Category: Marxist Philosophy

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

LIES, ACADEMIC, POLITICAL, AND JOURNALISTIC LIES, DAMN LIES ALL

 

 

CONTENTS

ACADEMIC LIES
CLIMATIC LIES
POLITICAL LIES
HEALTHCARE LIES
JOURNALISTIC LIES

With their national poll approval ratings at or below 20%, it is not surprising that 80% of the population hears lies and damn lies when politicians and journalists open their mouths to speak or write. A discussion of the concepts of truth and lies may be an appropriate place to start this discussion. In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Conversely the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People, the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear.

A magnifying glass over the word rust
Lies of commission and omission advance the progressive cultural narrative to influence our social, political, and economic system.

ACADEMIC LIES

The 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. Truth is described as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. In the essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth is refined, in the context of history, as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. Joseph Stalin said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. As a result, obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, academic lies. For example, the left ruthlessly uses this process to discredit the notion that our nation and Constitution are based on a Judeo-Christian society, principles, and laws.

With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses and all levels of academia, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish Stalin’s Marxist, progressive plan for America. Consequently, it is relatively simple to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a constant, unchanging basis for the rule of Law. The change, in jurisprudence from the preeminence of original intent to case law where precedent and the opinion of judges prevails and the Constitution became a living document, began in the middle of the nineteenth century at the Harvard Law School, the start of the left’s educational dictatorship. For the left, social truth is relative and changes with time and the current societal situation; and a lie is a contradiction of the current Marxist, progressive, social paradigm.

CLIMATIC LIES

The environmental movement in general, and the notion that climate change or global warming is primarily associated with industrialization, pollution, and carbon-based energy, is a movement in which academic, political, and journalistic lies and collusion regarding a narrative is obvious. It is interesting that the climate change narrative has turned 180° in the last half-century. In the 1970s the climate change narrative was the coming Ice Age. Today’s narrative is that man caused global warming will destroy the earth and all its inhabitants within 100 to 200 years at the most. There is no interest in the academic, political, or journalistic communities to explore or explain the cause of this narrative change in such a short period of time. That is a question we the deplorables need not ask; and a discussion of the narrative change doesn’t fit the current narrative. The reality is that both narratives placed the cause as industrialization, pollution, and our dependence on carbon-based energy.

This question regarding geological evidence of climate change is rarely considered. How is it possible, in the absence of human activity and industrialization, that the earth has gone through multiple ice ages and subsequent periods of global warming ending each ice age? Some geologist have attributed the cooling cycles to impacts of huge meteorites or asteroids which filled atmosphere with impact debris causing the cooling and the subsequent Ice Ages. Natural atmospheric cleansing resulted in rising temperatures over time ending each Ice Age. This seems to be a logical theory, but here is an interesting question. If such impacts are the cause of the global cooling and ice ages with subsequent atmospheric cleansing resulting in slow steady global warming and the end of the ice ages, does that mean that the earth is too close to the sun? Are such asteroid impacts the only phenomenon that has prevented temperature increases too great to sustain life on earth?  Without these hypothesized asteroid impacts, would earth be too hot for life and more like mars? These unasked questions are interesting to a young geezer. To me the real scientific question that should be asked is, if carbon dioxide pollution from carbon based energy sources is the cause of climate change, why did earth experience extreme cyclic ice ages and subsequent global warming before the industrial age? Of course, such questions do not fit the current narrative explaining climate change; nor do they warrant real scientific inquiry according to the narrative.

The majority of academics, journalists, and politicians claim that man caused climate change, currently considered global warming, is settled science. This claim is not without controversy. John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel has said that man-made climate change is a hoax and climate change is not happening. He declared there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts. Coleman is skeptical about claims that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement on the issue noting,

They don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.

Current Weather Channel management does not agree with Coleman. My question is, Who currently pays Weather Channel bills?

A picture of the sun setting over a field.
Not all scientists and environmental economists agree that costs of climate change mitigation will significantly alter climate change.

Another group of skeptics regarding man caused global warming is Patrick Michaels editor of CLIMATE COUP: GLOBAL WARMING’S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES along with seven other contributing climate scientists and economists. In the introduction to this publication, Michael’s demonstrates how academicians and climate scientists select data to support the current global warming paradigm. While discussing California’s K-12 climate change curriculum guide, he writes,

…The 50 “ year trend in California temperatures is 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 4.3 degrees per century¦.

But starting in 1960 is highly misleading¦. Records began in 1895. Using the whole record, the trend is only 0.08 degrees. California’s alarmist guide over estimates the over “ all trend by over 500%. Further, it is rather apparent, even in the 50 year sample, that the warming takes place largely between 1960 and 1980, with no net change in the succeeding 30 years.

This selective use of data to support the climate change narrative or paradigm is an academic lie of commission, just another damn global warming lie.

Similarly, Chapter 3 of this publication, Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account, reiterates Coleman’s claim regarding climate change publications. The author, Ross McKitrick, opens the chapter with the following statement:

Unfortunately, Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better¦.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by claiming to be the consensus of scientists,’ is actually defining a paradigm in the sense of the late historian of science Thomas Kuhn. To Kuhn, paradigms are overarching logical structures, and the work of normal science,’ is the care and feeding of paradigms with data and research findings that confirmed that indeed the paradigm is a correct representation of scientific reality.

This is the story of those difficulties with the IPCC and with the keepers of the paradigm¦.

Unfortunately, policymakers and the political class cannot see what is happening because the absence of these publications gives the appearance of unanimity in science that is not there.

Throughout this 28 page chapter, McKitrick discusses the issues raised in his introduction. In conclusion he states,

The paper I have discussed makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of its conclusions rest¦.

In the aftermath of Climategate, a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public¦. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point¦.

The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures¦.. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.

This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intent intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warning issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.

Although the authors concede that some warming is occurring, CLIMATE COUP goes on to challenge most of the dire claims related to the global warming paradigm, the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, and the relationship between the costs and benefits of most of the proposed solutions to the problem.

Evaluation of the Paris Climate Accord shows that it appears to be more of a wealth redistribution plan exempting major polluters like China and India and extracting huge costs on the developed world especially the United States of America. This is especially true for carbon credit payment plans where individuals, businesses, and nations pay penalties or taxes for excessive carbon energy usage which is transferred to developing nations. When the world’s most significant carbon polluters are excluded, the actual or scientifically perceived, reduction in temperature creases is relatively insignificant in comparison to the exorbitant costs. Touted benefits appear to be nothing more than political, journalistic, and academic lies, damn lies all. Consequently, the fact that President Trump withdrew from the accord will benefit the United States far more than the accord would benefit the earth with its insignificant impact on changes in the rate of purported global warming.

POLITICAL LIES

In today’s highly partisan environment, with slim legislative majorities and complex legislation often pairing liberal with conservative elements forcing lesser of evils considerations, principled votes can be difficult or impossible. The inevitable result of this type of legislation is political lies since it often hides issues that cannot pass on their merits within other critical legislation such as funding for Planned Parenthood within a an unrelated appropriation bill. The only way to end this political legislative gerrymandering is to require that all legislation relates to a single issue that stands or fails on the merits of the issue. The current legislative process is deceitful and makes political lies inevitable.

A related legislative issue is the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass non-budgetary legislation and the resultant filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 Senatorial votes, the filibuster often forces Senators into defacto lies because they cannot fulfill campaign promises. The situation causes We the People to distrust politicians and the political process rendering election of Senators a somewhat thankless process. Alexander Hamilton observed that the filibuster is not democratic. He discussed what could be described as the tyranny of the minority where the minority overrules the majority. This is inconsistent with the republican form of government and democratic principles where the majority rules. Hamilton also discussed the remote possibility that unscrupulous campaign financiers would only need to come up with money to influence 40 equally unscrupulous Senators rather than 49 such Senators to alter the result of a vote on an issue. Withholding funds would be a more likely and less obvious strategy.  This 60 vote super-majority rule often turns hope in the power of our Republic into a damn political lie. This is unfortunate since the origin of the filibuster rule was a simple misunderstanding not part of the Founder’s plan for the Senate.

We the People often feel that politicians simply say what they think their constituents want to hear during campaigns. Once they get into office, politicians seem to vote as the money tells them to vote, We the People be damned. Unfortunately, when politicians do stand on principles and vote based on campaign promises, they are often ridiculed, derided, and ostracized for the purpose coercing a change in their vote which would turn campaign promises into lies. Some unattributed examples will suffice; we really care about the people of the United States (but if bipartisan legislation will reduce  our political power we will not participate in any such legislation), the IRS will never be used as a weapon against political opponents, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare insurance plan you can keep your plan, Under the ACA you will save an  average of $2,500 a year, a cut in a government program occurs when the program increase occurs at a lower percentage than the rate of increase in the previous year or a lower than expected increase in a government program is a cut to the program (current Medicaid discussions for example),  if you elect a Republican Legislature and President we will repeal and replace Obamacare, If you elect GOP Representatives, Senators, and President we will end illegal immigration and pass immigration reform, If you elect us we will reform Medicare and Social Security and insure that these programs will be available for all future generations, or elect us and we will lower your income taxes and reform the tax code. Of this list of major “lies,” Republicans did reform the tax codes and lower taxes. We the People could add pages to this short list of damn political lies. Liars must be replaced at every level of our political system.

HEALTHCARE LIES

The current Obamacare, healthcare insurance, repeal and replace debate is a discussion where journalistic and political liars collude. Collusion occurred during the debates for and passage of Obamacare. The first question regarding the current debate is the actual portion of the economy involved in the healthcare industry and the individual healthcare insurance market, Obamacare. The claim is that healthcare occupies one sixth of the US economy. Politicians claim and journalist report that the debate is critical because of this large proportion of our economy. Some questions are appropriate. Is healthcare insurance included in the healthcare share of the economy? If not, is the total healthcare contribution to our economy closer to 20% or more? Additionally, the combination of those currently involved in Obamacare and the uninsured is approximately 20% of the total healthcare insurance market. This is also known as the individual healthcare insurance market. Between 50 and 55% of healthcare insurance is provided by employers. Approximately 25% of the healthcare market is provided by VA healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the above proportions are generally accurate, then the debate regarding repealing and replacing or keeping Obamacare actually involves only 20% of the healthcare portion of the economy, or 3.3-4% not 16.6-20%, of the overall economy. Does this conflation of information, a gross overstatement or exaggeration, of the contribution of the individual healthcare insurance market to the overall economy constitute political and journalistic lies?

Terminology for the funds used to expand the individual healthcare Insurance market to able bodied low income workers through Medicaid using Obamacare is another area where politicians and journalists collude to at least misinform the people of the United States. In my opinion, Obamacare payments to supplement premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for this group constitute Marxist or socialist wealth redistribution from those tax payers with the ability to pay more to those having a greater need for healthcare insurance. In the words of Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth is redistributed by this plan. Depending on their political philosophy, politicians and journalists, use a variety of terms to describe this wealth redistribution. The terms include subsidies, entitlements, corporate welfare, and cost or premium reductions. The term wealth redistribution is not used nor is the fact that wealthier tax payers are financing the Medicaid expansion program ever discussed openly. These damn lies are lies of omission.

Politicians claim and journalists report that the individual market will be a competitive free market controlled by patients providing close patient doctor relationships and treatment choices. How can a market that involves at most 20% of healthcare be a competitive free market when 65-75% of the healthcare market is controlled by Medicare and employer provided healthcare insurance with contracts covering prices and availability? With these thoughts in mind, no one should be surprised that the promises of Obamacare turned into political and journalistic lies. Will the promises of any replacement for Obamacare, or improvements, in the individual healthcare insurance market also turn into political lies? Under the current paradigm, a real patient controlled, free market individual healthcare insurance market providing meaningful doctor-patient relationships, lower costs, and real choice is highly unlikely. Perhaps, it is time to consider an alternative.

JOURNALISTIC LIES

Journalistic lies are as complex as political lies. They are lies of commission and lies of omission. For this discussion, journalistic lies of commission are simply falsehoods intentionally reported as facts or unsubstantiated information and speculation based on anonymous, unverified sources. Lies of omission are simply the failure to report on legitimate factual stories that do not support the current news or social narrative. Both types of lies are developed to support the news narrative that the elites of journalism and the culture determine necessary to mold the opinion of the populace. Both types of lies undermine public trust in journalism.

It is a well-established fact that the vast majority of American journalists refer to themselves as liberal or progressive. These two labels along with communist, socialist, and Democrat are synonyms for Marxist. The difference between these terms is merely the speed and manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented as the basis for governance.  Many conservatives think that the primary purpose of news narratives is to provide information that supports, promotes, and insures that the central concept or ideal of progressive narratives are internalized by the majority of the population over time, social propaganda and indoctrination. Narratives being promoted by the progressive elites of our education system, pop culture, journalism, and progressive politicians, Democrats, are the previously described mission statement of Stalin for America, America will collapse from within¦ if we can undermine¦ its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. When Stalin referred to morality and spiritual life, he was referring to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Adding individualism and capitalism to the list of characteristics essential for American exceptionalism provides a fairly complete list of personal qualities and institutions that Marxism must undermine to ensure the internal collapse of America and usher in governance based on Marxist philosophy, socialism. It is these five areas of American culture, patriotism, morality, spirituality or Christianity, capitalism, and economic entrepreneurial individualism, that the progressive journalism narrative seeks to undermine.

Advancing the progressive social agenda starts in academia primarily in the social sciences. Regardless of the specifics, the narrative and agenda is almost always aimed at undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage, American morality and spiritual life. As soon as academia establishes a strong narrative, journalists join the fray. If politicians are unable to enact laws supporting the agenda, progressives take issues to the federal courts. Consequently, academia, journalist, and politicians collude to accomplish the progressive social agenda. This assault on American morality and spiritual life began with school prayer. The next phase was abortion rights which were followed by gay-rights and the battle for same-sex marriage. Next, progressives began their battle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. The final battle in this area could be totally open bisexual polygamy. Each progressive agenda cause would be worthy of extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that this has been a concerted effort to undermine the America of our Founders and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the greatest nation in history.

Academicians, scientists, politicians, and journalist are all embroiled in a contest for the future of the United States of America based on the difference between lies, damn lies, and truth. Often the difference between lies and truth is in the eyes of the beholder and related to the narrative and motivation of the protagonists. In my opinion, the progressive narrative is that American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life must be undermined to insure that their vision for America will be realized. On the other hand, We the People in the Deplorable Class are diametrically opposed to the progressive narrative and agenda. We believe in the Founder’s vision for the United States of America. We believe in American exceptionalism, the critical impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the values espoused in Scripture, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that has evolved in America from colonial times to the present.

We the People in the Deplorable Class know that these values will help 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.

 

 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHARIA LAW

 

Implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law in any location or application is an affront to the “rule of law” within the borders of the United States and our territories. Sharia Law violates Article VI of the Constitution which states,

This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

A close up of the constitution of the united statesMost applications and interpretations of Sharia Law are incompatible with and Contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme Law of the Land. Sharia Law qualifies as a Contrary, extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. Additionally, Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam. They would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of Article VI. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing (Sharia Law in this situation) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

A quran is open on the table in black and white.
Unconstitutional Sharia Law is also incompatible with the mores of our culture.

Finally, implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law is a part of a plan, “civilization Jihad,” designed to convert western cultures into Islamic cultures. The mission statement of this plan follows:

The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Christians and Jews) so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

This plan must be thwarted throughout the United States.

Clearly, unconstitutional Sharia Law is incompatible with our “rule of Law,” cultural mores, and societal norms and should not be allowed under any circumstances anywhere in the United States of America or our territories.

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.

NECESSITY OF A WAR DECLARATION ON ISLAMIC TERRORISM

 

A formal war declaration on radical Islamic terrorism is a necessary response to radical Islamic terrorism. Radical Islamic terrorists, Islamists, declared war on Europe, North America, Israel, Christianity, and Judaism shortly after the defeat of the Islamic Ottoman Empire ending WWI. In my opinion, that was a crushing defeat for Islamists and a honest review of the history of Islam demonstrates that radical Islamic terrorism is merely the latest means used in their attempt to conquer the world and establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. Without a formal war declaration, we will continue to be limited in our ability to combat this unique enemy. The fact that this would be a war with a theocratic statist ideology, Islamism, which subscribes to the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate governed by Sharia, or Islamic Law, complicates the concept of a war declaration against Radical Islamic Terrorism. Furthermore, a war declaration against an ideology would be, to the best of my knowledge, unique modern in history.

A group of people in front of a man.
A war declaration is necessary since radical Islamic terrorists attack non-combatants.

Although they are Islamists rather than Marxists, radical Islamic terrorists tactics are  similar to the tactics of communist revolutionaries of the Cold War era of the 1950s through the 1980s. Both of these ideologies are statist in nature. Both groups employ stealth attacks on unarmed non-combatant civilians. Local radical Islamic terrorists  are often affiliated with a larger international level groups that can be either Sunni or Shiite in origin. These local groups usually have at least one base of operation in each area for refuge, training, and logistical support. Consequently, relatively small groups or cells of terrorists are scattered throughout the world for eventual attack including the United States. Combating this global radical Islamic terrorism threat requires a war declaration with global reach and flexibility to confront threats wherever they become regionally or existentially dangerous. Our Commander-in-Chief and generals must be able to act quickly and decisively.

Communists and Islamists use covert operators and the internet to target disenfranchised individuals and groups like African-Americans as potential converts for potential covert operations. With the exception of Iran which is an Islamist theocracy, radical Islamic terrorists are not based in or backed by any single alliance of nations or national government. They are financed by private citizens purportedly including members of the some Middle Eastern Royal Families and organizations in numerous countries as well as illegal black market enterprises throughout the world. Their fighters do not normally wear uniforms of any nation, and consider non-combatants as both tools and targets of war, Jihad.

Islamist cells and insurgency groups embedded in countries around the world have two distinct modes of operation, violent Islamic terrorist attacks and peaceful subversion and infiltration of cultures, governments and legal systems of target countries to accomplish a Civilization Jihad. Violent radical Islamic terror attacks are unmistakable and are occurring at greater and greater frequency in target countries. Some are under rather sophisticated command and control of named radical Islamic terrorism groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda utilizing groups of terrorists involved in planning, logistics, weaponization, and fighting. Other terrorists are unaffiliated or loosely aligned to a major group with little or no support or training. These lone wolf radical Islamic terrorists choose their targets and attack timing independent of specific outside control. They are usually self-radicalized on-line by Islamist publications and videos or follow a radical Islamist Cleric locally or on-line and train themselves with information on weapons and tactics from on-line or underground sources. A small group of two or three self-radicalized Islamist terrorists like the London Bridge terrorists can multiply the damage they inflict.

The Muslim Brotherhood of North America has a plan, adopted in 1987, to take over the United States, and subjugate all its citizens to Sharia law. The plan is called Civilization Jihad. The mission statement of this plan follows:

The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Christians and Jews) so that it is eliminated and Gods religion is made victorious over all other religions.

The plan consists of five phases which could take least 100 years to complete. The phases are summarized below:

Phase One calls for discretion, as operatives arrive in America. They are to keep a low profile ” go about their business and be seen as model citizens, gaining respect within their vocations and communities.

Phase Two requires Muslims to begin to come out of the shadows, gently pushing for recognition of Sharia law within their own communities and sphere of influence, (insisting) that Islam is a religion of peace while co-opting western progressive leaders. Assure these leaders that Sharia will never be applied outside their own communities.

Phase Three When there are enough Muslims in any given city, they begin to penetrate Western society beyond their own communities, i.e. Dearborn and Minneapolis. They build more mosques than needed, funded by foreign entities. They roll out front groups and organizations like CAIR to make it appear that they have more clout and influence than they actually do, (to) pressure politicians and academia for Islamic studies and prayer areas, claiming victimization and demanding accommodations. They are to file lawsuits and cry Islamophobia at every turn, thus wearing down their Western hosts. (The United States and Canada appear to be in this phase of Civilization Jihad.)

Phase Four Muslims, now a significant minority population in the host country insist that Sharia law be woven into the hosts legal and political system. Violence from supposedly independent and disparate radical groups may also be part of Phase Four. (Many Western European countries appear to be at this phase of Civilization Jihad.)

Phase Five Muslims become the majority or ruling minority. All the veils have been pulled back and there is no more pretense of getting along, as they terminate any non-Islamic influence. Sharia law is then imposed nationwide.

This Muslim Brotherhood plan for Civilization Jihad, including the desire to inflict Sharia law on We the People of the United States, must be considered an integral component of any war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism. Civilization Jihad, as outlined, is a war declaration against western civilization, the culture and society of the United States, our Constitution, Judaism, and Christianity.

With this brief discussion of the two components of radical Islamic terrorism in mind, the need for a formal Congressional Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism demands a thorough discussion. The previous discussion supporting a formal Declaration of War against violent radical Islamic terrorism provides several arguments in favor of this war declaration and suggestions on its implementation. Highlights of the discussion include the fact that no single battlefield, theater of operation, leader, or command structure exists in the war being waged against the United States by radical Islamic terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism by citing passages contained in holy books of Islam claiming to follow the tenants of Islam and teachings of Mohammed. The proposed Declaration of War should strategically define the stages and nature of victory and require that the United States first seek cooperation and permission of the government of countries where these terrorists leaders or bases of operation are located prior to initiating combat operations against terror targets. Congress and the Commander-in-Chief should clearly define the consequences for countries refusing to cooperate in strikes against radical Islamic terrorists located in their countries which should be contained in the Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Including the significant components of Civilization Jihad in the proposed of war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism has several ramifications and advantages. First, the Center for Security Policy basically states that Civilization Jihad is a declaration of war on civil society in the United States as follows:

America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger “ a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls civilization jihad.

Since the Meriam Webster on-line dictionary defines Jihad as a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty, the Muslim Brotherhoods Civilization Jihad must be considered as a declaration of holy war waged on behalf of Islam against the Constitution of the United States of America and virtually all of our civil society. Therefore, each component of Civilization Jihad, especially the plan to impose extra Constitutional Sharia law on We the People of the United States must be part of a comprehensive of war declaration on radical Islamic terrorism. Any attempt to impose Sharia law violates Article VI of the Constitution which states,

This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Since Civilization Jihad, seeks to impose a form of law, Sharia Law, which is Contrary to the Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land, Civilization Jihad constitutes a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. Since Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam, they would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of the clause, no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Sharia Law qualifies as an extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. The Muslim Brotherhood and any similar Islamist terror group supporting or conducting acts of violent terrorism, Islamist political party, small group, or individual supporting imposition of Sharia Law within the United States or its Territories or the tactics involved in Civilization Jihad should be designated as enemy combatants in the Declaration of War against radical Islamic terrorism.

In addition, a war declaration against radical Islamic terrorism would allow application of the Constitution of the United States and the several States and the relevant laws regarding treason and sedition committed by citizens and non-citizens within the United States. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Consequently, supporting or advocating Civilization Jihad and/or imposition of Sharia Law would be adhering, giving support or loyalty, to our declared enemies and giving them Aid, useful or necessary assistance in achieving an end, and Comfort, strength and hope, which is treason against the Constitution of the United States. Statutes of the United States and individual states would define prosecution of treason following a war declaration  against radical Islamic terrorism and Civilization Jihad.

The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines sedition as, incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. Sedition is described in legal terms as follows:

The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a felony (1) to convey false statements interfering with American war efforts; (2) to willfully employ “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. form of government, the Constitution, the flag, or U.S. military or naval forces; or (4) to advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any such acts. Violations were punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. The law was aimed at curbing political dissent expressed by socialists, anarchists, pacifists, and certain labor leaders (during WWI).

In Abrams v. United States, 1919, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act of 1918, but the descanting opinion of Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ensured that only individuals presenting a Clear and Present Danger of immediate criminal activity were convicted. With a Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism and Civilization Jihad, including advocacy for implementation of Sharia Law, the Sedition Act of 1918 would be applicable regarding both types of terrorists.

In my opinion, radical Islamic terrorism, Civilization Jihad, and Sharia Law represent a Clear and Present Danger to the Constitution of the United States of America, our civil society, and our way of life. Our nation has been under a toxic danger “ a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society since 1987 if not before. With the rapid acceleration of Islamist activity in the world, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and North America, time is of the essence. Drastic measures are necessary to halt the advance of Islamism in the United States and other countries. The Islamists have already succeeded in co-opting western progressive leaders, or Marxists.

We must understand that we are at war with Islamism in all its forms.

We need all the tools that a formal Declaration of War against Radical Islamic Terrorism would provide.

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

 

REPUBLICANS: ACT STRATEGICALLY CONSERVATIVE AND TACTICALLY LIKE DEMOCRATS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DECLARE A RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM WAR

 

A large fire and smoke cloud is coming from the top of the twin towers.
Since Islamic terrorists are at war with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war.

Since radical Islamic terrorists are at war, Jihad or holy war, with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war. Many contend that the Islamic world would consider declaration of an Islamic terrorism war as a declaration of war against all of Islam. Although it is my intention that all Islam is not the target of the proposed declaration of war, it would serve to emphasize that Islam must be an active part of the solution to the Islamic problem,  radical Islamic terrorism, which is a cancer in Islam and the rest of the world. These terrorists justify Jihad using the Quran and Hadith, two Islamic holy books. It is my contention, that if  so called moderate Islam, is not part of the solution, all Islam, including nation states that allow teachers or institutions that support the theocratic, Islamist ideology,  used to justify Radical Islamic Terrorism within their borders, is the problem.

Islam has been at war with the world for 13 centuries. After defeat of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic nation, during WWI, Islam was subdued until the reestablishment of Israel in 1948. Subsequently, Islamic countries in the Middle East went to war with Israel and were also defeated. Modern radical Islamic terrorists began their Jihad because of this defeat. Israel was the first target of Jihad, but Jihad has expanded to other countries in the Middle East, much of North Africa, Europe, regions of Asia, southwest Pacific Islands, and North America. No single battlefield or theater of operation exists in the Islamic terrorism war being. These terrorists have bases of operation on five or six continents. From their bases of operation, radical Islamic terrorists strike both hard and soft targets including innocent civilians, law enforcement officers, and military personnel and targets.

Islamic terrorism war should be declared against terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism citing passages contained in holy books of Islam, claim to follow the tenants of Islam and teachings of Mohammed, and call themselves Muslims. radical Islamic terrorism is an ideology or philosophy of war waged against all who do not follow Mohammed. Radical Islamic terrorists do not have a single, unified, political, economic, theocratic, military, national identity, leader, or command structure. These terrorist do have a shared theology and Islamist ideology. They include both Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are also engaged in a sectarian, civil war, a Jihad for each side against the other. This civil war has also raged for about 13 centuries.

Consequently, an  expanded definition and declaration of war is needed to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism. The proposed declaration of war should strategically define the stages and nature of victory. Such a declaration has significant foreign policy implications and potential problems related to the fact that radical Islamic terrorism leaders and bases of operation are spread throughout the world. Therefore, the proposed declaration of war must contain careful limitations. The most significant limitation to the Islamic terrorism war declaration  must be a requirement that the United States first seek cooperation and permission of the government of countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located. Countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located could also request the assistance of United States  forces in their efforts to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism in their country. On the other hand, the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration should also declare that countries harboring radical Islamic terrorists would be considered radical Islamic terrorism countries, if they refuse to allow the United States to attack any radical Islamic terrorism leader or base participating in an attack against the United States, our citizens, or allies. Careful delineation of these two issues would alleviate many of the potential problems arising from the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration. It would also clearly define the potential consequences for any country harboring Radical Islamic Terrorists that attacked the United States, our citizens, or allies. Congress and the Commander-in-Chief should clearly define the consequences for countries refusing to cooperate in strikes against radical Islamic terrorists or bases located in their countries. Drone attacks, air strikes, and limited, proportional Special Forces raids like the Ben Laudon operation should be authorized by the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration in uncooperative countries. Invasions and large scale military land operations against any country should require a declaration of war against an uncooperative country or alliance.

At the same time, the proposed declaration of war would allow great latitude regarding location, timing, method, and level of force used to combat radical Islamic terrorism. With the cooperation of the world and countries where radical Islamic terrorists are located, the Islamic terrorism war declaration would allow the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and our allies to attack radical Islamic terrorists swiftly, proportionally, and decisively anywhere in the world. It is my opinion, that such a Islamic terrorism war declaration would be a catalyst to unite the world against the cancer of radical Islamic terrorism. Decisive leadership of this nature could convince many countries of the world to add their military to accomplish the goal of eradicating radical Islamic terrorism. Such a world coalition could finally end the insanity and carnage caused by radical Islamic terrorism.

In my opinion, every sound and important strategic decision made regarding foreign policy and the defense of the United States of America should consider every reasonable alternative. The question is, whether or not this proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration is reasonable.

To paraphrase a recent successful political candidate, since what we have been doing since the 9/11 attack and before has not worked very well to defeat radical Islamic terrorism;

What the h           do we have to lose?

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.

IT IS TIME: CHRISTIANS UNITE

 

Christians unite. President Trump is committed to religious freedom and the sanctity of life. Consequently, Christians should unite and counter progressives and secularism. To Make America Great Again Biblical Christianity must unite and Take America Back to a culture based on our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding roots. See the source imageIn order to Take America Back, Christians, who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and an infallible guide to human interactions, must work together regardless of denominational allegiances and dogma. Biblical Christians should also understand that the religious freedom of both Protestants and Catholics is under assault; and when Christians unite and work together, God will be glorified. We should also understand that our Jewish friends, the root on which we are grafted (Romans 11:13-21) through the House and Lineage of David, also face assaults on their religious freedom. In my opinion, our national greatness is as grass that withers and dies without God as the true source of the strength of our nation. The words of an old hymn, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” seem appropriate for a call for Judeo-Christian action.

Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before! Christ, the royal master, Leads against the foe; Forward into battle, See his banners go!

Like a mighty army Moves the Church of God; Brothers, we are treading Where the saints of trod; We are not divided; All one body we, One in hope and doctrine, One in charity.

Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before!

Christians unite. It is time to “Make America Great Again!”

Unfortunately, Biblical Christianity is decades, actually at least two centuries behind, in the battle to Take America Back. To March¦. against the foe of the progressive agenda, we must understand the progressive agenda. All of the links in this post provide some of the necessary insight. More insight is available at americascrossroad.com. In addition to their assault on Biblical Christianity, progressives already control educational curricula from preschool to PhD, domestic and foreign policy, and have been preparing our citizens for an eventual global government or at least global wealth redistribution. Before discussing strategy for the battle to Take America Back, an explanation of the critical components of the battle is needed.

From the Judeo-Christian standpoint, the battle to Take America Back is relatively simple. From a political perspective, the battle takes place on the left, right political continuum. In my opinion, the left side of this continuum is based on the essentially atheistic philosophy of Karl Marx. The difference, between the named components of the left, is merely the speed at which they seek to move society and governance to the system envisioned by Marx. The philosophy of the political right is based on constitutional capitalism, Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, individual incentive and responsibility, and freedom, including the free exercise of religion.

From the spiritual, Judeo-Christian perspective, our battle is being fought on two fronts. The first front, which is beyond our understanding, is a battle taking place in the heavenly realms between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and Satan and the forces of evil. This battle began when Lucifer, Satan, rebelled and tried to exalt himself to a position above God. In defeat, Satan was cast from the heavenly realms to earth where he now seeks to separate humanity from the love of God. The battle to Take America Back is political, cultural, and spiritual, the human component of the spiritual battle to Take America Back and share Christ with the world.

The goal of the social left is to eliminate all Judeo-Christian influences on every aspect of human behavior and interaction within each society. The nature, role, position, and responsibility of the individual is at the heart of the battle to Take America Back. On the primarily atheistic left, the individual should be free from the moral and ethical bonds of all religion. The only limits on human interactions, under this concept of individuality, are what the culture and society deems acceptable at any given time. Consequently, human interactions have few limits under this concept of individuality. Progressive judges believe that the United States and State Constitutions should also reflect current cultural mores and make judgments regarding the constitutionality of law in accordance with this belief regardless of the actual meaning of the text of the Constitutions or laws.

One of the strongest impacts of this concept of individuality relates to human sexuality. From this perspective, there should be no limits on sexual behavior in relation to gender, marital status, the age of the participants, or the species involved in sexual encounters. Given modern technology and current mores of behavior, individuals can even choose to be, or display, a different gender identity from their genetic gender reality. If there are no limits on human sexuality, then the logical conclusion is that there are no limits on the definition of marriage. Consequently, the social left has redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage. It is not unreasonable to presume that polygamous marriage and marriage involving minors will soon be acceptable as well. Other casualties, in the realm of human interactions resulting from this amoral attitude, include respect for the sanctity of human life at all stages, personal responsibility and accountability, truth, respect for the property of others, respect for the rights, freedom, and values of others, and respectful political and cultural discourse. Under this concept of the individual, each person is free to do almost anything they please; and everyone that an individual interacts with must comply with and support their expressions of individuality.

In contrast, the role and status of individuals from a political and economic standpoint in relation to the society or the collective stands and stark contrast to the freedom of individual behavior demanded by those on the left. Politically and economically, for the socialist system envisioned by progressives, to function properly, the individual must submit to the political and economic good of the society. A simplistic summary of the political and economic philosophy underpinning the left is that all people share equally in all the benefits of society regardless of their willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. Marx summarized it stating, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed throughout the society. Therefore, according to progressive philosophy, the individual is behaviorally free but economically and politically worthless in comparison to the economic and political needs of society as a whole .

For Biblical Christians and all humanity, God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 NIV). Unbelievably, each individual has infinite worth in the sight of God because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. We know that this sacrifice was for each individual when we read, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16 NIV). Whoever is a singular pronoun. The fact that this verse says whoever rather than all y’all refers to each individual as the subject of God’s infinite love. Biblical Christians freely follow the moral and ethical codes for human behavior described in both the Old and New Testaments which are all-inclusive. Biblical Christians freely follow God’s word because we have eternal life through God’s love and sacrifice for us. Consequently, the behavioral freedom demanded by the atheistic left constitutes immoral and unethical behavior for Biblical Christians and Orthodox Jews; and participating in such behavior is also Biblically, morally, and ethically contrary to our beliefs. Abstaining from support of such behavior is consistent with religious freedom and our First Amendment right to the free exercise thereof (of religion). Finally, each Biblical Christian is personally responsible for their actions as an individual. We are responsible for our political, economic, moral, and ethical behavior. We are also individually responsible, according to our ability, to care for those in need around us regardless of the nature of their needs. This is a personal responsibility which should not be delegated to the state sense the actions of the state cannot be substituted for our individual responsibilities to act.

Although the economic and political status of the individual in relation to society as a whole is the basis for the disdain for Judeo-Christianity from the viewpoint of the left, the cultural and behavioral concept of individuality is the primary basis for progressive attacks on our Judeo-Christian heritage. These attacks center on the Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their children. The traditional family is the institution where Judeo-Christian morality and ethics are taught, personal responsibility and sound work ethics are taught, and the parents model these values for children. The concepts taught within the Judeo-Christian family are contradictory to the progressive message. Same-sex marriage is a powerful way of attacking and reducing the positive effect of the traditional family in relation to the concepts necessary for constitutional capitalism to succeed. Biblical Christian churches that support these values are subject to the same attacks by progressives. One phrase or word, characterizes the disdain of the left for our Judeo-Christian heritage, Judeo-Christophobia or simply Christophobia. Progressives used the courts in state after state to force same-sex marriage when the people of the states rejected it. Of course, acceptance of homosexuality was a necessary precursor to same-sex marriage. Progressives use terms related to bigotry, various forms of phobia, individual freedom, and civil rights analogies to foment their attacks against Judeo-Christian community regarding sexuality, same-sex marriage, and all Biblical morality. These terms are used to cast those of us who support Judeo-Christian values as evil. In reality, these attacks on the Biblical Christian family and church are attacks on the important role of the individual as a driving force for Constitutional capitalism, the system disdained by progressives and all Marxists.

The idea that each individual has infinite value in the sight of God in both Judaism and Christianity is incompatible with the progressive idea that the individual is worthless in comparison to the value of society as a whole. That is to say, the individual must economically and politically submit to the good of society for the philosophy of the left to be successful. These two concepts of individuality are diametrically opposed and incompatible. Consequently, for the philosophy of the left to work all vestiges Judeo-Christianity must be eliminated as influences on society. This is the true nature of the battle to Take America Back so we can Make America Great Again.

Armed with the above insights, Christians unite to counter progressives and secularism. There are a number of steps that we can take as we march against the foe, the progressive agenda, in the battle to Take America Back. At a minimum, every church and synagogue should work actively to register every member of their congregation that is not registered to vote and encourage every member to vote in every election. Data shows that the majority of the Judeo-Christian community is no more likely to vote than the general population. If we were able to increase our Presidential election participation from 50% to 75%, we would add 8,000,000 to 15,000,000 votes, or more, in presidential elections. In this situation, there would be no question regarding the winner of the popular vote. Conservative candidates supportive of Judeo-Christian values in state local elections would also be elected. As seen in 2016, election of candidates supportive of our Judeo-Christian values will also impact the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the current situation, replacement of one progressive Justice with another Scalia would probably change the composition of the Court for 30 to 40 years.

Christians unite in order to end the educational dictatorship,  and counter progressives and secularism that dominates public education. The Judeo-Christian community must find and elect candidates supportive of our values to local school boards. In addition, the Judeo-Christian community in each state, using the power of the purse through their legislatures and governorships, must unite and demand that our colleges and universities end their assault on constitutional capitalism, American exceptionalism, and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, the Judeo-Christian community should encourage our members to stop financially supporting colleges and universities that do not support our values. The effort to change the direction of education in the United States is critical. Our children are exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PhD level subject matter. Young voters in the last two or three presidential elections were educated by curricula that supported the anti-capitalist, anti-American, atheistic values of the progressive movement. If these voting trends continue, progressive presidential candidates will continue to win the popular vote while conservatives win in the Electoral College. It will become more difficult for conservatives to win the Presidency, and the current polarization will continue for the foreseeable future. If the progressive agenda is successful, current red states will become blue states, and the nation we love will be lost to progressive globalism.

Many, if not most, members of the Judeo-Christian community, especially evangelicals, will say that we are called by the Great Commission to lead people to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ not to a life of political activism. To parody President Trump in asking for the African American community vote, How has that worked for you? What has happened to our nation’s culture, education system, morality, and general attitude and discourse? However, my call to action, “Christians unite,” is not outside the directive of the Great Commission which follows:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matt 28:18-20 NIV).

Two questions regarding this discussion are relevant. First, where and how do we go and make disciples of all nations? Secondly, where and how do we teach them to obey everything I have commanded you? During the time of Jesus, the synagogue was the center of religious, political, and social life. Jesus taught in synagogues where He led people to faith in Him and to action. Paul taught debated before the leaders of his day throughout the known world. Our children spend at least half their waking hours in schools that teach them the progressive agenda. They are taught not to be disciples of Christ and not to obey everything that Christ commanded us. Our laws and our courts are becoming more and more amoral an irreligious. The Judeo-Christian community has stood silently and watched this cultural degradation. Consequently morality is evil, and immorality is lawful. Is our inaction consistent with the great commission?

Every aspect of our culture, education, entertainment, advertising, news of all venues, and music promotes the amoral, atheistic, anti-American, socialist propaganda of the progressive movement. All of these venues promote the progressive social, economic, and political agenda. The progressive concept of social amoral individualism permeates every aspect of culture and the mainstream media. Everyone is exposed to amoral behavior no matter where we are or what we do. We are in a very difficult, some would say impossible, position as we attempt to Take America Back. Two final activities are necessary, prayer and revival. There is no better call to action than this:

If 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 (2 Chron 7:14 NIV).

Obviously, the task is daunting; but we have this encouragement, I can do everything through Him Who gives me strength (Phil 4:13 NIV).

Now is the time. Christians unite to counter progressives and secularism.

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.

ISLAMIC TERRORISM: A CANCER EBOLA HYBRID

 

Using this metaphor, radical Islamic terrorism is a cancer destroying the soul of Islam. For the world at large, radical Islamic terrorism is like Ebola, a virulent and aggressive virus seeking to destroy all humanity that fails to submit to its radical Islamist ideology. Islam must cure itself and fight the cancer within which will continue to turn the world against Islam. Islam must also find a way to end its sectarian civil war of at least 1300 years which has possibly killed more Muslims than all the wars with the non-Islamic world. In my opinion, Islam must prove to the world, by actions and deeds, that Islam is truly a religion of peace. The world is waiting for peace.

A person casting their vote into the ballot box.
Radical Islamic terrorism is a cancer destroying the soul of Islam. It must be eliminated.

As a cancer survivor, since my cancer threatened my life, my goal was to eradicate the cancer which was accomplished by radical surgery to remove the infected organ. No evidence is available to me proving that Islam is doing anything significant to remove the cancer, radical Islamic terrorism, within Islam. In so called moderate Islamic countries, madrasas still teach Jihad and the destruction of the United States, European countries, Israel,   and all other non-Islamic cultures of the world. These madrasas also teach that Infidels must convert to Islam or die. Some Islamic theocracies and dictatorships have the potential to be cancers within Islam. These Islamist states are cancers when they metastasize and sponsor and finance radical Islamic terror organizations which the rest of the world is fighting to eliminate. In this situation, both the rest of Islam and the world at large should work together to eliminate  this cancer within the world community. Since the cancer of radical Islamic terrorism originates within Islam, Islam should lead in controlling this caner within in humanity.

The virulent and aggressive Ebola form of radical Islamic terrorism has two heads. First, some madrasas in most non-Islamic countries like the United States and European countries teach this same radical Islamist ideology attacking non-Islamic cultures from within. The infected countries should use all legal means to identify madrasas and mosques teaching Islamist ideology. Individuals should be monitored to ensure that they are unable to plan or execute radical Islamic terrorism in the infected countries. Secondly, radical Islamic terrorism and Islamist ideology is spread over the internet. Individuals who have self-radicalized using the internet are difficult to detect. Again, countries like the United States should develop legal means to find, identify, and monitor these individuals and ensure that they are unable to execute acts of Islamic terrorism within their country. Additionally, infected countries should develop effective methods of countering Islamist ideology by demonstrating its detrimental effects on humanity using the internet other public information formats.

Many will say that radical Islamic terrorism and Islamist ideology are not representative of Islam. However, the Islamist ideology used to justify Islamic terrorism is based on passages found in the Koran and Haditha, both largely attributed to Muhammed. In my opinion, if Islam does not take the lead in the fight to eradicate the cancer Ebola hybrid, radical Islamic terrorism, that infects Islam and the world, then Islam is responsible for all radical Islamic terrorism. In that case, terrorism will become the face of Islam in the world.

Again, Islam must prove to the world, by actions and deeds, that Islam is truly a religion of peace. The world is waiting for peace.

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.

EXTREME VETTING WILL FIND RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS

 

A person casting their vote into the ballot box.
Extreme vetting will ensure that terrorists cannot hide among immigrants.

Psychologists and socialists developed a system of questionnaires and interview questions, “extreme vetting,” that could identify radical Islamic terrorists; and the terrorists will be unaware that they have been identified. “Extreme vetting” could also identify those unable to assimilate into our society. After WWII, social scientists developed questionnaires and interview techniques to identify and quantify traditional family dynamics and antisemitism in the Europe and United States. The same techniques could serve as a model for extreme vetting. Discussion of this extreme vetting model is based on research described in The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (TFS) by Rolf Wiggershaus translated by Michael Robertson.

Since The Frankfurt School, as this group of scholars was known, made significant contributions to the left’s Marxist, socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat agenda in Europe and North America, an introduction is warranted. The Frankfurt School was the only group of scholars whose contribution to Marxist thought was considered collectively significant by the editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT (ADMT). Indeed, several books have been dedicated to the evaluation of the contribution of this group to modern Marxism and the Progressive Liberal movement. This group of German scholars of largely Jewish descent was extremely influential in assuring Marxism’s “assimilation into modern social sciences.”  After realizing that the communist revolution was not progressing as expected, this group of Marxists saw the need for a different more inclusive, multidisciplinary, incremental approach to social revolution. They saw that the contradictions between the philosophy of Marx and the realities of communism under Lenin, and later, Stalin in the Soviet Union were largely responsible lack of progress of the revolution in Western Europe and the United States. The group sought to accomplish this goal without stressing either the nature of the principles they promoted or their relationship to the widely discredited Stalinist version of Marxism by eliminating obvious Marxist terminology (ADMT p. 182-188), Stealth Marxism.

In 1923, the Institute of Social Research was established in association with faculty members and academic leaders of Frankfurt University to counter Soviet Communism and pursue an alternate path toward Marxism. In 1933, the group was exiled from Germany and moved to the United States where its principle leaders became faculty members at Columbia University. The group was directed by Max Horkheimer. His two principal associates were Friedrich Pollock and Theodor Wiesengrund-Adorno. Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Herbert Marcuse were significant, but lesser associates of the group. Walter Benjamin, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Jurgen Habermas were also important but even less integrated associates of The Frankfurt School. Publications by this diverse group included works in the areas of philosophy, sociology, social psychology, economics, national planning, musicology, psychoanalysis, political science, law, pop culture, literature, political economics, essays, and literary criticism. The motivation of this group was to promote an interdisciplinary approach, which became known as Critical Theory, for incremental transformation of society to one based on Marxist principles. With time, this approach has been expanded to include many aspects of the biological and ecological sciences, and whenever possible the physical sciences.

The Frankfurt School was at the forefront developing a model for extreme vetting. From the outset, research projects used psychological and sociological questionnaires and polling techniques as the basis for their critique of society. Their project methods included both written questionnaires and leader driven interview and discussion group methods. Their pioneering work in this area began in the early 1930’s. Eric Fromm was initially responsible for development of the questionnaires and interview techniques. According to Wiggershaus, he expected three categories of information to emerge from analysis of the data. First, he expected to develop a perspective of the political, social, and cultural views of respondents. Second, he sought to formulate social-psychological types and their relationship to various political party groups. Third, he hoped to discern methodological capabilities of questionnaires and further refine the procedures.

Fromm’s ideas for a methodology to accomplish these tasks were to infer the character structure of each person from the whole questionnaire. Questions, that would promote conclusions about the hidden, unconscious tendencies and instincts of each respondent which would reveal their character structure to trained observers, were embedded in the questionnaires. The exhaustive questionnaires included sections containing apparently innocent questions which would permit conclusions about hidden personality traits. The conclusions were validated by comparison with the general impression given by a person’s answers (TFS, p. 113-116). Accordingly, character structures should have a basis in explicit psychological theory, influenced by the empirical material of the research itself, and consistently differentiated. The purpose of these ideas was to develop a methodology that would fulfill the goals of analytical social psychology as he saw them (TFS, p.170-171). The methodology could be used for “extreme vetting” that would identify individuals with strong affinity for radical Islamic terrorism and an inability to assimilate.

Paul Lazarsfeld, was the primary empirical data analyst for the The Frankfurt School with an in-depth understanding of Marxist philosophy. He was a pragmatic and methodical social scientist. His experience evaluating, categorizing, and statistically analyzing psychological and sociological research data based on questionnaires and interviews was extensive. In guidance for interviewers and assistants Lazarsfeld noted that none of our assistants should appear in the role of a reporter or observer, but rather that each of them should blend into life naturally by means of some function or other useful to the people. His guidance was consistent with a previous statement about research involving interviews and questionnaires where he noted that

Only a researcher who is so close to the problem in his own life that he only needs to practice introspection to be able to produce a conceptual and methodological apparatus and possesses the scientific brutality to translate this experience into data and formulae which can be checked can help to make problems less opaque than they are at present (TFS, p. 166-167).

Lazarsfeld’s research was well received by the Rockefeller Foundation which financed a trip to the United States and resulted in an eventual position at Columbia University where he became the first Director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research which was the predecessor of the modern Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. This group could be contracted to develop a tool for “extreme vetting.”

Studies on Authority and the Family was an import result of the collaboration between Fromm and Lazarsfeld. Fromm claimed that the authoritarian, patricentric, bourgeois (Capitalist) Protestant society and family resulted in character types essential for authoritarian and capitalist societies. In Fromm’s view, these character types enjoy accumulating property and capital without regard for the effect of their accumulation on fellow human beings and feel that acquisition of power is even more important than accumulation of property and capital. Studies on Authority and the Family may be one of the most significant assaults on the paternal Judeo-Christian family and Christianity of the first half of the twentieth century. Fromm used the study to formulate his sado-masochistic character type as a product of the patricentric, bourgeois-Protestant society and family. Although data from the questionnaires was not referenced by Fromm, the study appears to be the basis for a great deal of subsequent psychological research designed to demonstrate the adverse effects of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, Christianity, and religion on individuals and society under both capitalism and authoritarian governments. Again, the methodology could be adapted to accomplish “extreme vetting” of immigrants.

Although the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation were approached for antisemitism research grants, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee provided financing for the project. One aspect of the project dealt with antisemitism from the perspective of psychology of the masses including the instincts and thoughts of men. The project was also designed to continue development of experimental psychological research methods. The questionnaire and interview methodology developed required interviewers who know the interviewees and whom the interviewees trust. Questions included, How do you distinguish a Jew from another person?, What do you think about the Detroit Riots?, and Do you go to church? The questions established the attitudes of respondents about Jews and anti-Semitism. The interviewers were told that the openness of everyday conversational situations would allow both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the material collected in a pioneer experiment in social research that would provide insight into what working people honestly are thinking about the whole Jewish question’ and why they feel that way. Polls and interviews could not provide the insights that would be gained from conversations. Obviously, techniques are know to develop tools that would work well for “extreme vetting.”

Wiggershaus reviewed collaboration between The Frankfurt School and a group of psychologist from the University of California at Berkley, R. Nevitt Sanford, Else Frankel-Brunswik, and Daniel J. Levinson, which was a key part of the anti-Semitism project. The Berkley researchers, who referred to themselves as the Public Opinion Study Group early in the project, developed a unique combination of questionnaires, interviews, and projective psychological tests. These collaborators concluded that an indirect means of assessing anti-Semitism would be advantageous and started working to develop a method to accomplish the task. The indirect questions were formulated by using two questionnaires given consecutively to various test groups. The first questionnaire contained no obvious anti-Semitism questions or questions related to other forms of prejudice. The second questionnaire contained a mix of questions related to Jews and ethnocentrism and other subjects mixed in a manner designed to disguise the intent of the questions. The purpose of this format was to find questions in the first questionnaire with high correlation to anti-Semitism displayed in the second questionnaire and develop a highly reliable indirect research tool. Wiggershaus observed that years later Adorno made the following statement about the process of developing the questions:

We spent hours waiting for ideas to occur to us for individual items for the questionnaire. The less their relation to the main topic was visible, the prouder we were of them. We then checked these items in constant pre-tests to restrict the questionnaire and exclude those items which proved not to be sufficiently restrictive (TFS, p. 373).

One result of the collaboration between The Frankfurt School and the Berkley Public Opinion Study Group was development of the F-scale (Fascism Scale). The scale was an effort to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes, providing evidence of a connection between anti-Semitism, fascism and the destructive character in experimental proof of the threat that anti-Semitism poses to democratic civilization. Similar methodology could be developed that would provide an IT-scale and an A-scale for Islamic terrorist tendencies and assimilation potential, respectively.

The questionnaires included questions such as, Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living; and The Jews should make a sincere effort to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they want to stop being persecuted. To access the level of anti-Semitism, respondents registered three levels of agreement or disagreement to each question. As in previous questionnaires, projective questions such as, What great people, living or dead, do you admire most? were inserted to evaluate respondent personality structures. Clinical case study methods including use of pictures of groups of people were used to evaluate reactions to various types of people and interpersonal relationships. Initially, seventy-seven women students participated in questionnaires ten of whom were evaluated in the clinical tests. These methods were used to reveal the groups concept of the personality which included determining modes of behavior and conscious convictions, deep-seated, often unconscious, tendencies influencing behavior and convictions, and overt and covert anti-Semitism.

According to Wiggershaus, one result of this research was A Scale for the Measurement of Anti-Semitism. The research also revealed two distinct modes of antisemitism. Affluent Jews, bankers, brokers, and merchants, etc., were viewed as oppressors by middle and lower class non-Jews who saw them as the immediate cause of their misery. Middle class Jews who usually embraced individual achievement while maintaining Jewish ethical and religious values — such as learning, intellectual achievement, social betterment, and things of the spirit contrary to the social behavior customary to their social setting were viewed as non-conformists and also experienced anti-Semitism.

The methodologies and questions exist to determine whether an individual is hiding their ties to radical Islamic terrorism and would support the Constitution of the United States over preference for Islamic enclaves governed under Sharia Law. This process would be extreme vetting. Psychologist and sociologist have developed questionnaires and interview methods that identify conscience and unconscious personality and cultural characteristics associated with what Fromm called the sado-masochistic character type which appears to be consistent with the personality type of radical Islamic terrorists. They developed a scale to measure antisemitism indicating that a scale to can be developed measure conscience and unconscious tendencies and attitudes necessary for an individual to become a terrorist. Similarly, a scale like the Fascism Scale can be developed to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes to evaluate a potential conscience and unconscious connections between radical Islamic terrorism and Islam. For conversational, individual, and group interviews, undercover intelligence officers and Special Forces operatives have the training and experience to blend into subject groups and conduct casual and non-threatening interviews necessary for effective extreme vetting. In my opinion, an effective system of extreme vetting could be implemented in a relatively short period of time. Such a system would provide far more confidence among We the People regarding immigration of people from areas known to produce radical Islamic terrorists.

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.

CAPITALISM’S GLOBALISM CONTRADICTION

 

A person holding a globe with cars in it
Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on cost savings in emerging markets.

Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on Executive’s and Board of Director’s obligation to maximize profits and their obligation to their employees, their communities, and the nations of their origin. Failure to consider the implications of this contradiction provides the left with a powerful criticism against capitalism. In the United States, this contradiction is exacerbated by our high labor costs and benefits, safety regulations, environmental regulations including environmental impact assessments that increase both the costs and time required to open a facility or project, financial system regulations, land use and zoning regulations, and past high corporate taxes. The relationship between profit and societal obligation is only one component of capitalism’s globalism contradiction.

Another aspect of capitalism’s globalism contradiction is the incredible economic success of western civilization, especially in the United States, since the start of the industrial revolution. Until the 1960’s or 1970’s, globalization was not a significant issue in relation to competition and market share for corporations in the western world. Consequently, costs associated with land, labor, and capital were comparatively inconsequential strategic considerations compared to today’s markets. Costs of doing business were evaluated only in relation to competition in the United States and other western industrial powers. For example, the big three US auto makers competed among themselves for US market share and labor. Labor union contracts for wages, benefits, and working conditions that often precluded effective discipline and quality control were virtually identical throughout the US auto industry. The result was high industry wide wages, benefits, and job security. As countries like China, South Korea, India, other Eastern Pacific rim countries, and parts of the old Soviet Union emerged as competing centers of industry, the cost of land, labor, and capital became a competitive liability for western industry.

Finally, North American and European capitalists are harnessed to strongly unionized labor forces unwilling to negotiate lower, more globally competitive wage, benefit, and work condition packages which could have slowed reductions in US manufacturing and plant closures. This issue is complicated by the success of western capitalism causing high costs of living and the expectation of high disposable income to finance the good life. These two factors make efforts to make our labor costs more competitive in the global market difficult. Western capitalism’s success also amplifies capitalism’s globalism contradiction when faced with emerging markets for our products and competition with our products throughout the world.

Capitalism’s globalism contradiction is profit versus support of the labor force that makes their products or provides their services and loyalty to the communities and countries of their origin. Interestingly, it is also the left’s globalism contradiction, maintaining wealth for our workers while redistributing wealth to developing country industries and workers.

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.

 

NEWS NARRATIVES STIMULATE FAKE NEWS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.