The progressive globalism contradiction is global wealth redistribution from US laborers to foreign laborers.
The goal of global wealth redistribution, globalism, is contradictory to the progressive goal of wealth redistribution within industrialized capitalistic countries. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, progressives struggled to increase the wages of the lower and middle classes, the primary work force. Activists on the left called themselves communists, socialists, progressives, and liberals depending on which term was more acceptable to society at large at the time and location involved in the world. These activists were essential to the success of the labor movement in Western Europe and North America. As a result, the wages and benefits of Western workers became the envy of the rest of the world. The contradiction, for progressives, is the fact that Western wages and benefits have resulted in comparatively high disposable income and standard of living in the industrialized Western world. For globalism, global wealth redistribution, to succeed, workers in industrialized countries must expect wage and benefit stagnation at best or decreases in their standard of living through reduced disposable income. In other words, the left gives and the left takes away, the left’s globalism contradiction.
As industrialization expanded to other regions of the world, specifically the Asian-Pacific rim countries and China, global competition also increased. Initially, lower wages and benefits in these regions allowed Asian automakers, consumer product producers, as well as Chinese steel and other consumer good producers to compete effectively in Western European and North American markets. Additionally, the fall of the old Soviet Union brought capitalistic enterprise and increased industrialization to Russia and Eastern Europe which allowed additional low-cost consumer goods to enter Western markets. The result was that Western manufacturers faced competition from newly industrialized areas where wages and benefits were lower than those in the United States and other Western countries. In the United States, our manufacturing plants, steel and special metal mills, textile mills, and consumer product manufacturing plants were old and outdated. The cost of updating these facilities as well as the time required for licensing and construction and the high cost of construction labor made new manufacturing plants even more time consuming and costly to bring on line. The time and expense of environmental impact and economic assessments adds significantly to the time required and the expense of constructing new modern manufacturing facilities.
Faced with low cost competition and the rapidly expanding global market, the globalism contradiction forced corporations to make decisions regarding manufacturing plant locations. The result was plant closures in the industrialized parts of the United States and new plant construction around the world to replace facilities closed in the US. These decisions have adversely affected the number of manufacturing jobs available, wages, and benefits in western countries like the United States. As a result, middle and lower working class wages and benefits have been at best stagnant or declining for at least two decades.
The final globalism contradiction is related to free trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. When these agreements result in excessive trade deficits for the United States, they are effectively global wealth redistribution. This fact is contradictory to conservative ideology. Although US consumers purchase goods at a lower price, the value of the good paying jobs we lose in the exchange is roughly equivalent to the value of the trade deficit. The free trade competition results in lower cost consumer goods, but we lose good paying manufacturing jobs due to the high costs associated with US manufacturing. From the perspective of the left, opening factories in developing countries is great. Capital is redistributed from developed industrialized countries to underdeveloped Third World countries creating good paying jobs, more disposable income, and increased standard of living, global wealth redistribution. Of course, leaders and planners on the left do not discuss the sacrifices this global wealth redistribution inflicts on the middle and lower class workers of the more advanced industrialized countries. They stress that the top 1% are not paying their fair share of the costs they inflict on our workers. The question is, are workers in the United States satisfied with the answers provided by the Left?
On his last overseas trip, President Obama indicated that globalism has not leveled the world playing field as quickly as he had hoped. The 2016 election demonstrated that workers in the United States are not interested in sacrificing their standard of living to advance global income redistribution. It was the progressive globalism contradiction, stagnant or declining wages and employment in the United States, that cost progressives the Presidency in the 2016 election. This debate will be critical for the future of our country. This issue among others at this point in time and our history places us at America’s Crossroad.
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.
To understand progressive domestic policy it is necessary to understand that globalism is wealth redistribution. The critical concept of globalism is the statement by Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth redistribution will occur on a global scale. To prepare people in successful, industrialized, capitalistic countries like the United States for a totally globalized economy, several precursors are necessary. Changing the minds of the citizenry to accept global wealth redistribution is probably the most difficult, but essential, step. To accomplish this goal, an educational dictatorship has been established by progressives. The second step is the left’s domestic policy. The third step is the lefts foreign and immigration policy. These three prerequisites are discussed in detail at the links provided. A great deal of progress must be made in these three areas before the final stages of global wealth redistribution can be accomplished. The left plans and thinks in evolutionary time frames. They have worked toward their goal of complete globalism, wealth redistribution, since at least the early 1800’s.
For progressive domestic policy and globalism to succeed, it is necessary to understand that both require wealth redistribution.
Some of the tactics of the left in this process are virtually invisible especially in the developed countries. From the perspective of individuals and families, the greatest difference between the people of advanced countries and Third World countries is disposable income. In my opinion, disposable income is income available beyond basic survival needs. Basic survival is simply food to maintain population vigor and vitality or a strong, healthy, and reproductive society. Safe water to drink and the ability to survive extreme heat or cold which requires adequate shelter are also basic survival necessities. The ability to stave off severe epidemics and diseases is also a basic necessity for life. Virtually everything beyond these survival necessities constitutes disposable income. Meeting these needs constitutes the fixed costs of life at the survival level. The more income a population has to secure amenities above these survival needs, the greater their disposable income.
The left has numerous resources and tools available for their closure of the disposable income gap between advanced capitalistic countries and Third World countries. Incremental increases affecting regulatory policies that increase production costs and higher taxes on fixed cost products and services like food, shelter, water, and healthcare are stealthy methods of reducing disposable income in advanced countries. In addition, taxes and regulations that increase costs of unnecessary necessities, such as advanced transportation systems, entertainment, recreation, and technology related to the basics of the good life decrease disposable income available for these necessities in industrialized Western cultures.
Similarly, excessively high business income and property taxes as well as business and financial institution regulations reduce available capital for business expansion. One of the most detrimental regulations has been Obamacare which mandates employee health insurance coverage for all businesses with 50 or more employees. This regulation stifles business growth and profitability. Small businesses either restrict growth to less than 50 employees or increase their prices to cover increased costs. Banking and financial regulations such as increased cash reserve requirements for banks reduce the supply of capital for business improvements or expansion. Financial regulations also cause a reduction in the number of local banks further reducing the supply of capital available to many small businesses. These actions result in lower product and service supplies resulting in increased costs. Until the current administration reduced regulations and taxes, these costs caused corporations to move their headquarters or factories overseas to reduce overhead costs. Loss of productive capacity also increased costs. When taxes and regulations increase, the resulting cost increases are added to fixed costs related to the real or perceived necessities for life, thus reducing disposable income in developed countries.
Possibly the most powerful tool in the progressive stealth toolbox is global environmentalism. In the United States, the environmental movement has been supported by both Democrat and Republican administrations. Republican support shows that they support reasonable efforts to maintain safe water, clean air, and stable ecosystems. Republicans, however, do not support regulations that have adverse effects on the quality of life of our citizens by increasing fixed costs of living. One of the strongest proponents of environmentalism has been the United States federal court system. Our federal courts usually side with environmentalists. Often, these court decisions have the effect of decreasing supplies of lumber products, agricultural production, other renewable natural resources, and nonrenewable natural resources, both petroleum and mineral extraction. Environmentalists also work actively to reduce planned, and in the not too distant future, eliminate existing hydroelectric and irrigation dam projects. Many existing Hydro projects are facing their fifty-year environmental impact reviews in the near future. In all these critical areas of our fixed consumer economy, the result is a decrease in disposable income as fixed costs of the basic necessities of life increase. Environmental regulations associated with global warming have the same impact. They increase the fixed costs of both real and perceived necessities for life. Costs of heating, cooling, energy production, manufacturing, and transportation and sales of consumer goods, constitute increases in fixed costs in industrialized societies.
From the left’s perspective, the stealthy beauty of the entire environmental toolbox is the fact that saving minnows, spotted owls, or rare lizards, sounds so progressively wonderful and feels so good to a large portion of the populace, the urban dwellers. The impact on their disposable income and quality of life is irrelevant to them. After all, they already have enough, until they start losing too much of what they currently have.
In the United States, middle class voters in the northeastern industrialized states who experienced stagnant wages and rising fixed costs for a decade voted for change. They voted against the status quo and declining disposable income because they started experiencing the reality of global wealth redistribution on their quality of life.
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 Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.
The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.
For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.
Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.
SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.
THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE. WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!
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 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution.
The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution. The first two problems are primarily Constitutional issues which influence the political problems facing the United States. The first Constitutional issue is the fact that the Judicial Branch is unchecked in Constitution. In my opinion, the only remedy for this issue is a Constitutional Amendment. The second Constitutional issue is problem of anchor babies born in the United States who have illegal immigrant parents. There is no clear answer to this question. However, Amendment XIV, Section 5, of our Constitution, ratified in 1868, offers the following potential solution: The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Amendment XIV was clearly written to address all issues related to the citizenship of former slaves following the Civil War. Section 5 gives Congress the power to formulate appropriate legislation in this matter. Unfortunately, the Congress has not even investigated or proposed legislation to solve the issue since it is one of those political problems that could adversely affect elections. Failure to attempt to solve political problems demonstrates to We the People that the system is rigged. Keeping the anchor baby issue alive helps some politicians maintain political power. The issue is not the issue, maintaining political power is the issue for these type politicians. They simply seek to get re-elected. Change is necessary.
Third, the question about the wisdom of forming additional political parties continues to be one of the more personally confusing political problems facing our nation. During the 2016 election campaign disgruntled conservatives in the Republican Party seriously considered forming a third, conservative party. In the United States, we have a constitutional republic not a parliamentarian system like that of Great Britain or Israel. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. Consequently, when more than two political parties gain significant electoral participation, the result could be election of a President having a plurality of votes rather than a majority of votes. The situation contradicts one of the major tenants of the republican form of government, majority rule.
For example, President Clinton only garnered approximately 45% of the popular vote both times he was elected. Votes for the two conservatives, President Bush and Ross Perot, totaled at least 55%, in 1992. The same situation occurred in the next presidential election when the Republican candidate was Senator Dole. Again conservatives garnered approximately 55% of the vote. President Clinton claimed a mandate in each election; but he never had a majority vote of the citizens. Of course, our Electoral College system modifies and mitigates the relationship between votes cast by citizens and Electoral College votes. President Clinton did have significant Electoral College victories under our constitutional system in both elections.
If, as a nation, we believe that our national leaders, President, Representatives, and Senators should serve when they are elected by the majority of our citizens, provisions would be required when there are more than two popular political parties. The only way to elect national leaders with a majority of the popular vote would be to require runoff elections when no candidate achieves a simple majority. In the case of the presidential election, this requirement would be state-by-state to maintain our Electoral College system. Such a system would prevent the election of the liberal presidential candidate when the majority of the citizens voted for conservative presidential candidates which occurred in 1992 and 1996. States could follow suit if they chose to do so for state and local elections. Of course, such a remedy would require the long and rancorous procedure of a constitutional amendment. Such a process would also be expensive.
Fourth, one of the more personally vexing political problems facing the nation is the Senate filibuster which violates the democratic republican principle of majority rule. In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:
“(This) contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays “ continual negotiation and intrigue “ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated.
It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed.”
In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:
In such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making (decisions), where two thirds of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.”
Hamilton’s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Recent problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation and policy decisions can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring a 60 percent vote in the Senate rather than a simple, up or down, majority vote. Failure to act shows We the people that political problems prevail in the legislative branch of our government, specifically the Senate filibuster.
The fifth and final group of political problems facing our nation is the manner in which too many of the bills passed in congress link or embed unrelated initiatives and problem solutions into one piece of legislation. The procedure is often done accommodate the opposition to get votes or hide unpopular activities or programs from the voters. The result is often passage of unwanted laws that are not supported by the majority of We the People. Such acts reinforce the perception that the desires of We the People are irrelevant to those we elect to represent us or serve as our President. We the People do not elect national leaders to do what is expedient; we elect our leaders to do what is right; and what we elected them to do.
Each item of legislation should be approved individually by a simple majority. For example, linking bills that the defund Planned Parenthood and fund the Defense Department or emergency defense funding is unconscionable. It ensures failure of both bills or angers We the People. Each should be considered on their own merits and given an up or down simple majority vote. We the People do not appreciate the games played by our elected officials in Washington, DC. DC games demonstrate to We the people that the system is rigged. These types of DC games demonstrate the severity of the political problems plaguing the Legislative Branch of the United States government.
The political problems outlined in this discussion represent a short list of issues that We the People expect our national leaders to address and solve. So, get busy and JUST DO IT!
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 terms amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchy represent a progression and degradation of societal behavior and cultural norms. It is my contention that virtually every segment of society, culture, and the population in general in the United States is currently in one or more of these stages of degradation. Politics now includes anarchy based on video releases showing that rioters have been hired by one party to disrupt campaign events of other parties. The idea that politics is a blood or combat sport demonstrates clearly that morality, ethics, and lawful behavior are the tactics of political losers. Politics is now amoral. Some businesses are amoral, unethical, and unlawful. Such businesses could be called godless immoral capitalists. These businesses constitute one of the left’s greatest arguments against capitalism. Some communities in our largest cities are characterized by anarchy at best and urban warfare at worst. The sexual assault environment on far too many of our nation’s college campuses could be termed sexual anarchy. Unfortunately, these problems have been a part of humanity from antiquity. Left to our “raw nature,” humans are at best amoral.
Adam Smith wrote that one of the primary functions of government is controlling the raw nature of man especially as it pertains to business and commercial ventures. Such control would extend to labor management relationships, business competition, and fair and equal access to capital and land. In spite of the fact that progressives view themselves as good and virtuous, they think that legal control of the “raw nature of man” should extend to economics and virtually all aspects of society and human interaction except sexuality and abortion. In their amoral view, the rest of humanity, including the religious, lacks virtue and sufficient intellect to control their “raw nature.” Since Biblical Christian intellect is clouded by a restrictive institutionalized moral code and outmoded view of human interactions and personal responsibility, our approach to controlling the “raw nature of Man” is not acceptable to progressives. This has been the view of philosophers on the left for at least two centuries.
Many on the left are members of various organized religious groups. Many of these groups are among what Christian conservatives term cultural Christianity. They often pick and choose what parts of the Bible they consider relevant today which contributes to the general amoral societal attitude. One prominent Democratic activist even stated that there should be a revolution in the Catholic Church because it was not sufficiently democratic. That is to say religion, Christianity, should become amoral and accept the current mores of society.
On the other hand, followers of Biblical Christianity understand that Christianity is a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior for the purpose of individually sharing the love of Christ and serving the world in Christ’s name. Christianity is not a social club or a business. Biblical Christians understand that God’s word expressed in the Bible is our guide for service and morality. Biblical Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said in the following statement:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfilled them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19, NIV).
The teachings and laws of Christianity do not change as cultural mores change. This is the major difference between Biblical Christianity and cultural Christianity. It is the difference between Christian morality and ethics and the amoral nature of society today.
In Biblical Christianity, the concept of repentance, turning away from a lifestyle and associates that lead to temptation and violation of God’s laws, becomes a natural act of love through Christ. When a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation, Jesus told her accusers that the one who is without sin should start the punishment of the woman. After her accusers all left, Jesus forgave her and admonished her to repent saying,
Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11b, NIV).
The woman did repent and soon became an important member of the early Christian church. Biblical Christians follow Christ and the teachings of His Word, the Bible.
Understanding that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior, many believe that the pace towards social and behavioral anarchy in our nation is increasing at an exponential rate. Mass media, telecommunications, the news media, pop music, the movie industry, the Internet, and social media all promote various levels of amoral, unethical, and unlawful behavior leading to many of the aspects of anarchy observed in our society today. Behavior that was once illegal is now legal. Language and Behavior that was once considered immoral is now accepted and commonplace. In addition, both our courts and the education system have condoned and in some cases promoted the increasing amoral nature of our culture. Moral relativism has become a hallmark of our culture, education system, and the legal system.
Progressives have long sought and promoted the decline in morality that is taking place in our country today. Two examples from the philosophical left include Marx and Bukharin. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, who wrote,
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord (p. 415).
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the philosophy behind legal education began to change in a similar manner. The concept that the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the original intent, was the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of statutes and the mention of God and Biblical precepts was eliminated as valid principles in understanding the law. Changes in the precepts and understanding of law started at the Harvard Law School and soon became the standard in the teaching and practice of law at all our universities and courts. The new amoral standard was that case law and precedent was more important than the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Two statements by legal scholars and jurists demonstrate this point. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating,
The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.
Approximately 50 years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice from 1902-1932, offered a similar view of the law stating,
[Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent or manifest tenor of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People and the legislative process.
It is my opinion, that increasing the incivility and coarseness of our culture was part of the progressive plan to change the United States of America. Our nation is becoming more and more amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchistic. The role of Biblical Christianity and the Biblical family which teaches individual responsibility and accountability is incompatible with the progressive vision for a global society and global wealth redistribution. Progressives have a plan and a vision for our country. They feel that they are patriots seeking the best future for the United States of America and the world.
Progressives prefer an amoral society devoid of deep Christian influence.
The founders of our nation also had a plan. Our two founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are the foundation of their plan. The 85 detailed essays on the Constitution known as The Federalist Papers were a commentary on the Constitution written in support of its ratification. Many conservatives feel that these three works delineate the best and brightest future for the United States of America and serve as a model for all who desire freedom for themselves and their country regardless of where they are in the world. We are also patriots.
The question is, which vision will prevail, the amoral progressive vision or the Founders’ vision? Every person in the United States of America has that critical choice to make in each and every election.
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 Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.
The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.
For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.
Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.
SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.
THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE. WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!
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.
An Amendment is a Constitution solution that would control judicial activism.
In my opinion, We the People are living under a flawed Constitution. The lack of provisions for the legislative and executive branches of the federal government to override or veto Federal Court decisions constitutes a flaw in our Constitution. We the People and the executive and legislative branches are at the unchecked mercy of the federal judiciary. The federal judiciary from the lower courts to the Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal government that is unrestricted by effective constitutional checks and balances. Similar situations occur regarding most of the high courts of the 50 states. Both state and federal courts have over ruled the votes of We the People regarding both referenda and state constitutional amendments. With increasing frequency over at last 100 years or more, our courts disregard the original intent or manifest tenor of Constitutions. These courts value court precedents and current cultural mores over the words, phraseology and construction, original intent or manifest tenor of the Constitutions or sections of the Constitutions involved. The absence of meaningful checks and balances on judiciary rulings demonstrates that we have a flawed Constitution. One argument for an unrestrained court system is to protect We the People from the tyranny of the majority. It seems to me, however, that the system currently constitutes the tyranny of the minority over We the People. Courts at all levels use legal precedents and current cultural mores to pick winners and losers regardless of what their respective Constitutions might say.
The Establishment Clause of Amendment I of the Constitution is only 16 words long. It has an establishment phrase, and a free exercise phrase. Supreme Court decisions regarding the place of religion in our society disregard the free exercise phrase. The Establishment Clause states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise (of religion) thereof . These decisions misuse the wall of separation, phrase found nowhere in the Constitution, taken from a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut written by Thomas Jefferson. In these types of decisions, the courts conveniently forget that Amendment I also prohibits laws, or court decisions, that restrict the free exercise (of religion) thereof…. Another example of our flawed Constitution is a group of decisions by our courts which disregard the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution involved eminent domain.
The lack of Supreme Court checks and balances resulting in our flawed Constitution was debated during the ratification process of the Constitution. The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power and endanger the freedom of We the People. Robert Yates pointed out the fact that we would have a flawed Constitution if ratified as written when he argued:
“The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.”
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, agreed with the Anti-federalists. After the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, giving the Supreme Court authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislative and signed by the executive branches. Jefferson disagreed with Marshall on four separate occasions. In 1815, Jefferson wrote to W. H. Torrance:
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
In an 1819 letter to Spencer Roane, Jefferson wrote,
“In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it (Constitution) has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Similarly, Jefferson wrote an 1820 letter to William C. Jarvis stating,
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Finally, in 1825 Jefferson wrote a letter to Edward Livingston where he stated,
“This member of the Government (Supreme Court) was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs (branches). But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
Jefferson was convinced that we have a flawed Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln expressed similar concerns about the potential for a flawed Constitution in his First Inaugural Address as follows:
I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Since the early 1900s, judicial activism, failure to make decisions regarding the constitutionality of law based on original intent and the manifest tenor of the Constitution, has become more and more common. Consequently, the dire warnings cited above by Robert Yates, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, were quite prophetic. We have a flawed Constitution.
Impeachment of federal judges is the only constitutional means for the legislative branch to exert checks and balances over the federal judiciary. In 1819, Jefferson described the impeachment remedy as follows:
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it (the Constitution) has provided is not even a scarecrow The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shift into any shape they please.
Therefore, the opinions of both federal judges at all levels and state judges demonstrate that the Constitutions are a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shift into any shape they please. Jefferson’s assessment of this check and balance on the judiciary accurately describes the behavior of our courts for at least the last 50 to 100 years demonstrating the nature of our flowed Constitution.
The main reason for this problem is that impeachment of judges is even more complicated than impeachment of other civil officers. The Constitution defines impeachment in Article II, Section 4, which states, The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The terms of service for the President, Vice President, Senators and Representatives are limited and specified by the Constitution. In contrast, federal judges serve for life as described in Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution which states,
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.
This Article adds the qualification during good behavior not used in either Article 1 or Article II of the Constitution which describe the qualifications and terms of service for the legislative and executive branches. The critical question regarding impeachment of federal judges hinges on the meaning of during good behavior. The Constitution provides no insight into this question. However, The Federalist Papers contain lengthy discussions of this matter exerted below. In The Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton wrote,
Judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior, which is certainly one of the most valuable of modern improvements in the practice of government. In a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.
The judiciary will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary… has no influence over either the sward or the purse.
The complete independence of the courts is essential in a limited constitution. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it 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.
Every act of a delegated authority (including decisions of the judiciary), contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.
Consequently, good behavior, described in Article III, Section 1, is court decisions that reflect the manifest tenor of the constitution. When judges make decisions contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution, they should be impeached under this concept of checks and balances on the power of the judiciary. Following this reasoning, such decisions would be included in the impeachable category of high crimes and misdemeanors. They are crimes against the will of WE THE PEOPLE expressed in the Constitution and the Amendments ratified by WE THE PEOPLE.
Defining the phrase, manifest tenor of the Constitution, is critical to answering the question, Is our Constitution flawed? The phrase manifest tenor has two parts. Manifest describes the detailed organization or construction and grammar of the Constitution. Manifest also includes the words (as defined at the time the Constitution was written), phrases, clauses (both dependent and independent), sentences, and paragraphs of each Article and Section of the Constitution. The order of appearance of words, phrases, clauses, etc. are relevant in discussions of the relationship between the meaning of manifest and the original intent of the Constitution. Tenor refers to the principle train of thought or idea that runs through each section and article of the Constitution.
During the process of ratifying the Constitution, both the Federalist and Anti-federalist often based their discussions on whether a clause of phrase in a particular part of the proposed Constitution was independent or dependent based on punctuation, grammar, and tenor of the overall part of the Constitution being debated. The Constitutional Convention had a committee on form and grammatical construction that presented the final, carefully written, Constitution draft to the Constitutional Convention. The manifest tenor of the Constitution was paramount in the draft they presented for approval.
Hamilton carefully discussed this expansion of impeachable offenses for the Federal Judiciary in The Federalist No. 81. First, he discussed the importance of the language of the Constitution when he wrote,
In the first place, there is not one syllable in the plan under consideration, which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution. I admit however, that the constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that whenever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the constitution.
Hamilton continued his discussion of impeachment of federal judges in The Federalist No. 81 as follows:
And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check, which the power of instituting impeachments, in one part of the legislative body (House of Representatives), and of determining upon them in the other (Senate), would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This alone is complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body (Legislative Branch) entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means (impeachment) of punishing their presumption by degrading (removing) them (judges) from their stations (the court).
Throughout the Constitutional history of the United States of America the legislative branch has failed to use the power of impeachment to control judges who do not base their opinions on the manifest tenor of the Constitution.
John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court served from 1801 to 1835. His, 1803, opinion in Marbury v. Madison gave the federal judiciary its first taste power over the legislative and executive branches regarding Constitutionality of laws. However, his carefully crafted opinion was strictly based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution. The opinion refers to the Constitution and the law under consideration within the context of manifest tenor of the Constitution.
Exerts from Marshall’s opinion (Marbury v Madison) demonstrating how the manifest tenor of the Constitution impacted his decision follow:
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body (the legislature). it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as congress might make, is no restriction; unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
(Any other) doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument (the Constitution) (Italics highlight references to the ‘manifest tenor of the Constitution’).
Marshall pointed to the judge’s oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution; and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the “Constitution” before the “laws of the United States affirming the importance of the manifest tenor of the Constitution.” Based on Marshall’s analysis, when judicial decisions are not based on the “manifest tenor of the Constitution,” we have a flawed Constitution.
The change in judicial philosophy from the concept that the manifest tenor of the Constitution should dictate judicial opinions, demonstrated by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, to the concept that precedent, previous judicial opinions, and the changing mores of societal behavior take precedent over the Constitution began in the middle of the nineteenth century. After the Enlightenment, the philosophical, scientific, and psychological works of Marx, Engels, Darwin, and Freud were rapidly embraced by the academic elite in the Western world. By 1870, Harvard University and the Harvard Law School fully embraced these concepts. Contrary to earlier teaching, references to God and Scripture, as well as Constitutional Original Intent were eliminated from legal education and the practice of law. The concept of case law to develop new doctrines and principles incrementally over time was also introduced at Harvard. The rest of the nation’s universities followed suit. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating,
The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.
Approximately 50 years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice from 1902-1932, offered a similar view of the law stating,
[Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent or manifest tenor of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People and the legislative process. The result is a flawed Constitution.
As a result of the changes in judicial philosophy since Marbury v. Madison, judges at all levels have misrepresented Marbury v. Madison in a way that allows them to ignore the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Current court opinions do not follow the model, for decisions based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution, provided by Marbury v Madison. In my opinion, the modern courts have totally disregarded the fact that Marshall’s opinion was based strictly on the manifest tenor of the Constitution providing little, if any, content that empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution.
Consequently, the judicial branch has gradually increased its power into what some consider an oligarchy. Judges claim to have the ability to construe the spirit of the Constitution when there is not one syllable in the constitution that gives the courts such power. The following Jefferson 1820 warning is relevant:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,
Indeed, Jefferson correctly described the situation in the United States of America today. Jefferson continued, his warning concerning our flawed Constitution,
Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps (the judiciary).
In a 1987 New York Times article titled, “Notes on Bicentennial,” the Bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention, by Stuart Taylor Jr., Taylor quoted Thurgood Marshall from a speech he gave in Hawaii where Marshall said the following:
“I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia convention…. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, the Civil War and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.”
Marshall discredited the Framers’ “foresight and sense of justice” when he disregarded the amendment process outlined in Article V as “foresight and sense of justice.” On the contrary, the Framers understood that change was inevitable and provided for a mechanism to update the Constitution. Progressives believe the Constitutional Amendment process is too cumbersome; and judges should just render decisions that change the “law” to match their idea of what “law” should be not what the constitution allows. Marshall’s condescending tone toward the Constitution’s Framers was amplified when he also said “nor would they have accepted… a woman and the descendant of an African slave” as Justices on the Supreme Court. Marshall’s disdain for the text of the Constitution and the the Framers “foresight and sense of justice” is typical for progressive judges at every level in our nation today.
The facts; that we now view judges as liberals, moderates, or conservatives; conduct vehement partisan arguments about conformation of judges in the Senate; and sight the party affiliation of the presidents nominating judges; validate Jefferson’s fears about judges, the federal courts at all levels, and state judicial systems. Indeed, George Washington, the Father of our Country and our first President, shared similar concerns about potential problems related to political parties in his farewell address to the nation.
It is my contention that the concept, of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments formulate the basis for governance in our country today, is a modern myth. Rather than holding up a copy of the Constitution claiming it as their guide for governance, politicians should drive a semi-truck full of judicial opinions into the venue where they are speaking, open the trailer doors, and point the piles of paper containing judicial opinions as their basis for governance. Under the current system, precedent, the opinion of judges, new societal mores, and new insights of judges into the meaning of our constitutions and bills of rights are now the basis of the rule of law in the United States of America and all 50 states. The actual constitutions are, in practice, almost meaningless.
The legislative branch of the federal government has failed to utilize the constitutional process of impeachment of federal judges who failed to rule on the constitutionality of law based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution provides no other remedy to protect We the People from the federal courts in this situation. Solving this problem would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Therefore, it is my opinion that,
“We the people of the United States of America live under a flawed constitution lacking executive or legislative checks or balances on judicial decisions in which judges no longer follow constitutional original intent in their rulings.”
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.
Within Biblical Christianity, the sanctity of life is an essential part of the belief system of each Christian who has a personal relationship with God through Christ. Consequently, Biblical Christians oppose abortion. Understanding the sanctity of life starts with the Sixth Commandment,
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13, NIV).
Murder is further defined in Exodus 21:12 & 14 as follows:
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my alter and put him to death (NIV).
Abortion is opposed by Biblical Christians since, according to Exodus 21:22-24, abortion is murder in God’s sight.
Exodus 21:13, describes what we call manslaughter today. It is not punishable by death. As described in Exodus, with the exception of manslaughter, murder is murder. Abortion is murder because God cherishes each individual life, at all stages.
God’s law provides equal protection for a baby in its mother’s womb just as it protects any other person. At fertilization, an egg becomes a genetically distinct person who can be genetically identified as a distinct human being not a cancer or parasite requiring elimination by abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 states
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely; If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (NIV).
Therefore, if a person takes the life of a baby in a mother’s womb by abortion, that person murdered the baby in the womb.
Finally, the Bible demonstrates that God has a plan for each individual before they are conceived. In Psalms 39:13-14 we read,
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well (NIV).
Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4, states,
The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I anointed you as a prophet to the nations (NIV).’
Most expectant Mothers experience reactions by their baby to outside stimuli. Shortly after Mary conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit, she went to visit her relative Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with her son, John the Baptist. Luke 1:41 & 44 follows:
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting the baby leaped in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Elizabeth told Mary) As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy (NIV).
God’s plan for each individual starts before conception and continues throughout their life.
God knows each individual before they are conceived through His creative process. How, then, can we, as a society or as an individual, terminate the life of a baby in the womb by abortion.
That baby was set apart and anointed for God’s purpose.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Progressive foreign policy is based on Marxist leftist ideology and begins with the premise that all property and wealth will eventually be held in common. Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. Contrary to the preferred progressive assertion that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences. The left plans with an evolutionary pace in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need wealth is distributed among all the people. In their vision, societal changes occur first regionally, then nationally, and finally globally. Preparation for the time, when the state withers away, begins with the first steps of wealth redistribution in each state or country.
Although no one on the Left overtly states that they support progressive foreign policy in which the state “withers away,” their speeches and actual policy actions are consistent with a “withered” state of the United States on the world stage. The philosophical underpinning of this claim is discussed in detail below.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx made the following statement regarding national sovereignty and Progressive foreign policy:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
Working men have no country.
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie (upper ruling class, land owners, and capitalists), to freedom of commerce, to the world market.
The supremacy of the proletariat (working class) will cause them (countries) to vanish still faster.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end (Emphasis added).
In A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, Engels is quoted describing the incremental nature of the abolition of nations as follows:
The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society “ the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society “ this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished.’ It withers away (p. 467).
Ultimately, the Left, Progressives, and Liberals, as Marxists, are content with the possibility that the United States of America could eventually wither away. The result would be a worldwide Dictatorship of the Proletariat or a border-less global political economic system where wealth will be distributed equally among all people.
In large Constitutional capitalist republics like the United States with strong economies, universal K-12 education, strong secondary education system, and globally significant military power, any progress towards the socialist state is incrementally slow. The left understands that several important influences of capitalistic and predominantly Judeo-Christian societies must be reduced, controlled, or when possible eliminated. In states like ours, the mindset or worldview of the vast majority of the population must be converted from a Biblical Christian and entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset to the socialist worldview.
To accomplish this goal in the United States, virtually every communications medium and major institutions in our culture become either tools or targets in the incremental march towards socialism envisioned by Marx. Two of the most important cultural influences are the Biblical Christian church and family. These two institutions teach and model the important relationship between the individual and God and personal responsibility. As already discussed, individualism is incompatible with implementation of the agenda of the left.
Since Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship from preschool to Ph.D. level programs. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society. Under these circumstances, each generation is closer to the time when the state withers away.
The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary defines state as a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign or possess supreme political power. For the state, including the United States of America, to wither away, the essential elements of state sovereignty related to domestic and foreign policy, must be whittled away.
Probably the most critical function of national sovereignty is national defense. Each of the last three Democrat presidencies, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, significantly reduced the national defense budget during their administration. These reductions included reduction in weapon system development, strategic weapons development, current weapon system procurement, and reductions in manpower. Cessation of ballistic missile defense systems and reductions in short range missile defense systems and deployment in Eastern Europe by the Obama administration have major consequences in light of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs, testing, and ballistic missile developments. In my opinion, the Clinton reduction in combat unit numbers increased both the number and duration of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of the previous reductions in military capabilities, our commanders are concerned about the United States military ability to fight wars on two fronts. As our military capacity decreases and the capacity of other nation states increases, the possibility that the United States withers away into a single global socialist society increases over time. This is the covert or stealth nature and philosophy of progressive foreign policy.
Border control and security, as well as, sound immigration policy and laws are essential for every state to maintain its sovereignty, heritage, and national identity. Border control and security also limits the flow of illegal commerce, drugs, and immigration and improves control of legal international trade. When illegal commerce and drug trade occurs, wealth is transferred to the countries of origin of the products and drugs. Similarly, international trade agreements that promote large trade deficits with much of the world constitute wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Every sovereign state has a national identity, heritage, culture, and legal system. The Founders understood the significance of this concept. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, eloquently stated this sentiment in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has in a particular manner blessed it (Independent America)for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Primarily Christianity with all its orders and denominations), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other….
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us.
In his Farewell Address, 1796, President George Washington, expressed similar sentiments when he wrote,
“The name American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
Washington’s farewell address also included a warning against the dangers of political parties and partisanship. His warning still has merit. Our Founders understood the importance of our country’s common Judeo-Christian heritage, independent entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry, shared enthusiasm about their future, and commitment to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution and the Constitutions of our first 13 states.
To the Founders unity of purpose was important to the future of the new nation. When immigration policy allows immigrants who do not believe that they should assimilate into the culture of their new country, immigration slowly degrades the unique character of any state. The unique nature of each state would be altered over time, and the state would become a mirror of the global population supporting progressive foreign policy. The process hastens preparation of the culture in each state to eventually wither away into a single global socialist society. For these reasons, leftist thinking encourages open borders, and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as part of their progressive foreign policy agenda. Consequently, our immigration policies should ensure that immigrants wishing to form enclaves and interject their own system of law and disparate codes of morality and behavior with respect to women and minorities should not be allowed to enter our country. Such beliefs are inconsistent with our Constitution and culture.
The Center for Immigration Studies, 1995, publication, Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act described the effect of immigration policy on culture and society of the United States. The publication starts as follows:
“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”
So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the (bill). The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today’s immigration law. Contrary to the president’s assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.
Progressive foreign policy promotes global weakness, porous borders, and immigration policies that dilute our unique cultural heritage and global national identity.
Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration as a component of progressive foreign policy. Prior to enactment of this law, immigration made up about 10% of annual population growth. After 25 years, immigration made up 39% of population growth. Prior to this law, about 70% of the immigrants were of European decent. In 25 years, about 40% of immigrants were Hispanic and Latin Americans, and 35% were Asians. Discounting millions of illegal immigrants, total immigration tripled. The increase was augmented by non-quota admissions and provisions for family reunification.
Finally, when leaders of a state, like the United States of America, fail to lead as they led in the past in international affairs, either diplomatically or militarily, that state’s power, prestige, and influence will wither away. Unfortunately, some withering occurred when the Bush Administration faltered in its response to Russian aggression in the country of Georgia. The Obama Administration stopped deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe when Russia complained or threatened retaliation with respect to the deployment. This administration failed to take any meaningful diplomatic or military steps when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and failed to make any significant steps toward ending Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. The Obama Administration failed to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq; and it failed to act when Syria used chemical weapons in its Civil War after a stern warning by President Obama. The Obama Administration also failed to take a leadership role that could have changed the Middle East during or shortly after the Arab Spring, including failure to support dissidents in Iran. The administration also chose to lead from behind rather than lead the overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya or insuring that Libya was stable after the overthrow. China is building and militarizing islands in international waters with no apparent or meaningful actions by the Obama Administration. In the administrative action resulting in Iranian nuclear weapons program restrictions, the Obama Administration apparently negotiated from a position of weakness. Secret side monetary, banking, and facility inspection agreements, demonstrate this weakness. Finally, the Obama Administration demonstrated its weakness by allowing the Russian military, including its Air Force, to support the Asad regime in the Syrian Civil War. These actions all contributed the “withering” effects of progressive foreign policy.
In my opinion, whether intentional or not, President Obama’s progressive foreign policy activities have allowed the power, prestige, and influence, of the United States to wither away internationally, as Marx predicted. The actions of the Obama Administration serve as a prime example of the ways that the reality of the progressive agenda and progressive foreign policy are part of the incremental manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented on a global scale.
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.
Contrary to popular conservative thought, in the United States, our progressive domestic policy is a practical reality. Marxism, the philosophical basis for progressive ideology, is a social theory asserting that all property and wealth will be held in common, and as Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, asserted that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences and incorporated into a great deal of our domestic and foreign policy practices.
Pragmatic efforts to hasten evolution toward the global society envisioned by Marxists began in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Following publication of The Communist Manifesto and Origin of Species, the concepts of atheism, and both societal and biological evolution became more widely embraced by academicians in the United States and the world. Liberal and progressive scholars began to dominate the social science faculties of most universities in the United States. This was particularly true in mass communication disciplines such as journalism, liberal arts and social sciences including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, performing and visual arts, economics, and law.
By 1870, Harvard University and the Harvard Law School fully embraced these concepts. Contrary to earlier teaching, references to God and Scripture, as well as Constitutional Original Intent were eliminated from legal education and the practice of law. The concept of case law to develop new doctrines and principles incrementally over time was also introduced at Harvard. The rest of the nation’s universities followed suit. 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.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People, and the legislative process. In many instances, liberals and progressives have used both Federal and State Courts to accomplish their progressive social objectives when We the People do not support their proposals. The United States Supreme Court decision, in favor of same sex-marriage opposed by We the People in numerous state referenda, is a prime example. In my opinion, many Federal Court decisions have been aided by incorrect application of the Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison decision. Court decisions of this type make progressive domestic policy the law of the land. In my view, such decisions are inconsistent with judicial good behavior.
Much of our progressive domestic policy is already Marxist.
In the United States, liberals and progressives in the Democrat Party and moderate or liberal Republicans have introduced and passed legislation, and developed progressive domestic policy positions and programs that individually and collectively quicken the pace at which wealth is spread among all people in our country and eventually the world. The goal is that each state, including the United States of America, eventually withers away. Wars, depressions, recessions, and periods of substantial economic growth cause ebbs and flows in progress toward the world they envision.
The section, of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists, provides strategic details for incremental progressive domestic policy initiatives that gradually eliminate capitalism and private property. Marx wrote,
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries (like the United States) the following will be pretty generally applicable:
“Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (All added parenthetical remarks in this section describe existing progressive domestic policy . Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, limit uses of private lands regarding mineral and petroleum extraction, forestry, range and grazing management, agricultural practices crop choices and subsidies, and watershed management. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses made on private property. Each of these limitations restricts the way private property can be used, increases production costs, and in land uses related to energy, mineral extraction, and agriculture increases fixed living costs for citizens. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competitiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries moved offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
(In the United States the concept of progressive taxation is now ingrained in our political and economic discourse.)
“Abolition of all right of inheritance.”
(In the United States, gradually increasing death or inheritance taxes are incrementally moving toward abolition of the right of inheritance. The progressive purpose of these taxes is to instill the idea that abolition of all right of inheritance is one of the ways for the rich to pay their fair share in the progressive plan to redistribute wealth from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need.)
“Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”
“Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”(The United States Federal Reserve Bank controls interest rates, the amount of currency in circulation, and federal laws place strict controls on the banking and securities industries. However, the government does not control the flow of capital with an exclusive government monopoly.)
“Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”(Many large metropolitan areas in the United States have government owned mass transit train and bus systems. Many politicians are proposing high-speed train systems funded and operated by either state or federal governments.)
“Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”(Although Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, do not constitute state ownership of factories and instruments of production they do constitute state control of factories and instruments of production. Air and water pollution regulations often limit the type and/or size of industrial plants built on private property and emission levels for carbon fuel engines. These regulations ensure clean air and water. The issue is that technology allows pollutant detection at increasingly lower contamination levels, and thus, more stringent regulations are mandated, even when the requirements are below safe limits. The result is increased costs that can make the industry products too expensive to be economical. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses of factories and instruments of production on private property. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries must move offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“Equal liability of all labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”(Local, state, and federal minimum wage laws and proposals supporting mandated profit sharing incrementally promote the idea of equal liability of all labour. During the formative years of the labor movement, communists and socialists played major roles organizing workers, gaining recognition and legal status for unions, and securing higher wages and better benefits for union membership. Unions have made great strides toward Equal liability of all labour. The high cost of labor in the United States caused many of our industries to move overseas or fail because they were unable to compete in the global market against competitors with lower labor costs. In the United States, unions have strong support from the political left.)
“Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”
“Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.” (In the United States, progressives have established an educational dictatorship. Socialists and progressives in the Democrat Party are proposing free or highly subsidized secondary education for all or at least families below a threshold income level. This is an expansion of government-sponsored loan programs and progressive style wealth redistribution. Abolition of children’s factory labor was a goal that should have been supported by all. Children’s factory labor was abhorrent and a blot on capitalism. The fact that Marx added the qualifier, in its present form, is a blot on Marxist philosophy. ).
Free education for all children has been promoted in our country since colonial days. Sound agricultural and renewable natural resource practices have been promoted for at least 150 years. Both are essential for a flourishing, capitalistic, constitutional republic like the United States of America.
The left, regardless of the terms used to describe their ideology, Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, moderate Democrat or liberal Republican, follows a specific societal plan to incrementally or evolutionarily change and the world into the global economy envisioned by Marx. The left thinks and plans in evolutionary terms and is secure with an evolutionary pace, at least 170 years, in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth is distributed among all the people. Once progressive domestic policy normalizes wealth redistribution in most countries, the left will turn to their final goal for foreign policy. The left, Marxists, will turn to formulating policies that cause states or countries, including United States of America, to “wither away.”
