Catholic churches. All of the universities were of Christian origin, including Harvard which was named after a wealthy preacher who gave his theological library and wealth to the university. Most of the first departments established at these universities were Divinity Schools and Law Schools. Additional universities were established after the Great Awakening revivals of the mid-eighteenth century to train more evangelists. Our Founder’s nation shared a strong Judeo-Christian heritage.

VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION

The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation from the time the first colonists set foot on this continent.  This sentiment was eloquently stated by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,

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

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other [by] design of Providence for a band of brethren, united by the strongest ties, should never be split into alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us (Parenthetical remarks added).

James Madison in The Federalist No.14 was also confident that a constitution so ordained and based on Judeo-Christian morality, ethics, and law would be a model for mankind. He stated,

Posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theater, in favor of private rights and public happiness.  Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course.  They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society: They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe.  They formed the design of a great confederacy, which has been new modeled by the act of your Convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide (Ratify the Constitution, Remark added).

Fifty of the fifty five men who attended the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians including theologians, denominational leaders, pastors, and evangelists. Many were also legal scholars and attorneys. After shepherding the nation through the first eight years of our experiment, the Father of our Country, George Washington, expressed similar sentiments in his Farewell Address to the Nation:

“With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles.  You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in Courts of Justice?  And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Cultivate peace and harmony with all. “ Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? “ It will be worthy of a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?  Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?  The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas!  is it rendered impossible by its vices?

The Father of our Country clearly stated that the international reputation of the United States, sound governmental policies, and the integrity of our courts were dependent on our shared Judeo-Christian religion and morality, our cultural and societal identity. In our Founder’s nation, We the People had leaders like John Jay who summarized the Founders’ view of the importance of Christianity to the successful future of the United States as follows:

No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.

Not only did these four Founders express this view, but virtually all the significant Founders wrote expansively about the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage to previous success and future benefits that would come to the world as a result of the virtue and religious morality of the United States. Consequently, our Founder’s nation was a Judeo-Christian nation. In my opinion, most of the current societal, cultural, political, and legal problems in our nation are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition concerning Religion and Morality.”

Historically, great nations deteriorate from within. Moral and ethical deterioration of cultures normally precedes political, economic and military instability. These problems often lead to the inability of nations to defend themselves against external economic or military forces. In the United States, our national greatness flowed historically from the individual and collective character, virtue, strength, and moral integrity of We the People. Our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitution and the rule of law, and our economic system based on individual entrepreneurialism and capitalism have been largely responsible for the success of the United States on the world stage. Virtually every aspect of the historical cultural, political, and economic strength of our nation is being incrementally undermined by forces seeking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States outlined five general functions of constitutional governance, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Only those areas of life and governance detailed in the various Articles and Amendments to the Constitution were intended to fall under the authority and responsibility of the National or Federal government.  In the Founder’s nation, Tranquility, general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty were the responsibility of citizens, state, and local governments. The Constitution was established for a virtuous, moral, industrious, and responsible citizenry free to pursue their personal general Welfare and secure the Blessings of [their] Liberty.

In my view, one word in the Preamble to the Constitution has great significance to understanding why our Founder’s nation subsequently exceeded the expectations of the world. The word is  “ordain,” to set apart for a sacred function in service of God. The Preamble states, We the People of the United States do ordain’ and establish this Constitution. This meaning for ordain is the only one that fits the context and definitions of ordain and establish found in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language because all of the meanings for establish are synonymous with the non-sacred meanings in the definition for ordain. If the Framers had not intended the sacred meaning of ordain, they would not have included the word establish which would, therefore, have been redundant. The Constitution was not written as a strictly secular document. The Constitution of our Founder’s nation was a document design to serve God.

During the first half-century or more of the history of our Founder’s nation, our Judeo-Christian heritage was critical to the principles and doctrines of law.  Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) wrote, The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction the moral law called also the law of Nature.  Similarly, Commentaries on the laws of England by William Blackstone, was a widely respected commentary on law in America.  In a statement almost identical to that of Coke, Blackstone wrote, Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (Biblical Law), depend all of human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.  Additionally, prior to the mid-1800’s, it is safe to assume that Constitutional manifest tenor was the basis of court decisions related to the constitutionality of laws. Manifest tenor is the readily perceived, obvious, plain understanding of the course of thought running through the applicable article, amendment, section, or clause of the Constitution in relation to the case or statute under consideration. A synonymous phrase for manifest tenor is contextual original intent. During this period in the history of our Founder’s nation, the “law of nature” which “God… infused” into the “heart” of We the people was critical to our understanding of the meaning and purpose of our laws and duties as citizens.

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION

Progressives  have used several tools to “fundamentally transform America. The first, and possibly  most important tool, is the transformation of  Constitutional law which has had a significant effect on our Founder’s nation. In 1848, Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto promoting atheism and social evolution; and in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species positing biological evolution which challenged Biblical creationism.  Both concepts were widely embraced by academics throughout the world.  In 1869, scholars at the Harvard Law School embraced evolutionary thinking as keys to life and the law.  They taught that great legal scholars and judges could develop the laws governing mankind since mankind did not need God and Scripture for guidance in law. All references to both God and Scripture were eliminated   from legal education, and consequently, from the practice of law.

To accomplish this goal, these legal scholars developed the concept of case law in which legal principles, doctrines, and presidencies are developed over time by degrees through a series of cases.  John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating, The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.  After three to six decades of the development of legal principles and doctrines based on case law, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, summarized the legal system as follows, [Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more. These two statements regarding constitutional law bear a striking resemblance to the following discussion of truth found in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore:

The criterion for evaluating truth-claims normally is, or involves, human practice, a practicist criterion of truth. Truth is conceived as essentially the practical expression of a subject, rather than the theoretically adequate representation. Truth becomes a totality to be achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history…. Truths are the this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. Truth is an ideal asymptotically approached in history but only finally realized under communism after a practical consensus has been achieved.

Apparently, according to legal scholars, jurists, and philosophers, the Constitution, law, and truth are living things, ideas that have triumphed at a given point in history. Through case law over time, judges have transformed our Constitution and laws into a changing body of this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. One could say that the Constitution of the United States of America, as envisioned by the Founders, has already withered away; or the Constitution is being transformed and will soon wither away.

Progressives have been using courts and the concept of living Constitutions to challenge long held Judeo-Christian cultural norms for decades. Consequently, progressives have used our courts to undermine the sanctity of life through abortion and right to die decisions, marriage and the traditional family through same-sex marriage decisions, biological sexuality through decisions recognizing LGBT identity and access to previously gender specific public facilities, and religious freedom in business, public schools, governmental lands and facilities, and government agencies. Our courts have been the most effective tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States of America. As time passes, the United States of America is becoming less and less like our Founder’s nation.

TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION

The second tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is the establishment of a public education dictatorship. Our current public education curriculum promotes progressive cultural, social, economic, and political values and principles from pre-school to Ph.D. These curricula seek to undermine or eliminate discussion of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, in relation to our Constitution and legal system. Curricula ignore or minimize our Founders’ emphasis on the relationship between shared moral and ethical values and cultural harmony, individual and national prosperity, and national identity and strength on the world stage. Curricula stress claimed abuses of all western civilization on the rest of the world, capitalism as a form of western imperialism a concept espoused by Marxism, the benefits of socialist systems, and the progressive cultural agenda. The left’s educational dictatorship has been extremely effective as an agent to fundamentally transform the United States of America which has less and less resemblance to our Founder’s nation.

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE

The third tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is our telecommunications and entertainment industry including social media and pop culture. Television, movies, and music promotes non-traditional families and include LGBT characters, single parent families, illicit sexual content including workplace affairs between co-workers and supervisors of both sexes with subordinates, violence, and murder. Christianity, the essence of our Founder’s nation, is often mocked, portrayed as a form of manipulation, or Christian leaders portrayed as criminal. Capitalism is portrayed as an evil often criminal economic system. Our government is also portrayed as a source of problems in the world. Mainstream news outlets including print and on-line sources forward narratives supporting the progressive cultural, political, and economic agenda, policies, and candidates. The advertising industry is a more subliminal medium used to promote the fundamental transformation of America.

The final tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is legal immigration policy and border security. Between 1960 and 1970, the 1965 Immigration Act began to change the composition of the US foreign-born population. Due to the ethnic and religious strife between Balkan Muslims and various Christian sects that started WWI, the 1965 Act ended a 1924 regional immigration quota system that discriminated against Southeastern Europeans including Italians, Asians, and Africans. The previously favored regions included Northwestern Europe including the British Isles, and Canada.

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION

A group of people standing next to each other.
“Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.” It failed.

Many considered the 1965 Immigration Act to be an extension of the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the Johnson Administration granting immigration civil rights to the world by eliminating regional quotas. Although some Republicans supported the 1965 Immigration Act in its initial form, the Democrat Party promoted the bill in the legislature giving assurances that the bill would not adversely influence our nation, economy, and culture. When he signed the bill into law, President Lyndon Johnson said, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with immigrants. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [The bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) testified that Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” In an October 4, 1965 article on the immigration bill, The Washington Post author wrote,

“The most important change [is that] preference categories give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.”

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), testified as follows: “The preferences established by this proposal are not entirely dissimilar from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” With hind sight as twenty-twenty, it seems fair to ask whether the supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act were actually honest about their claims that the new immigration policy would not alter the culture and ethnic composition of our Founder’s nation.

Some opponents and legislators asked critical questions painting a less rosy picture of the potential outcome. William Miller of New York wrote:

‘The number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.’ He asked, ‘Shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?'”

Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified in the Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing:

“We should remember that [the bill will] lower our wage and living standards [and] disrupt our cultural patterns. Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”

In his 1982 book America in Search of Itself, Theodore White contradicted President Johnson’s signing-day assurance that it was not a revolutionary bill, writing that the bill was revolutionary and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society. In reality, critics were correct and the assurances that the Act would not upset the ethnic mix of our society were not justified as noted by the above data on the changes in foreign-born population associated with the Act.

Data from the US Census Bureau showing the region of birth of the foreign-born population of the United States is informative regarding the cultural transformation of the United States. From 1850-1960, Europeans and Canadians averaged approximately 95% of the foreign-born population. Southern and Eastern Europeans were greatly underrepresented in the US foreign-born population prior to 1960. In 1960, Europeans and Canadians comprised 75% which was a reduction of more than 15% of the foreign-born population compared to the previous 90 years. In 1970 this group comprised 61.7%; 1980, 39.0%; and in 1990 Europeans and Canadians comprised 26.9% of the US foreign-born population which was less than one third of the 1960 level and slightly more than one fourth of the 1850-1960 level. In contrast, Hispanics comprised an average of only 2.8% of the foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 9.4%; in 1970, 19.4%; 1980, 33.1%; and 1990, 44.3% nearly 16 times the 1850-1960 average of the US foreign-born population. Asians comprised an average of only 1.7% of the US foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 5.1%; 1970, 8.9%: 1980, 19.3%; and 1990, 26.3% which was more than 15 times the 1850-1960 average of the foreign-born population. In 1990, people from Africa and Oceania composed less than 2.5% of the US foreign-born population. By 2050, the racial and ethnic composition of the US population is expected to be 47% White, 29% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 9% Asian. According to this projection, the composition of whites will decline; the composition blacks will be stable; and the composition of Hispanics and Asians will increase. Although conservative pundits and other intellectuals agree, progressives always start immigration discussions with the phrase, We are a nation of immigrants, or We are all descendants of immigrants. What they fail to say is that, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, we were a nation of European and Canadian immigrants; and after 1965, we became and nation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants .

Thirty years after implementation of the 1965 Immigration Act became law some conclusions are relevant to this discussion. A new era of mass immigration ensued in which country origins of immigrants changed radically. The European economy stabilized resulting in fewer European immigrants. Mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America and emphasis on family reunification ensured that these groups could bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations because of limits on total immigration numbers. Unfortunately, twice as many immigrants as native-born Americans did not have high school diplomas in the mid-1990’s. This contributed downward wage pressure to a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs. This issue is compounded by increasing levels of illegal immigrants who also compete for these jobs.

In 2000, sociologist Christopher Jencks predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 if our immigration policies do not change. After evaluating congressional politics, Jencks concluded that congress did not want to appear to be racist and their leaders would not direct change. Consequently, Jerry Kammer, in his 2015 concluding remarks, included a dire analysis of our national future by Theodore White concerning of the potential impact of the 1965 Immigration Act,

‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it could no longer govern itself. ‘

Kammer also included this contrarian and optimistic quote from a 1965 Immigration Act, 50th anniversary book, A Nation of Nations (2015) by Tom Gjelten, which disregards the lesson of Roman Empire history,

While immigration may swamp us, it may, if we seize the opportunity, mean the impregnation of our national life with a new brilliancy. It is only in the half century after 1965, with a population connected to every corner of the globe, that the country has finally begun to demonstrate the exceptionalism it has long claimed for itself.’

One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,

“While Gjelten doesn’t make statements about assimilation with current tides of immigrant groups, he suggest[s] that these groups who differ more widely culturally than past [European immigrants] will ultimately accept the national ethos and fit in well.”

Apparently, like most US progressives, Gjelton and the reviewer believes that we can do things better than the Romans, the Soviet Communists, the Maoists, and the Cuban Communists, and achieve an internal globalist culture of new brilliancy and exceptionalism in the United States.

Without the benefit of actually reading his book, it appears that Gjelton does not believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are exceptional guidelines for governance or that turning the tide of victory in both World War I and World War II were exceptional events in world history. It doesn’t appear that he considered our Industrial Revolution, railroads, interstate highway system, technical revolution, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter to be brilliant contributions making the United States the greatest economic power in history. As a true progressive globalist, Gjelton apparently believes that until the United States looks like the rest of the world, we cannot be either brilliant or exceptional. None of the reviews or excerpts answer the question posed by White, [With] such a change in the texture of [our] people, will the United States of America be able to govern itself? The cultural and racial diversity created by the 1965 Immigration Act has not resulted in a political and social environment of greater stability. Our educational, cultural and political elites discourage acceptance of our national ethos, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitutional capitalism, and individual freedom. The progressive elites consider and communicate that this national ethos is offensive to the rest of the world, especially the regions of origin for most of today’s immigrants.  Under these circumstances, how can we expect these immigrants to fit in well? Under the current circumstances in which we are losing our national ethos, my fear is that the admonition of John Jay portends a dire outcome for the United States of America, Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed. This component of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America could help ensure that our nation will wither away. Phrased alternatively, our Founder’s nation will cease to exist.

Border security is a critical component of immigration policy. Secure borders insure that nations have control over immigration into each country. Without secure borders and immigration policies that immediately detain or expel illegal immigrants, all immigration has the potential of becoming legal immigration which is the goal for progressive open border advocates. In this situation, citizenship and related voting rights would be meaningless; the wealthy and unscrupulous could import voters to gain control of any jurisdiction; or politicians could promise immigrants free benefits for their votes. Criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and freeloaders as well as unskilled and skilled workers, artisans, entrepreneurs, technicians, and highly educated professionals could flow in and out of countries. All pretexts of economic, political, legal system, and numerical population stability and predictability would be eliminated. Determination of population based representation in our republic, as in the US House of Representatives, would not be fair with the fluid population possible without immigration control and border security.  This would be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America; and our Founder’s nation could wither away.

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE

The final requirement necessary for nations to persist is the ability to remain strong and defend themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies. For the most part, we have adequate local, state, and national law enforcement and legal system to ensure domestic Tranquility; but this nation has a great deal of difficulty to provide for the common defense. The primary reason for this difficulty is the fact that the Democrat and Republican Parties have vastly different priorities regarding defense and domestic expenditures. The two parties seem to have vastly different ideas regarding the necessity maintaining the world’s most powerful military force that can defend our nation on multiple battle fronts and contingencies simultaneously. Progressives and the Democrat Party do not see this level of military power as a national necessity for funding compared to domestic program spending. Military power and force size was drastically decreased in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations. Each of the intervening Bush Administrations and the current Trump Administration were confronted with depleted military forces which they attempted slowly rebuild throughout their Administrations. Unfortunately the overall trend in our military strength since the Carter Administration is downward in both numbers and capabilities. The problem was compounded during the last Bush and Trump Administrations by the long multi-front war on Radical Islamic Terrorism which has resulted in attrition of equipment due to fiscal constraints. With reduced force size, our military heroes are forced to deploy more frequently or for longer tours in theater. The result is combat fatigue, home front family difficulties for deployed forces, and potential reduction in re-enlistment numbers resulting in less experienced fighting forces.

Currently, our military cannot fight on two fronts, equipment is old and waring out with high percentage of the equipment out-of-service due to lack of repair and replacement parts. This problem and inadequate funding for continuing training means that many of our military unites are not combat ready. These problems have resulted in higher numbers of military training and mission related accidents, personnel injuries, and deaths in the last few years. In my opinion, this situation has the potential to become a threat to our national security due to increasing tensions throughout the world.

The threat of North Korean ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads capable of striking anywhere in the United States intensifies our military readiness issues. Incursion of China into the South China Sea seeking to control sea travel, trading routes throughout the south Pacific, and exert their naval power in the region is also worrying. The fact that China is expanding military forces with the goal of becoming the world’s preeminent military power is cause for additional concern. Iran’s expansion and aggression in the Middle East is troubling. Radical Islamic terrorism is growing not declining in Africa where the opportunity to train is enhanced due to weak governments unable to control terrorist activities.  Other parts of the world are also subjected to Radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Threats to the safety and security of the United States of America are increasing worldwide. This aspect of the transformation of the United States of America is the most concerning to me. Without a strong military capable of defending our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic is essential to ensure that my country, the United States of America, does not wither away.

In my opinion, the progressive plan to fundamentally transform of the United States of America has been executed in an incremental evolutionary manner for approximately 170 years. The goal of this transformation has always been a unified global community and economy, a utopia, governed by Marxist principles which ensure that all people share equally in all the benefits of the world regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute to the good of the world community. Phrased another way, from each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth will be redistributed on a global scale. For this goal to be achieved, the United States of America must wither away, a really fundamental transformation.  Our Founder’s nation would no longer exist.

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

THE DEMOCRAT PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

 

CONTENTS

ALINSKY  RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

The current debate raging in Washington DC over immigration, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and border security is a reaction to Democrat actions to transform America through immigration policy changes legislated in the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, the Marxist informed Democrat plan to transform America started in earnest during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the New Deal effort to alleviate the problems of The Great Depression and establishment of the Social Security Administration. Beginning in the early 1960’s, the Democrat Party supported progressive efforts to gain complete control of public education which would emphasize socialism and atheism over capitalism and Judeo-Christianity transforming public attitudes about capitalism, socialism, traditional Judeo-Christian values, and the traditional family. The plan to transform America continued with the 1965 Immigration Act which, contrary to Democrat assurances, altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States by changing immigration policy. Under this immigration plan, people sharing our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage compose a significant minority of legal immigrants rather than ensuring that the composition of new immigrant populations was similar to the existing population composition. The new 1965 Immigration Act policy changed the religious and cultural make-up of our nation and transform America. The latest phase of transformation began five days before the 2008 election when candidate Obama said, We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

ALINSKY  RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

It is important to understand the approach to community organizing  outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war according to Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.* Insight, into the true nature of the Alinsky trained community organizer, appears on the dedication page of Rules for Radicals where Alinsky wrote, Lest we forget, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom “ Lucifer. The name and nature of the kingdom, hell, Lucifer won was conveniently left out. However, Lucifer’s tactics in the temptation of Adam and Eve and other Biblical passages provide an outline for many of the strategies and tactics Alinsky and his disciples, including Barack Obama, teach during their community organizing workshops.

Alinsky trained community organizers understand that Marxist thought underpins their eventual goal; and the difference between communism and socialism is the means of achieving the utopian societal goal. As part of their deceptive tactics, radicals have used a variety of philosophical names throughout their history to camouflage their true identity and purposes. With their changing names, Alinsky radicals create the illusion that their opposition is composed of uninformed buffoons, Deplorables, with irrelevant ideas and opinions about who radicals are and the actual philosophical position of radicals on the issues of the day. For example, members of the US Communist Party were labor activists and members of the Democrat party in the early twentieth century, formed the Progressive Party to oppose President Truman in the 1948 election, rejoined the Democrat Party in the early 1970’s after the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War, and are currently the majority group in  the Progressive Caucus of the Democrat Party although many deny or diminish the Marxist, communist, and socialist influence of their progressive political ideology.

A person casting their vote into the ballot box.
According to Alinsky, “A radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer.

Alinsky taught that a radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer. In the case of the United States of America, the system is our political, economic system of Constitutional capitalism based on private property and individual rights supported by our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture. All radical’s efforts are aimed at subverting their society, in a word, change. They plan to transform America. The purpose of change is to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots in the name of the people. Alinsky radicals do not compare America’s Constitutional capitalistic society to other societies but to the utopian system of social justice and freedom they think they are building. Compared to their vision, even America is hell. Consequently, America will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies so radicals are willing to destroy the values, structures, and institutions that sustain our society. Alinsky, post-Soviet communist, neo-Marxist radicals always know that they will succeed in creation of their utopian system where the radicals of the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, and etc. failed at the cost of untold millions of lives. The unfortunate historical reality of radical revolution is that power always goes to a new group of Haves, the radical revolutionary vanguard, the new political elites; and the Have-nots are still Have-nots. Have-nots never get their promised utopian heaven on earth under radicals and their plan to transform America.

It is also important to understand that for conservatives, war is a political metaphor; but for radical Alinsky community organizers, war is a political reality. Since the objective is to destroy the enemy, the tactics of Alinsky style political war are brutal and relentless. For Alinsky, the end always justifies the means which have no ethical, moral, or legal limits. Consequently, it is okay to lie, deceive, and even commit murder. The only consideration is whether or not the means effectively advance the cause. Throughout history, the evil wrought by revolutionary radicals of this ilk are always justified as the means of achieving the greater good for all mankind, the social salvation of all humanity. Individual salvation is always secondary to mass salvation since it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice individuals for the greater good. This idea is consistent with Marxist philosophy where individual good is always subservient to the collective good. In such a war, unlike Alinsky community organizers, conservatives are at a severe disadvantage because most conservatives are constrained by ethical, moral, and legal considerations.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals emphasize that power and building a vast power base, an Alinsky army or a civilian national security’ force, is the only rule. Accumulating power is the first priority in implementing radical change to transform America. These Alinsky statements and workshop titles; we are not virtuous by not wanting power, we are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil, self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people, understanding power, power analysis, the path to power, elements of a power organization, and relationships built on self-interest, demonstrate the importance of power accumulation to achieve change through community organizing. To Alinsky radicals, the accumulation of power is always the issue.

Deception is an Alinsky radical tactic in their sociological and political war designed to gain power over political enemies and subsequently eliminate them and destroy the system they control. Since power is always the issue, the actual issue or cause which concerns the people supporting a cause is not the issue that concerns community organizers because without power to transform America, change is unattainable. The community organizer deceptively  infiltrates the leadership of a cause, embraces the cause, and uses the people’s self-interest to create an army of people supporting the cause to gain power to accomplish the community organizer’s goal of destroying the overall system, to transform America.

As a consequence, Alinsky community organizer’s deceptive subversion of causes is another means to the end, accumulation of political power. Group, issue, or cause names, goals, and objectives are irrelevant because the only issue is gaining political power to destroy the enemy and the system. Community organizers, individually or in groups, often work simultaneously with disparate causes with a variety of names to accumulate power by uniting these groups to weaken and eventually destroy the system. Alinsky successfully created coalitions of communists, anarchist, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists, progressives, black radicals, and Democrats. Since each issue or cause has associated enemies that their cause needs to overcome and destroy, another powerful tool of deception used by Alinsky radicals to destroy enemies is to stigmatize opponents with terms like racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., whether the terms apply or not. Radical community organizers have successfully united disparate groups with a campaign to stigmatize President Trump and the Republican Party with an ist, ic, and phobic epitaph associated with their particular cause. The “self-interest” of each cause unites the group around the epitaph representing their cause giving the group its own power while the common enemies, the President and the GOP, multiplies the power of the combined groups into throngs of protesters, the Alinsky army or civilian national security’ force. The plan is a wave election that sweeps the Democrat Party into control of the state governments and  the US Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020 resuming the delayed Democrat plan to fundamentally transform America.

Conservatives look at these disparate groups and ask what do they actually want? What is their unified goal or objective? The Alinsky community organizers answer under their breath, We want the political power of all these groups to be unified to destroy you and the system. The issue or cause is not the issue; accumulating political power is the only real by issue to the Alinsky community organizer. The “organizers” are working with all the current self-interest groups, the “Women’s” and “Me Too” marchers, the “Stop Gun Violence” marchers,  the “Teachers” marchers, the “Black Lives Matter” marchers, and the “silence conservative speakers” marchers, and the etc. marchers. Many of these marches are infiltrated Antifa and Anonymous rioters. These different large “cause” demonstrations fulfill two radical purposes, they gather the Alinsky “armies” of the various “causes” and build energy; and they unite the different groups into a combined political power base which the “organizers” combine to defeat their political opponents.

Finally, perhaps the most powerful Alinsky rule for radicals is to infiltrate the institutions* that support the system, eliminate internal opposition leadership and replace it with supportive leaders, and transform the institution to promote transformation or destruction of our overall system of Constitutional capitalism, private property, individual freedom, and our Judeo-Christian heritage as a critical influence on our society. Marxist philosophers have embraced this plan almost from the beginning. Infiltration of institutions has been quite successful in the United States. Communist participation in the early labor movement, FDR’s legislative attempt to change the US Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary in order to fill the courts with progressive judges, progressive domination of public education from preschool to Ph.D. curricula and educators, dilution of Biblical moral principles in many  Christian denominations, the entire United States government bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. The progressive versus conservative contest for control of the US Supreme Court, the entire lower Federal Court system, and state court systems is evidence of the critical battle over the balance of our courts. Progressive Justices at every level of our court system often use progressive ideas rather than the text of laws, judicial precedent, or constitutions to render decisions that alter or stop the actions of Republican Administrations, capitalistic initiatives, and Judeo-Christian influences on society and transform America. In many cases, progressive bureaucrats in the upper and middle levels of several Executive Branch Departments such as State, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Interior, Internal Revenue Service, Justice, and the National Security Agency have acted to delay or in some situations possibly subvert the policies and activities of conservative groups and conservative Republican Presidential Administrations and Governors. This progressive infiltration of our institutions has drastically altered the nature and character of our nation. This is part of the Democrat plan to transform America.

OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

Although President Obama never fully disclosed the details of his plan to transform America, some insight can be gleaned from his formative youthful years and his own words most of which are also available in written, audio, and video form. Former President Obama has a radical, Marxist background. Both his father and mother had radical backgrounds and educations. His mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, was a 60’s communist radical from Chicago where Saul Alinsky worked as a founding community organizer. When he went to college, he followed his Marxist roots regarding his college associates and course work. In Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, he talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here’s a quote:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. At night we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”

This statement provides vital insight into the mind and ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist, philosopher, and radical revolutionary in the fields of post-colonial studies, critical theory (a synonym for Marxist theory used by the Frankfurt School to mask their roots and enable the primarily Jewish faculty to migrate from Frankfurt Germany to Columbia University immediately prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler), and Marxism. As an intellectual, Fanon was a political, Pan-Africanist, and Marxist humanist concerned with the psychopathology of colonization, and the human, social, and cultural consequences of decolonization. Neocolonialism, a tenant of the anti-capitalist rhetoric of Marxism, is the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former dependencies. Eurocentrism, focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent, is the philosophical term for white privilege which is inherently evil to the Marxist world view. This view ignores the reality of the fact that European culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalism has the demonstrated potential to increase the wellbeing of the world beyond the demonstrated capacity of Marxist philosophy and socialism. Patriarchy is a system of society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line or a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. To Marxists and progressives, patriarchy also represents the traditional Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their biological or genetic and adopted children. Of course, the greatest anathema of the traditional family to progressive, Marxist thinkers is the idea that the patriarchal family is headed by a male. To President Obama, diminishing the significance of these “problems” is central to his plan to transform America.

Finally, it is critical to understand the significance of a concept statement that Barack Obama considered critical to enshrine in his autobiography, We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. The bourgeois society is a phrase straight out of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.  Such societies are full of stifling constraints. According to Barack Obama, a bourgeois society is a Judeo-Christian, capitalistic, Eurocentric, neocolonial, patriarchal society. A bourgeois society is the society that made the United States of America the greatest, most prosperous and benevolent nation in the history of the world. It was the bourgeois society of the United States of America that saved the world from the scourge of German Imperialism, Japanese Imperialism, fascism, and the totalitarian communism of the Soviet Union. It is the bourgeois society of the United States of America that compelled then President Barack Obama to tour the world stating his regret by apologizing for everything that the United States of America stands for regarding world peace and the potential we represent for a better world. It is due to the”bourgeois society”of the United States that Barack Obama feels that it is necessary to transform America.

A man writing on the wall of a classroom
We were resisting bourgeois society’s [America’s] stifling constraints, Barack Obama
After graduating from Columbia University, Barack Obama moved to Chicago and began the final, most informative, stage of his Marxist preparation for his political career; training and working at the Saul Alinsky associated Gamaliel Foundation to organize the South Side of Chicago. At Gamaliel, where he finally became Director of the Developing Communities Project, Obama was trained by three Alinsky associates from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in the community organizing methods outlined in Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war. A picture on Obama’s presidential campaign website provided an interesting insight into his vision for his Presidency. The picture showed him teaching an Alinsky based, ACORN, community organizing workshop in front of a blackboard showing the topics he was teaching in that session, Power Analysis and Relationships Built on Self-Interest. After his work as an Alinsky community organizer, ACORN trainer, and attorney, early in his political career, Michelle Obama said, Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change’ (the transformation of America). Obama responded, I take that observation as a compliment. His goal is to transform America.

With this summary, the Democrat transformation of America that preceded him and the ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama, some insights into his statements and policy decisions are possible. The 1965 change in immigration policy which altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States and the progressive domination of our system of public education enabled Obama’s 2006 speech statement,

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation “ at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Although he purportedly intended to say,

Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation….

By his statement, Whatever we once were, regardless of the place in either statement of the word just, President Obama acknowledged that in the United States, we once were just a Christian nation since he stated that Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. Changes in immigration policy, Supreme Court Decisions, and public education have served to transform America. Many conservatives contend that President Obama always planned to link the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), immigration, and wealth redistribution, an important tenant of Marxism and socialist philosophy, on an American and global scale. President Obama said,

If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan (Obamacare). That is a commitment I’m making. Even though I don’t believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. If anything, this debate (whether illegal immigrants would be covered under Obamacare) underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform (giving Illegal immigrants citizenship) and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all (giving former illegal immigrants who could become citizens with comprehensive immigration reform voting rights and coverage under Obamacare, as Obama envisioned).

In my opinion, President Obama viewed Obamacare as a means of wealth redistribution which he would expand to global proportions as revealed by the linkage between illegal immigrants and Obamacare that he made in the above statement. The subsidies provided to low income Obamacare participants constitutes a substantial level of wealth redistribution, another way to transform Amercia.

One of the early advisers of the Obama Administration was Van Jones, a pre-Black Lives Matter, Marxist activist advocating against the adverse consequence of Eurocentrism and patriarchy on the black and all minority communities in the United States. Jones is also a wealth redistribution advocate. In an interview where wealth redistribution was discussed, Jones noted President Obama’s plan to bring about redistributive change, by stating, That sounds radical “ redistribution of wealth. But listen to our own president talking about the Constitution. Jones referenced the following statement by President Obama equating opinions of Supreme Court Justices with the Constitution which does not address wealth redistribution:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. The tragedies of the civil rights movement was “ because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Clearly, President Obama understood that his plan to transform America through wealth redistribution could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservatives were disappointed when the Supreme Court upheld many of the redistributive aspects of Obamacare even when the text of the Act did not support Obama Administration applications of the law.

The Paris Climate Accord and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) were part of President Obama’s plan to transform America into a leader in global wealth redistribution. However, President Trump withdrew from both the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans Pacific Partnership because they are both methods of global wealth redistribution. A June 2017, National Public Radio article summarizing the provisions of the Paris Climate Accord stated, “To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year” which the Accord identified as a floor,’ not a ceiling. The article did not state how much of the $100 billion a year the United States would pay, but our share was probably planned to be similar to our share of the annual United Nations budget considering the Obama Administration’s skill at international negotiations. The article also states that

limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial revolution global temperatures by the end of the twenty first century) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked.

Under the Accord, that statement indicates that industrialized nations would pay at least $100 billion each year to under developed nations to achieve an indeterminate reduction in climate devastation; and the 2050 global temperature goal is a target the world hasn’t yet figured out how to meet. In addition, the article indicates that the Accord is totally voluntary, lacks verbal precision, and is filled with ambiguous phrases related to national commitments to the Accord such as,

Nations aren’t expected; voluntary pledge; not an immediate pledge; each target should reflect progress; this target date isn’t actually precise: the deal describes it as mid-century;’ greenhouse gases emitted would be balanced by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere carbon dioxide (balance) would be accomplished by growing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (but the Accord fails to guarantee sufficient land to add the needed forests); many sections of the deal, of course, don’t nail down any numbers at all; nations around the world should strengthen their cooperation;’ all parties ‘should’ cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing country parties;  and at least 55 nations ” between them accounting for at least 55 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions ” are needed to formally approve the pact.

The globe’s worst polluters including China and India do not have to begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions for a decade or more under the Accord.

Similarly, according to a May 2017, New York Times (NYT) article on-line, the Paris Climate Accord was intended to be non-binding with no penalties for falling short of declared targets. This article stated the United States would contribute $3 billion in aid to poorer countries by 2020. A related November 2014 NYT article indicated that in addition to the $3 billion from the United States at least 10 other industrialized countries pledged a total of $3 billion prior to final drafting of the Accord. The pledged $6 billion was considered a means to mobilize industrialized nations to begin their annual $100 billion contribution to help poor nations deal with climate change. None of these articles discussed the way the United States would finance our share of this massive global wealth redistribution scheme. Consequently, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Accord.

In a related discussion of climate change regulation of greenhouse gasses in January 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost on to consumers.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, President Obama’s cap and trade plan, was rejected by the US Senate defeating President Obama’s plan. The plan failed due to the impact of the anticipated increases in the cost of electricity, other carbon based energy sources, jobs, and the economy as a whole. In August 2015, over the objection of Congress, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the 1,560 page, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation titled the Clean Power Plan which essentially established a carbon cap and trade plan similar to the one defeated by Congress in 2009. Obama’s 2008 prediction that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his cap and trade plan was quite accurate. According to one source, the 2012, market-clearing price of natural gas was $16 per megawatt; and by 2015, the price ranged from $167 in the Mid-Atlantic region to $357 in parts of Ohio, an 8.5 to 22.3 fold cost increase in only three years. The impact of these cost increases was most severe in industrialized states, states heavily dependent of coal fired electric plants, coal mining regions, states with high relative concentrations of middle and lower class manufacturing workers, and lower population states, Trump country. During his first year in office, President Trump, with input from the head of the EPA, used his Executive Order authority to eliminate the adverse economic consequences of former President Obama’s Executive Ordered cap and trade Clean Power Plan without sacrificing air or water quality.

During a July 2008 Presidential election campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO, Candidate Obama gave a speech which contained the following embedded statement,

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

This statement was totally out of context and unrelated to the rest of the quotation from this segment of the speech; and its removal would have avoided both consternation and confusion regarding its meaning and intent. The security force statement was preceded by promises to expand AmeriCorps to provide a service vehicle to meet national goals connected to a common purpose, a call for people of all ages to serve, a call for veterans to find jobs and support for other vets and our military families, and a commitment to grow our Foreign Service and double the size of the Peace Corps. Similarly, the security force statement was followed by a promise to utilize technology to connect people to service, (and) expand USA Freedom Corps to create opportunities to volunteer. This portion of the speech ended with the statement, This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change’ from the bottom up. Again, the security force statement is totally irrelevant to the rest of the quotation since none of the organizations are designed to achieve national security objectives and their stated functions do not require a civilian national security force that is powerful strong ( and) well-funded. Of course, these organizations would have to be well-funded to accomplish their stated goals.

In my opinion, a FACTCHECK.org article by Brooks Jackson discussing this Obama civilian national security’ force quote is deceptive and resembles a discussion of the meaning of is rather than a reasoned contextual discussion the words Candidate Obama used in his civilian national security’ force statement and the surrounding text contained in the link presented above. The FACTCHECK article begins with the question, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like civilian national security force? The article answers the question by stating, This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. The question and answer was prompted by a November 2008 Associated Press story by Ben Evans with the headline “Georgia Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship” that contained this embellished statement by Evans, Broun fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.’ The headline and statement is based on an interview of Georgia Representative Broun in which Broun stated, It may sound a bit crazy or off base, but the thing is, he’s (Obama’s) the one who proposed this national security force. That’s the thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.

The militaristic Hitler and Soviet Union concerns raised by Representative Broun about this security force statement comes from the fact that the term security is used in the context of military activities in the first sentence; and security is a significant part of the phrase civilian national security’  force in the second sentence of the statement. The militant connotation of the two sentences considered together in the context of a proposed civilian national security force is unavoidable but ignored by Jackson’s answer to the question. In addition, Jackson’s answer fails to consider the implications and internal context of the security force statement as anything other than an amplifier of a contextually unrelated discussion of the Peace Corps, networking, and the Foreign Service. As a highly respected orator, it seems improbable that Obama’s security force statement was an inept attempt to emphasize the importance of his commitment to the Peace Corps, networking, AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, and the Foreign Service. Jackson also failed to consider the possibility that as an Alinsky trained community organizer, Obama might have deceptively hidden his stated intention for a civilian national ‘security’ force in plain sight and hearing and actually meant what he said and said what he meant, an Alinsky style army of empowered activists.  Finally, the security force statement stuck out like a sore thumb, screaming to be noticed. Unfortunately, nobody, including Jackson noticed; but Representative Broun noticed.

Given questions surrounding candidate Obama’s security force statement and his work as an Alinsky style community organizer, additional questions seem relevant. During his Administration, several groups that are not adverse to mass political demonstrations that include violent masked black clad protesters often causing extensive damage to private and public property were tolerated by local governments, law enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. Violent protesters have also infiltrated some mass protests that were planned to be non-violent. Groups that plan and conduct violent protests and invade other public political demonstrations to riot and create havoc include, Anonymous, ANTIFA, members of Occupy Wall Street, and Black Panther voter suppression activists, among others. Some suggest that the Obama Administration was more tolerant of these groups than other administrations by its relative inaction to suppress their activities. The plan of many of these groups is to transform America.

Another question about the Obama Administration is the possibility that the Administration installed and promoted an excessive number of progressives to critical positions who could impede succeeding conservative administrations and attempt to preserve the Obama legacy. The latest questions revolve around the actions of high level executives in the IRS, Department of Justice, FBI, and the US Intelligence community. Such a plan would be consistent with strategies outlined in Rules for Radicals and candidate Obama’s 2008 promise that We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

*Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. David Horowitz. 2009. David Horowitz Freedom Center. Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-6562.

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.