Category: Republican Party

PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES

PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES CONTENTS

    Progressive Vision for Families

    Traditional Biblical Families

     Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

     Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

     The Biblical Christian Response 

     Progressive Vision for Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Biblical Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Biblical Christian Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

HISPANIC ALLEGIANCE TO DEMOCRATS?

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Is Hispanic Allegiance to Democrats Justified?

Heritage

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

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

Education

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

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

The Educational Opportunity Monitoring Project: Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps

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

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

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

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

Poverty

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

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

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

Crime

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

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

Race and Crime: Who Attacks Whom? 

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

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

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

The Assault on Hispanic Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

MERRICK GARLAND IS A DISGRACE

A man in suit and tie standing at a podium.Merrick Garland is a disgrace to the proud traditions and heritage of the Office of the United States Attorney General (AG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), in my opinion. As I listened to his speech to the DOJ staff on January 5, 2022, I was as viscerally angry. I was also thankful to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel for ensuring that Merrick Garland did not become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States while he was the Senate Majority Leader. Merrick Garland’s speech demonstrated that he is a progressive partisan of epic proportions. With Garland as AG, Lady Liberty looks at justice with her left eye covered, blind folded to affronts perpetrated by those on the left, to quote me.

How did I come to such a drastic conclusion? The answer is simple. Merrick Garland has not pursued the 2020 Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters and murders as vigorously as he is pursuing January 6, 2021, Capital rioters. This fact contradicts statements Garland made during his speech when he said,

Our answer is, and will continue to be, the same answer we would give with respect to any ongoing investigation: as long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done ” consistent with the facts and the law.

The department would do everything in our power to defend the American people and American democracy. We will defend our democratic institutions from attack. We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence.

The Department will follow the facts, and not an agenda or an assumption. The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.

Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.

More than 700 defendants have been arrested in the probe and the FBI is still calling for the public’s help in identifying more than 350 other individuals it believes engaged in violent acts on the Capitol grounds that day. Dozens of the January 6 defendants have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding, though the department has not yet brought any sedition charges. Obviously, Merrick Garland is pursuing the January 6, 2021, Capital rioters with the right eye of Lady Liberty aggressively seeking out the guilty, to quote me again.

In contrast, under the Merrick Garland DOJ, the blind folded left eye of Lady Liberty is oblivious to the mayhem caused by Antifa and BLM during the 2020, George Floyd riots when the following details are considered. The Capitol architect told lawmakers the price tag for the January riots stood around $30 million. The George Floyd riots cost an estimated $2 billion. The vast majority of the $30 million cost of the Capitol riot was for additional costs like the unnecessary fencing, mental health care, other medical costs, and additional law enforcement and National Guard protection measures needed to protect the Capitol for months after the riot. The physical damage to the Capitol was estimated at $1.5 million, 1/20 of the touted $30 million cost of the Capitol riot. Using progressive Democrat Capitol math, the cost of the George Floyd riots was $40 billion. Did our cities, destroyed during the 2020 Antifa BLM riots that followed the death of George Floyd, get to add similar costs to the $2 Billion in costs they incurred? I don’t think so.

While they refrained from drawing any hard conclusions, RealClearInvestigations did an in-depth analysis of the data from not just the Capitol riots and last year’s, 2020, Antifa/BLM-led riots, but also the January 2017 riots that took place during then-President Trump’s inauguration.

Here were some of their findings:

The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police officers, 30 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot. George Floyd rioters were found to have used more sophisticated and dangerous tactics than did the Capitol rioters, and in some cases weapons of greater lethality.

Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigor than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases. Many accused Capitol rioters, unlike accused participants in the other riots, have been held in pretrial detention for months “ with one defendant serving more time than the maximum sentence for the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Some allegedly endured solitary confinement and other mistreatment.

With authorities applying lenient prosecutorial standards in many major cities torn by the summer riots, the vast majority of charges last year were dismissed, as were charges in the Inauguration 2017 unrest. Charges have to date been dropped in only a single Capitol riot case.

Another key point to note about last summer’s riots, 2020, were the targets in some of the riots. It’s not uncommon to see liberals try to argue that the Capitol riots were symbolically worse because the Capitol building was targeted during what was supposed to be part of the peaceful transfer of power process.

What they conveniently forget, however, is that in some cities, left-wing rioters deliberately targeted government buildings including a federal courthouse, as Wilfred Reilly Tweeted reminding people as the left was busy minimizing the 2020 riots in the immediate aftermath of what took place at the Capitol building in January:

A screenshot of two tweets with the same tweet.

Sadly, the majority of these rioters have had all charges dropped, many with prejudice meaning they cannot be recharged; or their charges were reduced. Have there been any news stories about arrests or convictions in any of the murders committed during these peaceful 2020 Antifa BLM protests, riots? No, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single arrest has been made regarding the 34 murders.

Merrick Garland is, in my opinion, a disgrace to the United States Department of Justice and the Office of Attorney General. His actions do not hold up the high standards he set for himself. He said,

[The department would do everything] in our power to defend the American people and American democracy. We will defend our democratic institutions from attack. We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence, [and do] whatever it takes for justice to be done, [following] the facts, not an agenda or an assumption. There cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.”

Merrick Garland is not vigorously pursuing Antifa and BLM rioters and their sources of funding. These rioters came equipped with weapons, protective gear and uniforms, incendiaries, lasers that could blind police officers, and trucks to haul their weapons and equipment. They are nationally organized communist or Marxist revolutionaries. With the blind folded left eye of the DOJ under Merrick Garland, Lady Liberty is in hot pursuit of everything conservative, Republican or Trump, but he/she is not interested in investigating anything that could lead to progressive financiers like George Soros. The damage caused by Antifa and BLM throughout the United States during simultaneous, coordinated Antifa BLM riots dwarfs the physical damage to the Capitol. Merrick Garland, progressives, and Democrats call the capitol rioters and parents protesting Marxist and progressive curricula in our schools, terrorists. In contrast, the term terrorist is not used when Antifa or BLM are the culprits. Additionally, as of June 9,2022, after the attempted assignation of Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Garland is not enforcing federal laws prohibiting demonstration at the residences of all federal judges intended to influence judicial decisions. As far as I am concerned, the contrast renders Merrick Garland a disgrace as AG of the United Starts.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

US EDUCATION IS MARXIST PROPAGANDA

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAVING OUR ECONOMY FROM COVID-19

 

A word cloud of many words related to unemployment.

Saving our economy will require innovative thinking. The question is, Will the innovation come from progressives and the Democrat Party or capitalists, entrepreneurs, and the Republican Party? In my opinion, the best solution will come from capitalists and entrepreneurs with the assistance of the Republican Party at the state and national level. However, ethics, morality, empathy, and benevolence will be required of capitalists and entrepreneurs or our economy could easily fail. In other words, saving our economy will require Godly capitalists and entrepreneurs not Godless immoral capitalists.

Covid-19 has devastated our economy, especially small businesses and their employees, over 50% of the economy. Today, less than 2% of the Covid-19 cases result in deaths, tragic as each death is. This death rate is less than 9/100 of 1% of our 320M population, a 20% decline since last summer when 2.8% of the cases resulted in deaths. By the end of this year, our nation will lose around 350.000 citizens to Covid-19. To put this tragic loss in perspective, the annual death rate for cardiovascular disease and cancer are both greater than our annual Covid-19 losses this year. In 2017, according to Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2020 Update – Professional Heart Daily | American Heart Association cardiovascular disease caused nearly 859,000 deaths. Similarly, in 2018, according to An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC there were 599,274 cancer deaths. This sad perspective will be a necessary consideration for saving our economy.

Saving our economy will require reductions in Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, economic shutdowns, and school closures causing small business failures, unemployment, evictions, foreclosures, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. To gain some perspective, a comparison of two economic responses to the pandemic is appropriate. For this comparison consider the response of Florida, California, and New York. The October 2020 unemployment rate for each state was 6.5% in Florida, 9.3% in California, and 9.6% in New York according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida unemployment was more than 40% lower than that of California and New York. This is important since Florida has not closed its economy while the California and New York economies have been closed much of the year.

Consequently, the mid-December Covid-19 statistics for these states must be compared to evaluate the effects of economic closures.   In Florida, 20,050 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,116,973 cases, a 1.8% case fatality rate, which is 9/100s of 1% of the 22 million Floridians. In California, 20,854 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,528,177 cases, a 1.4% case fatality rate, which is 5/100s of 1%, of the 40 million Californians. In New York, 34,983 Covid-19 patients died out of 764,966 cases, a 4.6% case fatality rate, which is 17/100s of 1% of the 20 million New Yorkers. Although New York was among the first states struck by the pandemic and the nation has subsequently learned a great deal about the disease, the New York case fatality rate is extreme in comparison to Florida and California. New York senior citizens with the virus were placed in elder care and living facilities with healthy residents resulting in rapid spread and high death rates. This action was inexcusable and must never be repeated especially when available beds in a hospital ship and convention center were not used for these senior citizens.

The final class of data to consider in a discussion of the means of saving our economy is how Covid-19 spreads in our communities. In many respects, the data is contradictory among states. In Louisiana, NPR reports that bars account for 14% of the cases and restaurants 13% of the cases. In contrast, contact tracing in New York shows that restaurants and bars account for a combined total of only 1.4% of the cases while household and social gatherings accounted 74% of the cases which is the same as the 74% close contact and community spread reported by North Dakota. Arkansas contact tracing data shows that restaurants and bars account for only 3% of the cases. In Illinois, restaurants account for 4% of the cases, bars account for 3%, and religious activities account for 5%. Interestingly, community events, (protests?) account for 7% of the cases, more than religious activities, bars, and restaurants. The Illinois contact data is the most complete evaluated; and it shows that activities that appeared to be that of essential workers contributed to most of the cases in the state, about 35%.

When governors and big city mayors close their economies or small businesses, they are usually not following the science. They are using their power to show their constituents that they are doing something, even if that something is not supported by science. The above data shows that small businesses including restaurants and bars as well as religious activities are not significant sources of Covid-19 spread. Dr. Fauci observed that community spread made it almost impossible to predict how many cases there will be. The facts demonstrate that community spread between people with no known contact with other infected individuals, travel to an area where the disease occurs, or spread among essential workers and household and social gatherings is more important than spread occurring at schools, religious gatherings, small businesses, bars, and restaurants. The fact that Covid-19 can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic and unknowingly transmit the disease is also an important consideration when evaluating how to deal with the economic impact of the spread of Covid-19. With asymptomatic community spread and a significant part of our population involved in essential work, does it really make sense to close our economy, small businesses, and religious activities? Will doing so, contribute to saving our economy?

Returning to the comparison between Florida and California, comparisons of the unemployment and death rate data will provide difficult answers to these two questions. First, by applying the California Covid-19 death rate, with extensive economic closures, to the Florida population with few economic closures, Florida would have suffered almost 8,600 fewer deaths. By applying the Florida death rate to the California population, California would have suffered 15,600 more deaths. Second, by applying the unemployment rate of California to the Florida population, Florida would have 616,000 more unemployed. Applying the Florida unemployment rate to California that state would have 1,120,000 fewer unemployed. Putting it brutally, California’s comparatively closed economy may have saved 15,600 lives at the expense of 1,120,000 jobs. Conversely, Florida’s comparatively open economy may have cost 8,600 lives while saving 616,000 jobs. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

Using Covid-19 death rates and unemployment levels from one state to predict unemployment and Covid-19 mortality in another state is mere speculation used to provoke argument and discussion. After all, no two states have the same climate which affects outdoor activities and indoor gatherings. State populations have different age structures, racial and ethnic ratios, and ideological and political affiliations. No two state economies are the same. Each state has a unique business structures affecting the size of their industrial, financial, technology and service sectors, large and small retail establishments, and residential rental and home ownership ratios. These differences make prediction of Covid-19 death rates and unemployment in one state based on data from another state useful discussion tools, but such predictions are simply food for thought as We the People, governors, and big city mayors evaluate the potential impacts of our leader’s economic decisions.

It is useful to recall the early scientific Covid-19 models predicting 2-3 million US deaths in the first year of the pandemic. These predictions shocked us into submitting to successive two-week, national quarantines or lock downs. Except for essential workers, we stayed home and did not work. Many of us were fortunate enough to work from home potentially altering the way some types of work will be done in the future. We closed our schools. We agreed to wash our hands and sanitize surfaces at work and home. We observed social distancing and stopped personal contact with others including our relatives in senior centers and our dying loved ones in hospitals, and eventually most of us started wearing face masks to protect ourselves and others once the science convinced us of face mask efficacy. We flattened the curve and reduced Covid-19 deaths to 350,000 rather than millions. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

The last consideration regarding these devastating numbers is the other impacts of economic closures on people. School closures and unemployment impacts suicide rates, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, family abuse, evictions, foreclosures, late payments on mortgages, rent, and loans, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. Most websites discussing suicide rates are unhelpful or totally unreliable. For example, the World Population Review site has two graphic depictions and a table titled, Suicide Rates by State 2020 all with identical data. Unfortunately, the first line on the table states, * Rates are per 100,000 people. Data for calendar year 2018. Covid-19 death statistics are immediately available, but suicide data takes two years to compile and report.

A July 2020 Townhall report titled, CDC Director Compares Rate of Suicides to COVID-19 Deaths summarizes concerns regarding school closings and other issues associated with closing our society and economy.

Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said in a Buck Institute webinar that suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19 among high school students. Redfield argued that lockdowns and lack of public schooling constituted a disproportionally negative impact on young peoples’ mental health.

“But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools,” Redfield said. “We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So this is why I keep coming back for the overall social [well] being of individuals, is let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and their safe.”

A doctor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, CA claimed the facility has seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury, said a nurse from the same hospital.

And while health authorities will not have verified data regarding suicides and drug overdoses in 2020 for two more years, local reporting indicates that suicide fatalities have increased year-on-year.

According to the American Medical Association, More than 35 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality, [and] concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder.

School closures cause other problems for families, especially single parent families. Essential workers cannot stay at home to monitor their children’s on-line education without risking their jobs. The stress leads to the mental issues described above. For families fortunate enough to have one parent who can work from home, the strain of balancing work and school can be debilitating, especially when young children are involved. In the best of situations, educators indicate that our children are losing ground. If parents lose their jobs because they must care for children due to school closures, they usually face economic disaster and the associated mental health issues. Since K-12 students are among the lowest risk group for contracting or transmitting Covid-19 or suffering serious effects of the disease in the absence of underlying conditions, opening our schools would have a major impact in saving our economy.

In my opinion, saving our economy will require national and state governments to act on behalf of We the People without regard to the accumulation of political power. With meaningful government assistance, capitalists and entrepreneurs acting with empathy, benevolence, and uncommon moral and ethical standards offer the best hope for saving our economy. Another round of national government Covid-19 aid like the payroll protection plan for small businesses and their employees, small business loans, extension of unemployment benefits, and eviction and foreclosure moratoriums would reduce the impact on We the People caused by the ongoing pandemic until vaccines end the Covid-19 crisis. Capitalists and entrepreneurs could provide a bridge between government measures and people’s ability to regain their financial stability. For example, banks, mortgagers, loan companies, and other financiers could offer reduced no penalty payment plans with commensurate repayment period extensions. Residential, commercial, and industrial property owners could offer similar reductions in rent and lease payments. It is not unreasonable to offer the suggested payment reduction plans and extensions to businesses, mortgagees, and tenants with sound pre-Covid-19 payment histories.

Our economy should start to recover as more people get vaccinated, but most of our population will not be immunized for six to eight months. At that time, it is reasonable to expect the economy to move into a period of rapid recovery. Consequently, the suggested credit, rent, and lease payment reduction and extensions should last at least one year. This would allow people to recover financially and resume pre-Covid-19 payment levels. This plan would allow property owners and lenders to keep good people and businesses as tenants or owners with a lower risk profile. Without such a plan, properties could remain vacant, producing no revenue, and incur extra costs related to foreclosures, evictions, and potential litigation. With the entire economy weakened, new tenants and owners could be scarce and pose a higher risk of failure as small businesses, new tenants, and mortgagees.

This plan would reduce unemployment, mental illness including suicides, drug abuse, and family abuse, and help families cope with school closures. Of course, the plan would also reduce financier’s short-term income for about one year; but it would promote long-term stability economic expansion thereby saving our economy.

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

DEMOCRAT POWER OR GOP PEOPLE POWER

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quote by rahm emanuel

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWITTER VERSUS CONSERVATIVES

 

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

A twitter profile with the name of dr. Champlin

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

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

A screenshot of the select topic page.

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

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

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

A close up of the email field in a computer

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

A twitter feed with the following hashtags :

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

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

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

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

JUST A THOUGHT.

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

THE HEALTHCARE PLAN ISSUE

 

A magnifying glass over the word healthcare.
The healthcare plan issue is the difference between socialistic government dictated plans and capitalistic individual based plans.

The healthcare plan issue is the difference between the socialistic approach to healthcare and the capitalistic approach to healthcare. Consequently, the Democrat socialistic healthcare plan must articulate every aspect of their plan for coverage. With a Democrat plan, everyone is covered at no cost to individuals or families, pre-existing conditions are covered for all; costs are  paid by the government through taxation, and the price, type and availability of treatment or medication is determined by healthcare bureaucrats. A Democrat healthcare plan requires thousands of pages of regulations to implement and rarely fully understood by the citizenry. A Democrat plan is a government controlled one size fits all plan so every aspect can be articulated.

In contrast, a Republican capitalistic healthcare plan is based on individual choice. Capitalistic plans reduce taxes and allow the individual to choose their personal plan based on their personal health profile and risk tolerance. Consequently, a Republican plan lacks detail and specificity because there is no monolithic one size fits all plan. In reality, there cannot be a Republican Healthcare Plan because Republicans will allow We the People to develop our own personal healthcare plans that fit our personal or family requirements.

As a result, a Republican capitalistic healthcare plan or law must define the parameters that all private healthcare plans must include. At a minimum, the plan or healthcare law must require coverage for all pre-existing conditions, define the maximum age for covered dependents, define coverage limits for, hospitalization, specialist, physician, support staff, and medication related treatment of all diseases and chronic conditions. The healthcare law should also require complete cost transparency related to physicians, facilities, diagnostic procedures and equipment, supplies, medication both prescription and over the counter, and coverage related to eye, dental, and hearing health. The Republican healthcare law should allow home delivered meals, transportation for physician visits, and remote physician care for those who wish to pay for this coverage in their personal plan. This law should also allow individuals and families to form healthcare insurance cooperatives to compete with employers for insurance coverage prices in their area. Healthcare providers must be allowed to provide fully transportable healthcare insurance to customers in all 50 states, Washington DC, and all US Territories creating competition and lowering healthcare insurance costs for individuals and families. Unlimited Healthcare savings plans must be allowed in the Republican healthcare law. The Republican plan must also allow a range of low-cost plans allowing people to have a combination of healthcare savings plans with a range of catastrophic healthcare insurance plans that fit their health profile, risk tolerance, and ability to pay.

The Republican capitalistic healthcare law should also require complete healthcare provider transparency related to quality of care. The professional evaluations and disciplinary citations against all healthcare practitioners at every level and citations against healthcare facilities and their staffs should be publicly accessible to all. This is the only way the public can be sure that their care is the best available in their area. Such transparency would eliminate poor healthcare providers and reduce the overall cast of healthcare because medical liability insurance would go down. No one would go to a poorly rated practitioner or medical facility. Capitalism would eliminate the bad actors. Of course, medical practitioner groups and institution groups would oppose this level of transparency.

Meaningful tort reform is also necessary to control healthcare costs and must be included in Republican capitalistic healthcare laws. I am a good example of the added medical costs of our current tort laws. I was a truck driver with a heart condition. DOT regulations required me to have a tread mill stress annually. This test costs about $700; but my cardiologist would not approve my physical without a myocardial stress test which costs about $3,500. He required this test as a means of litigation mitigation in case I was involved in a heart related traffic accident while driving my truck; and he would be blamed for allowing me to drive with a defective heart. Physicians prescribe innumerable diagnostic tests as litigation mitigation measures. Meaningful tort reform would reduce such testing and reduce healthcare costs with little reduction in the quality of healthcare.

Healthcare and healthcare insurance comprise at least 17% of the US economy. Previously, several expansive and radical capitalistic healthcare and healthcare insurance proposals were discussed at America’s Crossroad. These proposals include A FORGOTTEN AMERICAN’S ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE PLAN which discusses employer provided plans, Obama Care, Medicare, Medicaid, VA Healthcare, and a unique proposal for dedicated Wounded Warrior Healthcare, TRUE FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE INSURANCE, IT IS TIME FOR THE HEALTHCARE RESPONSIBILITY ACT, and THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTHCARE TAX CREDIT. This discussion illustrates the fact that it is impossible to formulate a single comprehensive Republican capitalistic healthcare plan which gives individuals, families, and their practitioners complete control over their healthcare. For Democrats, a healthcare plan regulates every aspect of the healthcare system from costs to treatments and treatment accessibility requiring thousands of pages of regulations which are indecipherable to laymen. Accordingly, a Plan giving individuals and families control over the type and cost of their personal healthcare Plan ds not qualify as a healthcare Plan in Democrat circles. Therefore, healthcare based on free market capitalism can never qualify as a healthcare plan to Democrat socialists; and the healthcare plan issue cannot be resolved politically simply because Democrats and Republicans will never agree o the definition the word Plan as it pertains to healthcare.

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

NATIONAL ISSUES REQUIRE SOLUTIONS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘JUST DO IT!’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUST DO IT!

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR FOUNDER’S NATION

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE

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

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

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

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

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