Democrat crime syndicates prevail at the national, state, and local levels where the Democrat Party controls government. Discussion of and support for this statement requires the definition of crime, criminal, illegal, syndicate, and alien from the Merrium-Webster on-line dictionary. Crime is defined as “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government; criminal activity; a grave offense… against morality; [or] something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful.” The adjective criminal is defined as “relating to, involving, or being a crime; relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime; [or] guilty of crime.” As a noun criminal is defined as “one who has committed a crime; [or] a person who has been convicted of a crime.” As an adjective, Illegal is defined as “not according to or authorized by law.” The relevant meanings of syndicate are defined as “a group of persons or concerns who combine to carry out a particular transaction or project; [and] a loose association of racketeers in control of organized crime….” The relevant meaning of alien as an adjective is, “relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government;” and as a noun, “a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country.” In my opinion, these five words aptly describe the actions of Democrat Party controlled national, state, and local governments.
In addition to defining several of the terms used in this discussion, a couple sections of U.S. Code regarding immigration will help clarify this discussion. U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Section 1101, (a) (3) – Definitions; states, “The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” Section 1101 (a) (13) states, “The terms “admission” and “admitted” mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” The term “illegal” does not appear as a term defined in this section of the U.S. Code. U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325, (a) – Improper entry by alien; states.
“IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE; AVOIDANCE OF EXAMINATION OR INSPECTION; MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS. Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall… be fined… or imprisoned….”
For “We the People,” this statute fails to describe the real legal nature of the statute’s meaning concerning violations of the statue.
When an “improper” act exposes the violator to fines and or imprisonment, the violator has committed an illegal act not an “improper” act. Merrium-Webster’s on-line dictionary for the definition of “improper” requires at least two steps to get to a word that describes any relationship to an act subject to fines and imprisonment, an illegal act. The steps are “improper,” the link to “incorrect,” and the link to “wrong.” Wrong is defined in part as, “an injurious, unfair, or unjust act; action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause; and a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another [in this case the United States].” In addition, the word illegal does not yet appear as a synonym for any of these words. In contrast, the Merrium-Webster on-line dictionary defines the noun “illegal” as “not according to or authorized by law; [and] a person who enters or lives in a country without the documentation required for legal entry.” It is obvious, in my opinion, that the statute should start with “ILLEGAL TIME OR PLACE…” not “IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE….” In this regard, the statue deliberately avoided the term “illegal” because the progressive authors of the statute did not want “improper” aliens to have their first act when entering the United States to be defined as an illegal act. However, entries into the United Stares described in this statue are illegal acts by any definition that “We the People” would use to describe any other act punishable by fines and or imprisonment. People who enter the United States in violation of this statute are “illegal aliens” where “We the People” are concerned.
Where border security and immigration are concerned, Democrat Party controlled national, state, and local governments act as Democrat crime syndicates, in my opinion. When sanctuary laws or rules are established by state and local governments and the national government recognizes the sanctuary status of these governments, all three levels of government combine to act as Democrat crime syndicates. They are “a group of persons or concerns who combine to carry out a particular transaction or project [illegal immigration]; [and] a loose association of racketeers [government entities] in control of [the] organized crime [of illegal immigration]….” The combination of sanctuary government entities and the “open border” policies of the current Democrat Presidential administration enhances the idea that Democrat crime syndicates control border policy and immigration in our nation.
This invasion of illegal aliens is part of a long-term population transformation designed to change the demographics of our nation and increase the political power and influence of the Democrat Party. The most recent data shows that foreign-born workers are getting most of the jobs while native-born American employment is declining. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not distinguish between legal and illegal foreign-born workers but admits their data likely includes illegal immigrants. The chart below shows that the number of foreign-born members of the work force has increased at a greater rate than native born workers under the Biden Administration. This is highly correlated to the acceleration in illegal immigration. Since the current administration allow illegal aliens to be counted in the census, illegals increase the population count which increases representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and Electors in the Electoral college during Presidential elections increasing Democrat Party power over time.
Unfortunately, the open border and invasion of illegal aliens also allows for the potential of criminal, terrorist, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) operatives to enter our nation. Bethany Blankley’s on-line article, “Illegal border crossers total over 10 million since Biden inauguration,” demonstrates the magnitude of illegal alien border crossings during the Biden administration as follows:
“The number of people illegally entering the country surged after Biden and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas halted many preexisting border security policies, advanced sweeping parole and other policies to release the greatest number of illegal foreign nationals into the country, encouraged people from all over the world to use a phone app to enter the U.S., and facilitated U.S. entry application processes in foreign countries, among others.
Official U.S. Customs and Border Protection data includes 3,201,144 apprehensions in fiscal 2023; 2,766,582 in fiscal 2022; 1,956,519 in fiscal 2021; and 471,954 in the nine months Biden was in office in fiscal 2020. Combined, official apprehensions total 8,396,199.
They exclude gotaway data… obtained from a Border Patrol agent who provides it and other information on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation….
In fiscal 2021, there were at least 308,655 known, reported gotaways; in fiscal 2022, 606,150 were reported. According to preliminary data obtained by The Center Square, Border Patrol agents reported at least 769,174 gotaways at the southwest border alone….
However, even those are considered a best estimate because they exclude unknown and unreported gotaways…. Law enforcement officials have said they have no idea how many gotaways there are in the U.S., or who or where they are….
Since January 2021, total illegal border crossers apprehended nationwide were 8,396,198. Combined with at least 1,678,979 gotaways, the number increases to over 10 million (at least 10,075,177)….
Among them are 1,586 known, suspected terrorists (KSTs) who were apprehended in fiscal years 2020-2023….
They also apprehended the greatest number of criminal noncitizens in U.S. history, totaling nearly 50,000. This number excludes the tens of thousands of criminal noncitizens arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and an unknown number arrested by local and state law enforcement officers.”
According to the above data, 0.6% of the illegal aliens apprehended by Border Patrol were known terrorists or criminals which means that at least 10,200 known “gotaways” were probably terrorists or criminals. However, the “gotaways” who got away did not want to be caught because they were probably terrorists or criminals. Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that most, not 0.6% but conservatively 50% or 850,000 of the “gotaways” were terrorists or criminals. Consequently, the Biden administration “[combined] to carry out a particular transaction or project [illegal immigration]… [with] a loose association of… organized [criminals]….” making this administration one of many Democrat crime syndicates operating in the United States today.
This activity indirectly supports and finances Mexican cartel activities in both the United States and Mexico. In Mexico, cartels control the flow of illegal aliens to our southern border, manufacture of illegal drugs including fentanyl, movement of these drugs throughout Mexico and the United States, human trafficking, prostitution, and other cartel activities in both nations. In addition, the illegal activities of Chinese Triad criminal organization’s human trafficking, prostitution, and illegal marijuana operation labor supplies and distribution of the illegal marijuana are facilitated by our open borders and failure to enforce immigration laws. During the Biden Administration, over 20,000 Chinese illegal aliens, mostly military aged men, have crossed our Southern border. These Chinese men were allowed to leave China with the approval, and probably support, of the CCP. Consequently, the collusion between Democrat Party led national, state, and local governments regarding the invasion of the United States by illegal aliens, including Mexican cartel, Central and South American gangs, Chinese Triad gang members, illegal drug and marijuana manufacture and sales, and human trafficking fits the definition of Democrat crime syndicates.
Where the Democrat Party controls state and local governments, prosecutors, and the judiciary, Democrat crime syndicates are generally the rule. In states or localities, like California, that allow ballot initiatives to institute changes to the law both the government and the voters collude to form Democrat crime syndicates. In these jurisdictions, governors, legislatures, mayors, county and city commissions, etc., reduce many “non-violent” felonies to misdemeanors, reduce or eliminate bail requirements for many crimes, including some violent assaults, drastically increase the value of theft crimes qualifying as felonies, and eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing and fines for many categories of crime. In addition, many Democrat prosecutors refuse to prosecute cases allowing perpetrators to go free and uncharged. Actions of this nature result in crime statistics that show reductions in criminal activity.
“We the People” generally consider “squatters” as criminals. Unfortunately, most Democrat Party controlled jurisdictions consider “squatters” as violators of civil rather than criminal law. Consequently, “squatters” are categorized as renters not trespassers and given the same rights as actual tenants. Owners must pursue eviction in civil courts which can take months or years, and hundreds to thousands of dollars in legal fees, to remove the “squatters” from their property. Unfortunately, “squatters” often have no regard for the place where they “squat” causing hundreds even thousands of dollars in damage to the property. Often, “squatters” turn the property into illegal drug distribution centers, human trafficking distribution centers, or houses of prostitution. On the other hand, if the will of most of “We the People” in the United States was reflected in new landlord tenant laws, “squatters” would be treated as the criminal trespassers that they are, removed expeditiously as criminals, and fined or imprisoned appropriately. Therefore, such local and state governments controlled by the Democrat Party “[combine] to carry out a particular transaction or project [“squatter’s” rights]… [with] a loose association of… organized [criminal “squatters”]” making these jurisdictions Democrat crime syndicates.
Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is more puzzling to me than Black allegiance to Democrats. As a person who lived in New Mexico twice in my life totaling 30 years, my insight regarding Hispanics comes from personal experience and relationships. Hispanics are predominately Catholic and support traditional Christian values, including the traditional Christian family composed of a father, mother, and their children, the sanctity of life including the unborn, a quality education, hard work, and the value of the individual in the sight of God. Many own small businesses. Since the Democrat Party no longer supports traditional values, small and medium size businesses, and individualism, Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is puzzling to me.
Two recent South Texas Republican primaries and a special election demonstrate, Hispanics may be turning to the Republican Party. Mayra Flores flipped a 100-year Democrat House seat when she won a special election in June 2022. She will have to run again in November 2022. In two other Rio Grande Valley Republican primaries, Monica De La Cruz won outright, and Cassy Garcia was the highest vote getter and leads in polls for the May runoff. The winner will run against incumbent Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar. In a Virginia Republican House primary, Yesli Vega, won the party nomination. Vega said of Hispanics, “They are hard workers, and many have fled their native countries to come here to America to seek better opportunities not just for themselves, but for their children, for their families. Some folks have escaped socialism. These four Hispanic women clearly show a potentially seismic Hispanic shift from Democrat to Republican, especially if they all were to win seats in the US. House in November. Hispanics may be realizing that today’s Democrat Party with its near total rejection of traditional values and conservativism, no longer represents the values traditionally held by many Hispanics. Many are questioning Hispanic allegiance to Democrats and taking a closer look at the Republican Party.
Democrats Should be concerned about the Hispanic vote in 2022 and beyond.
Is Hispanic Allegiance to Democrats Justified?
Heritage
Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is complicated by heritage. Many Hispanics in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California trace their heritage to Spanish settlers who lived in these areas before British settlers came to the thirteen colonies. New Mexico serves as a good example of this complexity. My Albuquerque New Mexico boyhood next door neighbor and friend’s mother came from the poor side of the Baca Spanish Land Grant family of central New Mexico. She, like many New Mexico Hispanics, call themselves Spanish not Mexican because of their lineage. Spanish explorers led by General Francisco de Coronado searched for the Seven Golden Cities from 1540 to 1542.They looked for these cities in what are now Arizona, discovering the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, the Colorado plateau, wintered along the Rio Grande River between today’s Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, moved their base camp to Palo Duro Canyon in Texas, and sent an expedition north to Kansas. The expedition was considered a failure because there were no Seven Golden Cities or riches. Spanish explorers were in today’s Southwestern United States 67 years before James Town was founded. Over the next 165 years Spanish settlers moved into the Rio Grande River valley and other river valleys of New Mexico.
Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded in 1606 by Spanish settlers one year before James Town was founded. Santa Fe became the Spanish territorial Capital of Nuevo Mexico in1610, 10 years before the Pilgrims landed on American soil. Santa Fe is the oldest capital in the United States. Albuquerque, currently New Mexico’s largest city, was founded along the Rio Grande River in 1706. In addition to Spanish Land Grants, Spain granted water rights to Land Grant owners and communities that are legal today. Consequently, many New Mexicans trace their lineage to sixteenth century Spanish families who lived in their state before the Pilgrims landed.
Another example of the complicated history of New Mexico Hispanics is the fact that many have Jewish heritage. The people of the Spanish Empire were threatened by the Spanish inquisition from 1478-1834. For centuries before 1400, the Jewish community in Spain flourished and grew despite periods of severe anti-Semitism. During the fifteenth century, Spanish Jews fell into three categories, converts to Christianity and those who refused to convert, and professed converts who practiced Judaism in secret perceived by the monarchy and inquisition as their greatest Jewish threat. All were persecuted. During the peak of the inquisition,160,000 Jews accepted exile from Spain rather than convert to Christianity in 1492. The inquisition also spread to the larger Spanish American colonies of Mexico and Peru. As New Mexico was colonized by Spain many of the most remote, isolated, and secluded Hispanic enclaves and small communities were founded by Spanish Jews fleeing the inquisition. These communities tried to hide from colonial leaders; and when they were discovered, many Jews feigned Catholicism and continued their secret practice of Judaism like many of their ancestors had done in Spain. These Jews tried to hide due to the brutality of the inquisitors fearing torture and death. The brutality of the Spanish inquisition finally ended in1834 in the empire.
Although most New Mexico, Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism over the centuries. Many families maintained some Jewish traditions. For example, several years ago, an Albuquerque, television news program aired an Easter Passover segment with a Catholic Priest of Jewish decent. He recounted his annual pilgrimage to a well-hidden grotto in the state. He said that the Ten Commandments were carved in Hebrew in the rock at the back of the grotto. He said that he was a faithful Priest, but made the annual plumage to honor the Jewish part of his heritage. Obviously, Hispanic allegiance to Democrats is influenced by heritage.
Immigration
There are now two significant groups of Hispanic immigrants in Florida. The large Cuban population of south Florida. Cuban Americans, or their parents, fled Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba for freedom and opportunity in the United States. Another group of Hispanic immigrants to Florida are the Venezuelans who fled that county’s socialist dictatorship. Both groups have little patience for the socialist tendencies and progressive social values of Democrats. As a solid Republican voting bloc, these Hispanics are an exception to Hispanic allegiance to Democrats.
Despite supporter denials, the 1965 Immigration Act transformed the ethnic and racial demographics of the United States since the act was passed. The chart below demonstrates how the immigration act changed the racial and ethnic make-up of the U.S. population. The Black proportion has remained stable at around 12%. The Hispanic population has almost tripled from 6.4% to 18.7%. In 1980, the Hispanic population was about half the size of the Black population. The Hispanic population is now 55% greater than the Black population. The Asian population has also increased from 0.2% to5.9%, a 30-fold increase. The only group that has declined during this period is the White population which has decreased from79.4% to 57.8%, a 37% decrease. The effect of illegal immigration on this population and demographic data could not be determined.
The attitudes of many Hispanics about the United States, America, and immigration may surprise many. For example, during a late twentieth century discussion with a Hispanic rancher and landowner in Northeast New Mexico about the business of ranching, illegal immigration came up. The Hispanic rancher disdainfully called illegals, wetbacks referring to illegals wherever they crossed our border regardless of their race or ethnicity. Hispanics whose families have lived in what is now the United States for centuries and those who immigrated legally probably have a different attitude toward illegal immigration than many non-Hispanics. Probably, the 2020 census vastly under counted the number of Hispanics because illegals feared participation in the census. Democrats seek a path to citizenship for illegal Hispanics because this group is seen as potential Democratic voters. Hispanics citizens living in Southern border states adversely impacted by illegal immigration are questioning their Hispanic allegiance to Democrats.
Education
Hispanics, like most Americans, are dissatisfied with public education in their communities. Covid19 school lockouts and remote learning affected Hispanic students, like most minorities, more dramatically than White students. Many Hispanics object to their children being subjected to Critical Race Theory, CRT, Critical Gender Theory, CGT, and Queer Theory, QT, in the public schools their student attend. The time spent on these topics robs them of the time that should be spent on core curricula. This issue is confirmed by a 2017, Pew Research Center article by Drew Desilver, U.S. academic achievement lags that of many other countries which is discouraging. Fifteen-year-old U.S. students rank 24th in science and reading, and 38th in mathematics, compared to students in other countries of the world. The 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, sometimes called the national report card, for reading and math. The chart below shows the education gap between Hispanic (Green), Black (Orange) , and White (Blue) students. The scores are on a 500-point scale.
All U.S. students are below 300, Moderately Complex Procedures and Reasoning. The White students are at the Numerical Operations and Beginning Problem Solving level, 50% of the top score and well below the rest of the World. No parent, including Hispanics, should be satisfied with public education in the United States today. New Mexico is a majority Hispanic state which has been controlled by Democrats since 1932, 90 years, ranks 50th in quality of Education, with a high school graduation rate of only 74%.
Marxist progressives, who control our public schools have controlled curriculum designed to fundamentally change our nation. The Miseducation of America by David Goodwin, President of the Association of Classical and Christian Schools, is a review of the Fox Nation series, The Miseducation of America. Goodwin observes that progressives started their transformation of American education in 1907 with the Gary Plan. The progressive goal was complete removal Christianity and traditional values from Americ’s schools and elimination of Americ’s Christian identity. This identify perpetuated the Western Christian, Judeo-Christian values, the idea that men, all people, should be educated to be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of both the body and mind is important. Goodwin describes the conflict between the progressive vision and the Christian vision for America as follows:
The progressive narrative tells us that our civilization today is the result of human progress over time, and now that science rules the day, they can improve civilization even further if given enough power and control¦. [The] Christian narrative teaches something else. Our present culture and civilization will remain great only insofar as it aligns with Truth. Because Truth is fixed and unchanging, we should guard our society from influences that conflict with it, and we should strive to pursue Truth¦. The Progressives at the turn of the 20th century knew what they were up against. As long as the Western Christian philosophy defined our culture and civilization, the progressive agenda would be limited¦. Progressive philosophies, such as Critical Theory, Marxism, and the influence of the Frankfurt School, dominate education. Today, our schools are far from the engine of freedom that classical Christian education once was.
The progressive thinkers behind this plan were, and still are, primarily atheistic Marxists who used Frankfurt School concepts of critical theory to challenge all aspects of Western civilization, Biblical Christianity, and capitalism. In the late 1960’s, Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt School critical theorist and Father of the new left, observed that a propaganda based educational dictatorship would be required before radical Marxist change could occur in Western Europe and the United States. Marcuse determined that working class labors were no longer a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in western society and culture. Consequently, he identified anti-capitalists, radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, exploited, persecuted outcasts and outsiders of ethnic minorities, people of color, the unemployed, and the unemployable as trainable revolutionaries. Ethnic and gender study programs were established in most universities to train the envisioned revolutionaries. CRT, CGT, and QT, were, and still are, useful tools for these revolutionaries. The educators trained for this transformation of our nation now teach our children, including Hispanics, from Preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP. The Democrat Party supports state departments of education, school boards, and teachers’ unions promoting social indoctrination curricula that take time from teaching reading, science, and math. Consequently, Democrats are failing to properly educate our children, including Hispanic students. The question is, Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified.
Poverty
In his 2020 United States Census Bureau article, Poverty Rates for Blacks and Hispanics Reached Historic Lows in 2019, John Creamer observed that the poverty rate for the United States was 10.5%, the lowest since 1959. Poverty declined rapidly between 2017 and 2019 for all race and ethnic groups, especially Hispanics and Blacks. In 2019, the poverty rate for Blacks was 18.8%; and for Hispanics, it was 15.7%, both historic lows, but double the rate for Whites.
Household income for these two groups also increased more rapidly between 2018 and 2019 but remained $20,000 below White household income. Poverty in the general Hispanic community has been a problem for 70 years primarily in large metropolitan areas controlled by Democrats who have failed to solve this problem. In New Mexico, controlled by Democrats almost entirely since 1932, economic growth and poverty are major issues. The state ranks 40th in per capita consumption, 48th in per carta disposable income, and 43rd in teen pregnancy rate which usually corresponds with single female parent families. Fatherless families are a major contributor to poverty. Since Democrats have been unable to relieve Hispanic poverty, is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified?
Crime
Poverty is also corelated with crime. According to the 2015 article, Latino Populations and Crime in America by Idelisse Malave and Esti Giordani, 22% of inmates in federal, state, and local prisons/jails are Hispanic. Information on Hispanic crime is hard to find because the FBI has not collected data over the years by ethnicity. This is unfortunate since Hispanics make up about 19% of the U.S. population with a large share of children under eighteen. In California and Texas, two states with large Hispanic populations that do track ethnicity, Hispanic felony and misdemeanor arrests were 40% and 36%, respectively. Nine out of ten Hispanic federal offenders were convicted of one of two offenses: immigration and/or drug trafficking related crimes. Hispanics account for almost half (46%) of all documented gang members in the United States. Around 16% of Hispanic prisoners under state jurisdiction were convicted of drug related crimes. Hispanics accounted for over 45% of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) federal arrests and convictions in federal court. Surprisingly, the authors reported that despite the high numbers of documented Hispanic gang members, only 3% of young Hispanics aged sixteen to twenty-five said that they are now or have ever been in a gang. In contrast, the authors also reported that about 25% of second-generation youth have been convicted of committing a crime, compared to 17% of immigrant Hispanic youth. The charts below provide an interesting story about crime victims. 44% of Hispanic victims are Hispanic; 48% are White. Similarly, 35% of Black victims are Black; 50% are White. In contrast, 88% of White victims are White; only 2.4% of White victims are black, and 8.2% are Hispanic. Sadly, Hispanic on Hispanic crime is worse than Black on Black crime.
Hispanics have a different view of Law enforcement than African Americans according to the authors of this article, when they wrote:
Surprisingly, Hispanic communities, living within walking distance of crime and drugs, and with residents frequently stopped and questioned by local and federal law enforcement, still have confidence in this justice system. Many Hispanics believe that law enforcement officers actually do a good job of protecting them and that the courts treat them fairly. As more and more data surfaces, will their confidence erode?
Education, poverty, and crime all have an interrelated impact on the quality of life and opportunities afforded residents of every community including the greater Hispanic community. In states with large metropolitan areas controlled by Democrats, Democrats often control state governments as well. In some instances, Democrats have been in control for 70 to 100 years or more. Has education, poverty levels, or crime rates improved under the thumb of Democrats? If the answer is no, then it is reasonable to ask this question, Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still justified?
The Assault on Hispanic Culture
As an outsider, the assault on Hispanic culture and society seems to contribute to many of the issues adversely affecting Hispanics. From my perspective, asking pointed questions designed to promote critical thinking and dialog, is the least provocative way to approach the issues. First, Does the progressive assault, on traditional values, morality, and ethics in the overall American culture and society, contribute to Hispanic issues related to education and the noted racial and ethnic disparities in education, poverty and fatherlessness, healthcare, and crime? The answer to problems related to these issues is a resounding yes for both Whites and Hispanics; but Why?
The answer lies in the Frankfurt School’s application of critical theory to move people and cultures to accept atheistic Marxist progressive ideology as the bases of governance and society. Critical theory uses every academic discipline and most aspects of our culture to promote the revolutionary, transformational change they envision for the United States. Three of the most important disciplines used by critical theorists to accomplish their goals are psychiatry, psychology, and sociology. Research projects are developed and statistically designed by researchers in these disciplines to support the tenants of critical race theory, critical gender theory, Queer Theory, and attack Christianity, traditional values, and our system of governance.
Elimination of Christianity and our traditional Judeo-Christian values as major influences on American culture and society, is the primary goal of Marxist progressives. In my opinion, progressives oppose Christianity for several reasons. First, both Judaism and Christianity teach that each individual is important to God; and individualism is an anathema to Marxists since their success depends of the individual’s subjugation to the collective. Consequently, the individual is worthless compared to the value of the collective. In contrast, Biblical Christianity teaches that the individual has infinite value because God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV). The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs “ heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:16-17 NIV).
As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. Marxist philosophers have expressed their disdain for the role of Christianity in promoting the individual. Ludwig Feuerbach wrote,
Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism¦. The essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man¦. [In the relationship between] ‘I and Thou,’ [Christ had become] ‘Thou.’ [Religion was misdirected].
Engels observed that the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly, the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.
The second reason progressives oppose Christianity is the relationship between the Christian Church and traditional Christian family to the nurture and training of each generation of Christian individuals. Evangelism, conversion of non-Christians, is a primary task of Christian churches and individuals. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God. While discussing the church and religion in The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote, Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience. In A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Nikolai Bukharin wrote, religion [especially Christianity] must be opposed actively [since it would take too long for it to] die out of its own accord.
The traditional Christian family with a father, mother, and their children is another reason progressives oppose Christianity. The Christian family serves the same basic function as the Christian church with the primary emphasis on their children. This family model does not fit the preferred progressive family model. It is both hierarchical and patriarchal, an anathema to LGBTQ+ activists and social Marxists. Marxist, progressive opposition to the traditional family is clear. In TheCommunist Manifesto, Marx wrote:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois (ruling class, landowners, and capitalists) family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
In The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, Robert Briffault observed that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future family is not traditional. He concluded:
¦The expectation that the decay of the patriarchal family as a result of the serious crisis of the individualistic, competitive economy would increase, and that a society no longer characterized by competitiveness would be able finally to release social emotions which went beyond the narrow and distorting circle of family.
Friedrich Engels viewed the Bourgeois, traditional Biblical family, as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution. Michele Barrett defined family as simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household. This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Christian family in relation to raising strong Christian individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
Thirdly, progressives oppose Christianity because of the relationship between individualism and capitalism. They understand that Christianity produces individuals who are confident, self-reliant, well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality,potential capitalists and entrepreneurs. Progressives know that virtually every major corporation was founded by one or a few individuals who had confidence in our Constitutional, capitalistic, economic system to risk starting their business. Since Marxist progressives oppose capitalism, Christianity must be opposed and every level. A fact that most progressives refuse to admit.
The cultural weapons used by progressive Critical Theorists to deliver their ideas to the people of the United States for this assault traditional values include the news media, movie industry, music, television, advertising, fashion, and literature. Movies, television, music, and literature routinely portray extra-marital sex, including bi-sexual and homosexual characters, and unmarried co-habitation as acceptable. The behavior occurs in most prime-time television programming and advertisements viewed by our children. On these venues, children are exposed to hundreds of violent acts each year. Although criminals usually suffer consequences for crime in hourly dramas, seasons long series like the Sopranos and Empire depict the lavish wealth potentially generated by crime and drug empires. The events portrayed tell children that non-traditional sex and families are acceptable, and carefully done, crime pays.
Democrats have moved to the far progressive left. Democrats support open borders and illegal immigration, education that is failing Hispanic and other minority students who suffer the most, programs that fail to improve the economic wellbeing or reduce poverty of Hispanics and most minorities, defunding police leaving Hispanic neighborhoods less protected, criminal justice reform that returns criminals to the streets almost immediately without real punishment, and an assault on traditional values important to Hispanics. With all that Democrats do for Hispanics. Is Hispanic allegiance to Democrats still Justified?
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Many considered the 1965 Immigration Act to be an extension of the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the Johnson Administration granting immigration civil rights to the world by eliminating regional quotas, a major population transformation. Although some Republicans supported the 1965 Immigration Act in its initial form, the Democrat Party promoted the bill in the legislature giving assurances that the bill would not adversely influence our nation, economy, and culture. As this discussion will show, that claim was utterly false; and the Democrat Party knew it. When he signed the bill into law, President Lyndon Johnson said, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with immigrants. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [The bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) testified that Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” In an October 4, 1965 article on the immigration bill, The Washington Post author wrote,
“The most important change [is that] preference categories give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.”
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), testified as follows: “The preferences established by this proposal are not entirely dissimilar from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” With hindsight as twenty-twenty, it seems fair to ask whether the supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act were actually honest about their claims that the new immigration policy would not alter the culture and ethnic composition of our nation or result in a population transformation.
Some opponents and legislators asked critical questions painting a less rosy picture of the potential outcome. William Miller of New York wrote:
‘The number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.’ He asked, ‘Shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?'”
Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified in the Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing:
“We should remember that [the bill will] lower our wage and living standards [and] disrupt our cultural patterns. Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”
In his 1982 book America in Search of Itself, Theodore White contradicted President Johnson’s signing-day assurance that it was not a revolutionary bill, writing that the bill was revolutionary and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society. In reality, critics were correct and the assurances that the Act would not upset the ethnic mix of our society, a major population transformation, were not justified as noted by the data on the changes in foreign-born population associated with the Act.
The 1965 Immigration Act ushered in a new era of mass immigration in which the country origins of immigrants changed radically. The European economy stabilized resulting in fewer European immigrants. Mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America and emphasis on family reunification ensured that these groups could bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations because of limits on total immigration numbers. Unfortunately, twice as many immigrants as native-born Americans did not have high school diplomas in the mid-1990’s. This population transformation contributed to downward wage pressure and a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs. This issue is compounded by increasing levels of illegal immigrants who also compete for these jobs.
Data from the US Census Bureau showing the region of birth of the foreign-born population of the United States is informative regarding the cultural population transformation of the United States. From 1850-1960, Europeans and Canadians averaged approximately 95% of the foreign-born population. Southern and Eastern Europeans were greatly underrepresented in the US foreign-born population prior to 1960. In 1960, Europeans and Canadians comprised 75% which was a reduction of more than 15% of the foreign-born population compared to the previous 90 years. In 1970 this group comprised 61.7%; 1980, 39.0%; and in 1990 Europeans and Canadians comprised 26.9% of the US foreign-born population which was less than one third of the 1960 level and slightly more than one fourth of the 1850-1960 level. In contrast, Hispanics comprised an average of only 2.8% of the foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 9.4%; in 1970, 19.4%; 1980, 33.1%; and 1990, 44.3% nearly 16 times the 1850-1960 average of the US foreign-born population. Asians comprised an average of only 1.7% of the US foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 5.1%; 1970, 8.9%: 1980, 19.3%; and 1990, 26.3% which was more than 15 times the 1850-1960 average of the foreign-born population. In 1990, people from Africa and Oceania composed less than 2.5% of the US foreign-born population. By 2050, the racial and ethnic composition of the US population is expected to be 47% White, 29% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 9% Asian. According to this projection, the composition of whites will decline; the composition blacks will be stable; and the composition of Hispanics and Asians will increase. Although conservative pundits and other intellectuals agree, progressives always start immigration discussions with the phrase, We are a nation of immigrants, or We are all descendants of immigrants. What they fail to say is that, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, we were a nation of European and Canadian immigrants; and after 1965, we became and nation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants.
In 2000, sociologist Christopher Jencks predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 if our immigration policies do not change. After evaluating congressional politics, Jencks concluded that congress did not want to appear to be racist and their leaders would not direct change. Consequently, Jerry Kammer, in his 2015 concluding remarks, included a dire analysis of our national future by Theodore White concerning of the potential impact of the 1965 Immigration Act and its population transformation,
‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it ‘could no longer govern itself. ‘
Kammer also included this contrarian and optimistic quote from a 1965 Immigration Act, 50th anniversary book, A Nation of Nations (2015) by Tom Gjelten, which disregards the lesson of Roman Empire history,
While immigration ‘may swamp us, it may, if we seize the opportunity, mean the impregnation of our national life with a new brilliancy. It is only in the half century after 1965, with a population connected to every corner of the globe, that the country has finally begun to demonstrate the exceptionalism it has long claimed for itself.’
One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,
“While Gjelten doesn’t make statements about assimilation with current tides of immigrant groups, he suggest[s] that these groups who differ more widely culturally than past [European immigrants] will ultimately accept the national ethos and fit in well.”
Apparently, like most US progressives, Gjelten and the reviewer believes that we can do things better than the Romans, the Soviet Communists, the Maoists, and the Cuban Communists, and achieve an internal globalist culture of new brilliancy and exceptionalism in the United States.
Without the benefit of actually reading his book, it appears that Gjelten does not believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are exceptional guidelines for governance or that turning the tide of victory in both World War I and World War II were exceptional events in world history. It does not appear that he considered our Industrial Revolution, railroads, interstate highway system, technical revolution, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter to be brilliant contributions making the United States the greatest economic power in history. As a true progressive globalist, Gjelten apparently believes that until the United States looks like the rest of the world, a population transformation, we cannot be either brilliant or exceptional. None of the reviews or excerpts answer the question posed by White, [With] such a change in the texture of [our] people, will the United States of America be able to govern itself? The cultural and racial diversity created by the 1965 Immigration Act has not resulted in a political and social environment of greater stability. Our educational, cultural, and political elites discourage acceptance of our national ethos, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitutional capitalism, and individual freedom. The progressive elites consider and communicate that this national ethos is offensive to the rest of the world, especially the regions of origin for most of today’s immigrants. Under these circumstances, how can we expect these immigrants to fit in well? Under the current circumstances in which we are losing our national ethos, my fear is that the admonition of John Jay portends a dire outcome for the United States of America, Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed. This component of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America could help ensure that our nation will wither away. Phrased alternatively, our Founder’s nation will cease to exist.
Border security is a critical component of immigration policy. Secure borders ensure that nations have control over immigration into each country. Without secure borders and immigration policies that immediately detain or expel illegal immigrants, all immigration has the potential of becoming legal immigration which is the goal for progressive open border advocates. In this situation, citizenship and related voting rights would be meaningless; the wealthy and unscrupulous could import voters to gain control of any jurisdiction; or politicians could promise immigrants free benefits for their votes. Criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and freeloaders as well as unskilled and skilled workers, artisans, entrepreneurs, technicians, and highly educated professionals could flow in and out of countries. With this level of population transformation, all pretexts of economic, political, legal system, and numerical population stability and predictability would be eliminated. Determination of population-based representation in our republic, as in the US House of Representatives, would not be fair with the fluid population possible without immigration control and border security. This would be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America; and our Founder’s nation could wither away.
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.
Our United States withers away under Democrat control. In my opinion, this will occur due to the progressive information and entertainment industries, and the socialist, progressive wing of the Democrat Party, the philosophically Marxist left cabal. The combination of globalism and multi-national corporations will also be a factor as our United States withers away. For a thorough discussion of globalism and free trade, consider the GLOBALISM articles listed in the BLOG CONTENTS tab of AMERICA’S CROSSROAD. The left also controls our education system where Marxist philosophy is taught to our children from preschool to Ph.D. (Marxism PP). This educational dictatorship now includes curricula developed by The Lincoln Project, Critical Race Theorists, and Black Lives Matter which may be the subject of later articles from America’s Crossroad. Consequently, most of our younger citizens now prefer socialism over capitalism. Since the left controls entertainment, pop culture and music, the advertisement industry, literature and the publishing industry, and social media, the left controls the sights, sounds, and language of our culture. Most of the messages portrayed by this cabal are anti-Christian and anti-religion, anti-traditional family, anti-capitalist, anti-law enforcement, anti-military, and reject the idea that We the People have been a largely positive force in the history of our nation and the world. Consequently, the left rejects the positive nature of our heritage as citizens of the United States of America.
The phrase, the state withers away, was coined by Friedrich Engels in the 1892 English translation publication, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.
Some claim that Engels was not referring to states as nations but as the system of laws that subjugated and exploited the laboring class, proletarians, to the will of those who determined labor wages and owned and controlled the other two means of production, land and capital, capitalist or the bourgeoisie. Engels and Marx envisioned an inevitable evolutionary process leading to classless socialist states where the means of production are controlled by all the people sharing equally in the benefits of production.
However, in the section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx and Engels unambiguously pronounce that the phrase the state withers away refers to countries and nations as follows:
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, landowners, 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.
According to Marx and Engels, when competition between states is eliminated, the state, as individual nations, withers away. By the early twentieth century, the idea that the state withers away took an ominous turn for the worst as revolutionary Marxists sought world domination under dictatorial communism. However, in twenty first century western civilization, our laws give significant power to workers and labor unions creating a tenuous balance between the rights of capitalists and laborers. Some would say that capitalists still have an advantage in these laws. Others disagree, saying the balance is determined by supply and demand. That is the subject of much debate.
For this discussion, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions of state, nation, country, border, nationality, and character. are appropriate. State is defined as
a politically organized body of people especially; the political organization of such a body of people; a government or politically organized society having a particular character usually occupying a definite territory.
Nation is defined as follows:
A community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government; a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status.
Country is defined as an indefinite usually extended expanse of land;the land of a person’s birth, residence, or citizenship; a political state or nation or its territory. Border is defined as a boundary especially of a country or state.
Nationality is defined as follows:
A legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state;membership in a particular nation;political independence or existence as a separate nation; a people having a common origin, tradition, (songs, stories, and chronicles) and language capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.
Character is defined as follows:
A feature used to separate distinguishable things into categories, a group or kind so separated; the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation; main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish.
The above definitions will provide a framework for discussion of the way Democrat control will ensure that our United States withers away.
First, it is critical to understand the collective nationality and character of the United States of America. Until the mid-twentieth century, we were a people having a common origin, tradition, (songs, stories, and chronicles) and language [English] constituting a nation-state sharing a complex of mental and ethical traits serving to distinguish the United States from other nations. We the People shared a Judeo-Christian heritage. Our laws and values are based on British Common Law with its Judeo-Christian based code of morality and ethics as is our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This sentiment was eloquently stated by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence [God] has blessed it [ America] for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion [Christianity with all its orders and denominations], attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.
John Jay summarized the Founders’ view of the importance of Christianity to the successful future of the United States as follows:
No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.
The Father of our Country, George Washington, expressed similar sentiments in his Farewell Address to the Nation:
“With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. The Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
The Father of our Country clearly stated our shared Judeo-Christian religion, morality and values were central to the collective nationality and character of We the People of the United States. In my opinion, most of the current societal, cultural, political, and legal problems in our nation are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition concerning Religion and Morality.”
Secondly, our state and nation, the United States of America, has an internationally recognized border which constitutes the boundary separating our nation from the other nations of the world. Without defended or secure borders, independent nations would not exist. Since the actions and rhetoric of progressives and the Democrat Party demonstrate that they favor open borders, their policies will ensure that United States, as we know it, withers away. Military border defense is only an issue when nations are at war, but border security is critical when formulating a nation’s immigration policy. The progressive, Democrat, vision of immigration policy for the United States is to make our nation into a microcosm of the world demographically, culturally, economically, and politically. During the 2020 Presidential campaign and the first week of the Biden Administration, President Biden announced that the borders of the United States would be open to all commers with little actual restrictions related to their legal status. The administration claims that the border is closed; but the reality of over 100,000 documented illegal border crossings each month, which does not include an untold number who get away, tells the truth. The southern border of the United states is open to all. When they arrive, these illegal immigrants get promised free food, medical attention, eventually a hotel room, transportation to a location of their choice, and all the social services given to legal immigrants and citizens. Most, but not all, seeking asylum get a court date a few years in the future, but most never appear hoping for a future path to citizenship. At least 10% of these illegals also get to spread Covid-19 to our population. This transformative vision is a radicle change to the character, the complex of mental and ethical traits marking a nation, of the United States. Therefore, the character of our nation withers away.
Conservatives have a different vision. The Constitution of the United States begins by stating; We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Our Constitution does not say we the people of the world. Conservatives understand that if immigration policy turns our nation’s character into that of the world, the United States will cease to be the beacon of freedom and hope for the world. Conservatives know, unfortunately, that progressives and the Democrat Party misrepresented the impacts of the 1965 Immigration Act on the character and texture of [our] people. In a 2015 article evaluating the 50-year impacts of the 1965 Immigration Act, Theodore White evaluated the potential impacts of progressive immigration policy in the United States as follows:
‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it could no longer govern itself. ‘
Rome failed, and conservatives believe that the United States could fail if we do not change the transformative nature of our immigration policies. Put a different way, the United States of America, that existed for the first 185 years of our history, withers away.
The actions of progressives and the Democrat Party are making the United States into a socialist nation by their actions and policies related to Covid-19 recovery. Current actions and policies of the new administration and the current actions of progressives, Democrat governors and big city mayors, will create a class of citizens dependent on governmental assistance and support, socialism. Progressive, Democrat governors and mayors continue to lock down their citizens and shut down their economies, small businesses, bars and restaurants, and schools. The result is permanent small business failures and record unemployment. The longer the shutdowns last, the greater the adverse impact will be on our economy and unemployment. Many small business owners invested their entire life’s savings in their businesses and may not recover financially. Some of these entrepreneurs could go from employers to employees or the unemployed. They could even lose their homes and become renters, or in the worst cases, homeless. The result is that these citizens could require governmental assistance and support caused by the progressive response to the pandemic.
This is the beginning of socialism, wealth sharing and governance based on the philosophy of Karl Marx and his followers. The philosophy of Marx can be summarized as wealth redistribution from each according to their ability to each according to their need regardless of their willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. Of course, those unable to contribute to the good of society due to physical or mental incapacity deserve our compassion and care. Consequently, as progressives and the Democrat Party lead us down this ever-increasing pace toward socialism, the character and essence of the United States withers away.
The racist, bigoted, woke progressives of our news media, social media, cancel culture, pop culture, and the Democrat Party will call conservatives like me the racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, fascists, and Nazis because our opinions are not woke enough. Conservatives are simply nationalists who want the United States of America to succeed as it did for the first 185 years of our history. It was the United States that fought a Civil War to end slavery in our country and eventually most of the rest of the world, won freedom during WWI and WWII, ended the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and built the strongest economy in the history of the world. If conservatives allow them, progressives and the Democrat Party will ensure the United States of America, as we know it, withers away.
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.
Amendment XIV, Section 5, contains the solution to the anchor baby issue.
One week before the 2018 election, President Trump indicated that he would use an Executive Order to eliminate automatic citizenship for all babies born in the United States regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of the parents. However, the best solution for the birthright or anchor baby issue is contained in Section 5 of Amendment XIV. The automatic citizenship of each birthright or anchor baby is based on current application of this Amendment. The first sentence of Section 1 of Amendment XIV states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (of the United States), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside (emphasis and parenthetical remark added). Section 5 of this Amendment is essential to understand the most promising means of addressing the birthright or anchor baby issue. Section 5 states, The congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This section gives congress the constitutional authority to correct the current application of Amendment XIV related to the birthright or anchor baby issue.
Understanding the definition of jurisdiction in Section 1 of the Amendment is necessary to discuss the application of Section 5 as a solution to the birthright or anchor baby issue. The Miriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary defines jurisdiction as, the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate, or exercise authority. Obviously, Section 5 gives congress the ability, jurisdiction, to formulate appropriate legislation to delineate the nature of the relationship between the legality and nature of the immigration status of the parents of a baby born in the United States to the citizenship of their baby. A simple example of such legislation could read, Pursuant to Amendment XIV, Section 5, of the Constitution of the United States of America, only persons with one parent who is a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States or a legal permanent resident of the United States are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. This is a simple and unambiguous example of potential legislation that eliminates the birthright or anchor baby and anchor baby tourism issues.
The proposed legislative solution to anchor babies would eliminate one of the most powerful incentives to illegal immigration. Our immigration policy stresses maintenance of family unites or chain migration. Birthright or anchor babies enable the extended family members to move to the top of the legal immigration line. Anchor baby illegal immigrant parents, the baby’s siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins normally move to the top of the legal immigration list. If the extended family of each relative in the extended family of the anchor baby is added to the potential list of legal immigrants, the number of legal immigrants either grows exponentially; or the number of other immigrants is reduced when annual quotas are reached. Anchor babies are a critical part of the progressive plan to transform our nation. Consequently, the birthright or anchor baby is a powerful incentive for illegal immigration to the United States.
In my opinion, it is time to eliminate citizenship for each birthright or anchor baby.
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 political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.
The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that’ significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.
For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.
Solutions to the DACA’ immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.
The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.
We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,
‘JUST DO IT!’
Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the’ BLOG CONTENTS tab.’ If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.
The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.
For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.
Solutions to the DACA immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.
The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.
We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,
JUST DO IT!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Our Founder’s nation, like every nation that cannot defend itself, maintain geographic integrity, and loses its unique culture, economic and political identity will wither away as Marx and Engels stated it. The Marxist left, whatever name they have used throughout the last two centuries, communists, socialists, Critical Theorists, humanists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats have accomplished a significant transformation of our Founder’s nation using their plan to transform America. Progressives used the tools provided by our Constitution and culture in a relentlessly incremental process to transform the United States into a nation that our Founders never envisioned.
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation.
From colonial times until the Constitution was ratified and well into the twentieth century, We the People of the United States shared a strong, significant Judeo-Christian heritage which the Founders clearly understood. In the late eighteenth century, the majority of the population was of British descent, spoke English, and attended one of the many Protestant denomination or Catholic churches. All of the universities were of Christian origin, including Harvard which was named after a wealthy preacher who gave his theological library and wealth to the university. Most of the first departments established at these universities were Divinity Schools and Law Schools. Additional universities were established after the Great Awakening revivals of the mid-eighteenth century to train more evangelists. Our Founder’s nation shared a strong Judeo-Christian heritage.
VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation from the time the first colonists set foot on this continent. This sentiment was eloquently stated by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has blessed it (Independent America) for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Christianity with all its orders and denominations), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other [by] design of Providence for a band of brethren, united by the strongest ties, should never be split into alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us (Parenthetical remarks added).
James Madison in The Federalist No.14 was also confident that a constitution so ordained and based on Judeo-Christian morality, ethics, and law would be a model for mankind. He stated,
Posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theater, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society: They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great confederacy, which has been new modeled by the act of your Convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide (Ratify the Constitution, Remark added).
Fifty of the fifty five men who attended the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians including theologians, denominational leaders, pastors, and evangelists. Many were also legal scholars and attorneys. After shepherding the nation through the first eight years of our experiment, the Father of our Country, George Washington, expressed similar sentiments in his Farewell Address to the Nation:
“With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Cultivate peace and harmony with all. “ Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? “ It will be worthy of a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
The Father of our Country clearly stated that the international reputation of the United States, sound governmental policies, and the integrity of our courts were dependent on our shared Judeo-Christian religion and morality, our cultural and societal identity. In our Founder’s nation, We the People had leaders like John Jay who summarized the Founders’ view of the importance of Christianity to the successful future of the United States as follows:
No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.
Not only did these four Founders express this view, but virtually all the significant Founders wrote expansively about the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage to previous success and future benefits that would come to the world as a result of the virtue and religious morality of the United States. Consequently, our Founder’s nation was a Judeo-Christian nation. In my opinion, most of the current societal, cultural, political, and legal problems in our nation are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition concerning Religion and Morality.”
Historically, great nations deteriorate from within. Moral and ethical deterioration of cultures normally precedes political, economic and military instability. These problems often lead to the inability of nations to defend themselves against external economic or military forces. In the United States, our national greatness flowed historically from the individual and collective character, virtue, strength, and moral integrity of We the People. Our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitution and the rule of law, and our economic system based on individual entrepreneurialism and capitalism have been largely responsible for the success of the United States on the world stage. Virtually every aspect of the historical cultural, political, and economic strength of our nation is being incrementally undermined by forces seeking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States outlined five general functions of constitutional governance, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Only those areas of life and governance detailed in the various Articles and Amendments to the Constitution were intended to fall under the authority and responsibility of the National or Federal government. In the Founder’s nation, Tranquility, general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty were the responsibility of citizens, state, and local governments. The Constitution was established for a virtuous, moral, industrious, and responsible citizenry free to pursue their personal general Welfare and secure the Blessings of [their] Liberty.
In my view, one word in the Preamble to the Constitution has great significance to understanding why our Founder’s nation subsequently exceeded the expectations of the world. The word is “ordain,” to set apart for a sacred function in service of God. The Preamble states, We the People of the United States do ordain’ and establish this Constitution. This meaning for ordain is the only one that fits the context and definitions of ordain and establish found in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language because all of the meanings for establish are synonymous with the non-sacred meanings in the definition for ordain. If the Framers had not intended the sacred meaning of ordain, they would not have included the word establish which would, therefore, have been redundant. The Constitution was not written as a strictly secular document. The Constitution of our Founder’s nation was a document design to serve God.
During the first half-century or more of the history of our Founder’s nation, our Judeo-Christian heritage was critical to the principles and doctrines of law. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) wrote, The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction the moral law called also the law of Nature. Similarly, Commentaries on the laws of England by William Blackstone, was a widely respected commentary on law in America. In a statement almost identical to that of Coke, Blackstone wrote, Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (Biblical Law), depend all of human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. Additionally, prior to the mid-1800’s, it is safe to assume that Constitutional manifest tenor was the basis of court decisions related to the constitutionality of laws. Manifest tenor is the readily perceived, obvious, plain understanding of the course of thought running through the applicable article, amendment, section, or clause of the Constitution in relation to the case or statute under consideration. A synonymous phrase for manifest tenor is contextual original intent. During this period in the history of our Founder’s nation, the “law of nature” which “God… infused” into the “heart” of We the people was critical to our understanding of the meaning and purpose of our laws and duties as citizens.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Progressives have used several tools to “fundamentally transform America. The first, and possibly most important tool, is the transformation of Constitutional law which has had a significant effect on our Founder’s nation. In 1848, Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto promoting atheism and social evolution; and in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species positing biological evolution which challenged Biblical creationism. Both concepts were widely embraced by academics throughout the world. In 1869, scholars at the Harvard Law School embraced evolutionary thinking as keys to life and the law. They taught that great legal scholars and judges could develop the laws governing mankind since mankind did not need God and Scripture for guidance in law. All references to both God and Scripture were eliminated from legal education, and consequently, from the practice of law.
To accomplish this goal, these legal scholars developed the concept of case law in which legal principles, doctrines, and presidencies are developed over time by degrees through a series of cases. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating, The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new. After three to six decades of the development of legal principles and doctrines based on case law, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, summarized the legal system as follows, [Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more. These two statements regarding constitutional law bear a striking resemblance to the following discussion of truth found in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore:
The criterion for evaluating truth-claims normally is, or involves, human practice, a practicist criterion of truth. Truth is conceived as essentially the practical expression of a subject, rather than the theoretically adequate representation. Truth becomes a totality to be achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history…. Truths are the this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. Truth is an ideal asymptotically approached in history but only finally realized under communism after a practical consensus has been achieved.
Apparently, according to legal scholars, jurists, and philosophers, the Constitution, law, and truth are living things, ideas that have triumphed at a given point in history. Through case law over time, judges have transformed our Constitution and laws into a changing body of this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. One could say that the Constitution of the United States of America, as envisioned by the Founders, has already withered away; or the Constitution is being transformed and will soon wither away.
Progressives have been using courts and the concept of living Constitutions to challenge long held Judeo-Christian cultural norms for decades. Consequently, progressives have used our courts to undermine the sanctity of life through abortion and right to die decisions, marriage and the traditional family through same-sex marriage decisions, biological sexuality through decisions recognizing LGBT identity and access to previously gender specific public facilities, and religious freedom in business, public schools, governmental lands and facilities, and government agencies. Our courts have been the most effective tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States of America. As time passes, the United States of America is becoming less and less like our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION
The second tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is the establishment of a public education dictatorship. Our current public education curriculum promotes progressive cultural, social, economic, and political values and principles from pre-school to Ph.D. These curricula seek to undermine or eliminate discussion of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, in relation to our Constitution and legal system. Curricula ignore or minimize our Founders’ emphasis on the relationship between shared moral and ethical values and cultural harmony, individual and national prosperity, and national identity and strength on the world stage. Curricula stress claimed abuses of all western civilization on the rest of the world, capitalism as a form of western imperialism a concept espoused by Marxism, the benefits of socialist systems, and the progressive cultural agenda. The left’s educational dictatorship has been extremely effective as an agent to fundamentally transform the United States of America which has less and less resemblance to our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE
The third tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is our telecommunications and entertainment industry including social media and pop culture. Television, movies, and music promotes non-traditional families and include LGBT characters, single parent families, illicit sexual content including workplace affairs between co-workers and supervisors of both sexes with subordinates, violence, and murder. Christianity, the essence of our Founder’s nation, is often mocked, portrayed as a form of manipulation, or Christian leaders portrayed as criminal. Capitalism is portrayed as an evil often criminal economic system. Our government is also portrayed as a source of problems in the world. Mainstream news outlets including print and on-line sources forward narratives supporting the progressive cultural, political, and economic agenda, policies, and candidates. The advertising industry is a more subliminal medium used to promote the fundamental transformation of America.
The final tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is legal immigration policy and border security. Between 1960 and 1970, the 1965 Immigration Act began to change the composition of the US foreign-born population. Due to the ethnic and religious strife between Balkan Muslims and various Christian sects that started WWI, the 1965 Act ended a 1924 regional immigration quota system that discriminated against Southeastern Europeans including Italians, Asians, and Africans. The previously favored regions included Northwestern Europe including the British Isles, and Canada.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION
“Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.” It failed.
Many considered the 1965 Immigration Act to be an extension of the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the Johnson Administration granting immigration civil rights to the world by eliminating regional quotas. Although some Republicans supported the 1965 Immigration Act in its initial form, the Democrat Party promoted the bill in the legislature giving assurances that the bill would not adversely influence our nation, economy, and culture. When he signed the bill into law, President Lyndon Johnson said, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with immigrants. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [The bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) testified that Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” In an October 4, 1965 article on the immigration bill, The Washington Post author wrote,
“The most important change [is that] preference categories give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.”
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), testified as follows: “The preferences established by this proposal are not entirely dissimilar from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” With hind sight as twenty-twenty, it seems fair to ask whether the supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act were actually honest about their claims that the new immigration policy would not alter the culture and ethnic composition of our Founder’s nation.
Some opponents and legislators asked critical questions painting a less rosy picture of the potential outcome. William Miller of New York wrote:
‘The number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.’ He asked, ‘Shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?'”
Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified in the Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing:
“We should remember that [the bill will] lower our wage and living standards [and] disrupt our cultural patterns. Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”
In his 1982 book America in Search of Itself, Theodore White contradicted President Johnson’s signing-day assurance that it was not a revolutionary bill, writing that the bill was revolutionary and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society. In reality, critics were correct and the assurances that the Act would not upset the ethnic mix of our society were not justified as noted by the above data on the changes in foreign-born population associated with the Act.
Data from the US Census Bureau showing the region of birth of the foreign-born population of the United States is informative regarding the cultural transformation of the United States. From 1850-1960, Europeans and Canadians averaged approximately 95% of the foreign-born population. Southern and Eastern Europeans were greatly underrepresented in the US foreign-born population prior to 1960. In 1960, Europeans and Canadians comprised 75% which was a reduction of more than 15% of the foreign-born population compared to the previous 90 years. In 1970 this group comprised 61.7%; 1980, 39.0%; and in 1990 Europeans and Canadians comprised 26.9% of the US foreign-born population which was less than one third of the 1960 level and slightly more than one fourth of the 1850-1960 level. In contrast, Hispanics comprised an average of only 2.8% of the foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 9.4%; in 1970, 19.4%; 1980, 33.1%; and 1990, 44.3% nearly 16 times the 1850-1960 average of the US foreign-born population. Asians comprised an average of only 1.7% of the US foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 5.1%; 1970, 8.9%: 1980, 19.3%; and 1990, 26.3% which was more than 15 times the 1850-1960 average of the foreign-born population. In 1990, people from Africa and Oceania composed less than 2.5% of the US foreign-born population. By 2050, the racial and ethnic composition of the US population is expected to be 47% White, 29% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 9% Asian. According to this projection, the composition of whites will decline; the composition blacks will be stable; and the composition of Hispanics and Asians will increase. Although conservative pundits and other intellectuals agree, progressives always start immigration discussions with the phrase, We are a nation of immigrants, or We are all descendants of immigrants. What they fail to say is that, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, we were a nation of European and Canadian immigrants; and after 1965, we became and nation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants .
Thirty years after implementation of the 1965 Immigration Act became law some conclusions are relevant to this discussion. A new era of mass immigration ensued in which country origins of immigrants changed radically. The European economy stabilized resulting in fewer European immigrants. Mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America and emphasis on family reunification ensured that these groups could bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations because of limits on total immigration numbers. Unfortunately, twice as many immigrants as native-born Americans did not have high school diplomas in the mid-1990’s. This contributed downward wage pressure to a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs. This issue is compounded by increasing levels of illegal immigrants who also compete for these jobs.
In 2000, sociologist Christopher Jencks predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 if our immigration policies do not change. After evaluating congressional politics, Jencks concluded that congress did not want to appear to be racist and their leaders would not direct change. Consequently, Jerry Kammer, in his 2015 concluding remarks, included a dire analysis of our national future by Theodore White concerning of the potential impact of the 1965 Immigration Act,
‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it could no longer govern itself. ‘
Kammer also included this contrarian and optimistic quote from a 1965 Immigration Act, 50th anniversary book, A Nation of Nations (2015) by Tom Gjelten, which disregards the lesson of Roman Empire history,
While immigration may swamp us, it may, if we seize the opportunity, mean the impregnation of our national life with a new brilliancy. It is only in the half century after 1965, with a population connected to every corner of the globe, that the country has finally begun to demonstrate the exceptionalism it has long claimed for itself.’
One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,
“While Gjelten doesn’t make statements about assimilation with current tides of immigrant groups, he suggest[s] that these groups who differ more widely culturally than past [European immigrants] will ultimately accept the national ethos and fit in well.”
Apparently, like most US progressives, Gjelton and the reviewer believes that we can do things better than the Romans, the Soviet Communists, the Maoists, and the Cuban Communists, and achieve an internal globalist culture of new brilliancy and exceptionalism in the United States.
Without the benefit of actually reading his book, it appears that Gjelton does not believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are exceptional guidelines for governance or that turning the tide of victory in both World War I and World War II were exceptional events in world history. It doesn’t appear that he considered our Industrial Revolution, railroads, interstate highway system, technical revolution, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter to be brilliant contributions making the United States the greatest economic power in history. As a true progressive globalist, Gjelton apparently believes that until the United States looks like the rest of the world, we cannot be either brilliant or exceptional. None of the reviews or excerpts answer the question posed by White, [With] such a change in the texture of [our] people, will the United States of America be able to govern itself? The cultural and racial diversity created by the 1965 Immigration Act has not resulted in a political and social environment of greater stability. Our educational, cultural and political elites discourage acceptance of our national ethos, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitutional capitalism, and individual freedom. The progressive elites consider and communicate that this national ethos is offensive to the rest of the world, especially the regions of origin for most of today’s immigrants. Under these circumstances, how can we expect these immigrants to fit in well? Under the current circumstances in which we are losing our national ethos, my fear is that the admonition of John Jay portends a dire outcome for the United States of America, Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed. This component of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America could help ensure that our nation will wither away. Phrased alternatively, our Founder’s nation will cease to exist.
Border security is a critical component of immigration policy. Secure borders insure that nations have control over immigration into each country. Without secure borders and immigration policies that immediately detain or expel illegal immigrants, all immigration has the potential of becoming legal immigration which is the goal for progressive open border advocates. In this situation, citizenship and related voting rights would be meaningless; the wealthy and unscrupulous could import voters to gain control of any jurisdiction; or politicians could promise immigrants free benefits for their votes. Criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and freeloaders as well as unskilled and skilled workers, artisans, entrepreneurs, technicians, and highly educated professionals could flow in and out of countries. All pretexts of economic, political, legal system, and numerical population stability and predictability would be eliminated. Determination of population based representation in our republic, as in the US House of Representatives, would not be fair with the fluid population possible without immigration control and border security. This would be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America; and our Founder’s nation could wither away.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE
The final requirement necessary for nations to persist is the ability to remain strong and defend themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies. For the most part, we have adequate local, state, and national law enforcement and legal system to ensure domestic Tranquility; but this nation has a great deal of difficulty to provide for the common defense. The primary reason for this difficulty is the fact that the Democrat and Republican Parties have vastly different priorities regarding defense and domestic expenditures. The two parties seem to have vastly different ideas regarding the necessity maintaining the world’s most powerful military force that can defend our nation on multiple battle fronts and contingencies simultaneously. Progressives and the Democrat Party do not see this level of military power as a national necessity for funding compared to domestic program spending. Military power and force size was drastically decreased in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations. Each of the intervening Bush Administrations and the current Trump Administration were confronted with depleted military forces which they attempted slowly rebuild throughout their Administrations. Unfortunately the overall trend in our military strength since the Carter Administration is downward in both numbers and capabilities. The problem was compounded during the last Bush and Trump Administrations by the long multi-front war on Radical Islamic Terrorism which has resulted in attrition of equipment due to fiscal constraints. With reduced force size, our military heroes are forced to deploy more frequently or for longer tours in theater. The result is combat fatigue, home front family difficulties for deployed forces, and potential reduction in re-enlistment numbers resulting in less experienced fighting forces.
Currently, our military cannot fight on two fronts, equipment is old and waring out with high percentage of the equipment out-of-service due to lack of repair and replacement parts. This problem and inadequate funding for continuing training means that many of our military unites are not combat ready. These problems have resulted in higher numbers of military training and mission related accidents, personnel injuries, and deaths in the last few years. In my opinion, this situation has the potential to become a threat to our national security due to increasing tensions throughout the world.
The threat of North Korean ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads capable of striking anywhere in the United States intensifies our military readiness issues. Incursion of China into the South China Sea seeking to control sea travel, trading routes throughout the south Pacific, and exert their naval power in the region is also worrying. The fact that China is expanding military forces with the goal of becoming the world’s preeminent military power is cause for additional concern. Iran’s expansion and aggression in the Middle East is troubling. Radical Islamic terrorism is growing not declining in Africa where the opportunity to train is enhanced due to weak governments unable to control terrorist activities. Other parts of the world are also subjected to Radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Threats to the safety and security of the United States of America are increasing worldwide. This aspect of the transformation of the United States of America is the most concerning to me. Without a strong military capable of defending our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic is essential to ensure that my country, the United States of America, does not wither away.
In my opinion, the progressive plan to fundamentally transform of the United States of America has been executed in an incremental evolutionary manner for approximately 170 years. The goal of this transformation has always been a unified global community and economy, a utopia, governed by Marxist principles which ensure that all people share equally in all the benefits of the world regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute to the good of the world community. Phrased another way, from each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth will be redistributed on a global scale. For this goal to be achieved, the United States of America must wither away, a really fundamental transformation. Our Founder’s nation would no longer exist.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The current debate raging in Washington DC over immigration, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and border security is a reaction to Democrat actions to transform America through immigration policy changes legislated in the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, the Marxist informed Democrat plan to transform America started in earnest during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the New Deal effort to alleviate the problems of The Great Depression and establishment of the Social Security Administration. Beginning in the early 1960’s, the Democrat Party supported progressive efforts to gain complete control of public education which would emphasize socialism and atheism over capitalism and Judeo-Christianity transforming public attitudes about capitalism, socialism, traditional Judeo-Christian values, and the traditional family. The plan to transform America continued with the 1965 Immigration Act which, contrary to Democrat assurances, altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States by changing immigration policy. Under this immigration plan, people sharing our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage compose a significant minority of legal immigrants rather than ensuring that the composition of new immigrant populations was similar to the existing population composition. The new 1965 Immigration Act policy changed the religious and cultural make-up of our nation and transform America. The latest phase of transformation began five days before the 2008 election when candidate Obama said, We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
ALINSKY RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
It is important to understand the approach to community organizing outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war according to Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.* Insight, into the true nature of the Alinsky trained community organizer, appears on the dedication page of Rules for Radicals where Alinsky wrote, Lest we forget, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom “ Lucifer. The name and nature of the kingdom, hell, Lucifer won was conveniently left out. However, Lucifer’s tactics in the temptation of Adam and Eve and other Biblical passages provide an outline for many of the strategies and tactics Alinsky and his disciples, including Barack Obama, teach during their community organizing workshops.
Alinsky trained community organizers understand that Marxist thought underpins their eventual goal; and the difference between communism and socialism is the means of achieving the utopian societal goal. As part of their deceptive tactics, radicals have used a variety of philosophical names throughout their history to camouflage their true identity and purposes. With their changing names, Alinsky radicals create the illusion that their opposition is composed of uninformed buffoons, Deplorables, with irrelevant ideas and opinions about who radicals are and the actual philosophical position of radicals on the issues of the day. For example, members of the US Communist Party were labor activists and members of the Democrat party in the early twentieth century, formed the Progressive Party to oppose President Truman in the 1948 election, rejoined the Democrat Party in the early 1970’s after the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War, and are currently the majority group in the Progressive Caucus of the Democrat Party although many deny or diminish the Marxist, communist, and socialist influence of their progressive political ideology.
According to Alinsky, “A radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer.
Alinsky taught that a radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer. In the case of the United States of America, the system is our political, economic system of Constitutional capitalism based on private property and individual rights supported by our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture. All radical’s efforts are aimed at subverting their society, in a word, change. They plan to transform America. The purpose of change is to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots in the name of the people. Alinsky radicals do not compare America’s Constitutional capitalistic society to other societies but to the utopian system of social justice and freedom they think they are building. Compared to their vision, even America is hell. Consequently, America will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies so radicals are willing to destroy the values, structures, and institutions that sustain our society. Alinsky, post-Soviet communist, neo-Marxist radicals always know that they will succeed in creation of their utopian system where the radicals of the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, and etc. failed at the cost of untold millions of lives. The unfortunate historical reality of radical revolution is that power always goes to a new group of Haves, the radical revolutionary vanguard, the new political elites; and the Have-nots are still Have-nots. Have-nots never get their promised utopian heaven on earth under radicals and their plan to transform America.
It is also important to understand that for conservatives, war is a political metaphor; but for radical Alinsky community organizers, war is a political reality. Since the objective is to destroy the enemy, the tactics of Alinsky style political war are brutal and relentless. For Alinsky, the end always justifies the means which have no ethical, moral, or legal limits. Consequently, it is okay to lie, deceive, and even commit murder. The only consideration is whether or not the means effectively advance the cause. Throughout history, the evil wrought by revolutionary radicals of this ilk are always justified as the means of achieving the greater good for all mankind, the social salvation of all humanity. Individual salvation is always secondary to mass salvation since it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice individuals for the greater good. This idea is consistent with Marxist philosophy where individual good is always subservient to the collective good. In such a war, unlike Alinsky community organizers, conservatives are at a severe disadvantage because most conservatives are constrained by ethical, moral, and legal considerations.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals emphasize that power and building a vast power base, an Alinsky army or a civilian national security’ force, is the only rule. Accumulating power is the first priority in implementing radical change to transform America. These Alinsky statements and workshop titles; we are not virtuous by not wanting power, we are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil, self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people, understanding power, power analysis, the path to power, elements of a power organization, and relationships built on self-interest, demonstrate the importance of power accumulation to achieve change through community organizing. To Alinsky radicals, the accumulation of power is always the issue.
Deception is an Alinsky radical tactic in their sociological and political war designed to gain power over political enemies and subsequently eliminate them and destroy the system they control. Since power is always the issue, the actual issue or cause which concerns the people supporting a cause is not the issue that concerns community organizers because without power to transform America, change is unattainable. The community organizer deceptively infiltrates the leadership of a cause, embraces the cause, and uses the people’s self-interest to create an army of people supporting the cause to gain power to accomplish the community organizer’s goal of destroying the overall system, to transform America.
As a consequence, Alinsky community organizer’s deceptive subversion of causes is another means to the end, accumulation of political power. Group, issue, or cause names, goals, and objectives are irrelevant because the only issue is gaining political power to destroy the enemy and the system. Community organizers, individually or in groups, often work simultaneously with disparate causes with a variety of names to accumulate power by uniting these groups to weaken and eventually destroy the system. Alinsky successfully created coalitions of communists, anarchist, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists, progressives, black radicals, and Democrats. Since each issue or cause has associated enemies that their cause needs to overcome and destroy, another powerful tool of deception used by Alinsky radicals to destroy enemies is to stigmatize opponents with terms like racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., whether the terms apply or not. Radical community organizers have successfully united disparate groups with a campaign to stigmatize President Trump and the Republican Party with an ist, ic, and phobic epitaph associated with their particular cause. The “self-interest” of each cause unites the group around the epitaph representing their cause giving the group its own power while the common enemies, the President and the GOP, multiplies the power of the combined groups into throngs of protesters, the Alinsky army or civilian national security’ force. The plan is a wave election that sweeps the Democrat Party into control of the state governments and the US Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020 resuming the delayed Democrat plan to fundamentally transform America.
Conservatives look at these disparate groups and ask what do they actually want? What is their unified goal or objective? The Alinsky community organizers answer under their breath, We want the political power of all these groups to be unified to destroy you and the system. The issue or cause is not the issue; accumulating political power is the only real by issue to the Alinsky community organizer. The “organizers” are working with all the current self-interest groups, the “Women’s” and “Me Too” marchers, the “Stop Gun Violence” marchers, the “Teachers” marchers, the “Black Lives Matter” marchers, and the “silence conservative speakers” marchers, and the etc. marchers. Many of these marches are infiltrated Antifa and Anonymous rioters. These different large “cause” demonstrations fulfill two radical purposes, they gather the Alinsky “armies” of the various “causes” and build energy; and they unite the different groups into a combined political power base which the “organizers” combine to defeat their political opponents.
Finally, perhaps the most powerful Alinsky rule for radicals is to infiltrate the institutions* that support the system, eliminate internal opposition leadership and replace it with supportive leaders, and transform the institution to promote transformation or destruction of our overall system of Constitutional capitalism, private property, individual freedom, and our Judeo-Christian heritage as a critical influence on our society. Marxist philosophers have embraced this plan almost from the beginning. Infiltration of institutions has been quite successful in the United States. Communist participation in the early labor movement, FDR’s legislative attempt to change the US Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary in order to fill the courts with progressive judges, progressive domination of public education from preschool to Ph.D. curricula and educators, dilution of Biblical moral principles in many Christian denominations, the entire United States government bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. The progressive versus conservative contest for control of the US Supreme Court, the entire lower Federal Court system, and state court systems is evidence of the critical battle over the balance of our courts. Progressive Justices at every level of our court system often use progressive ideas rather than the text of laws, judicial precedent, or constitutions to render decisions that alter or stop the actions of Republican Administrations, capitalistic initiatives, and Judeo-Christian influences on society and transform America. In many cases, progressive bureaucrats in the upper and middle levels of several Executive Branch Departments such as State, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Interior, Internal Revenue Service, Justice, and the National Security Agency have acted to delay or in some situations possibly subvert the policies and activities of conservative groups and conservative Republican Presidential Administrations and Governors. This progressive infiltration of our institutions has drastically altered the nature and character of our nation. This is part of the Democrat plan to transform America.
OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
Although President Obama never fully disclosed the details of his plan to transform America, some insight can be gleaned from his formative youthful years and his own words most of which are also available in written, audio, and video form. Former President Obama has a radical, Marxist background. Both his father and mother had radical backgrounds and educations. His mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, was a 60’s communist radical from Chicago where Saul Alinsky worked as a founding community organizer. When he went to college, he followed his Marxist roots regarding his college associates and course work. In Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, he talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here’s a quote:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. At night we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”
This statement provides vital insight into the mind and ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama.
Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist, philosopher, and radical revolutionary in the fields of post-colonial studies, critical theory (a synonym for Marxist theory used by the Frankfurt School to mask their roots and enable the primarily Jewish faculty to migrate from Frankfurt Germany to Columbia University immediately prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler), and Marxism. As an intellectual, Fanon was a political, Pan-Africanist, and Marxist humanist concerned with the psychopathology of colonization, and the human, social, and cultural consequences of decolonization. Neocolonialism, a tenant of the anti-capitalist rhetoric of Marxism, is the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former dependencies. Eurocentrism, focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent, is the philosophical term for white privilege which is inherently evil to the Marxist world view. This view ignores the reality of the fact that European culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalism has the demonstrated potential to increase the wellbeing of the world beyond the demonstrated capacity of Marxist philosophy and socialism. Patriarchy is a system of society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line or a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. To Marxists and progressives, patriarchy also represents the traditional Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their biological or genetic and adopted children. Of course, the greatest anathema of the traditional family to progressive, Marxist thinkers is the idea that the patriarchal family is headed by a male. To President Obama, diminishing the significance of these “problems” is central to his plan to transform America.
Finally, it is critical to understand the significance of a concept statement that Barack Obama considered critical to enshrine in his autobiography, We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. The bourgeois society is a phrase straight out of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Such societies are full of stifling constraints. According to Barack Obama, a bourgeois society is a Judeo-Christian, capitalistic, Eurocentric, neocolonial, patriarchal society. A bourgeois society is the society that made the United States of America the greatest, most prosperous and benevolent nation in the history of the world. It was the bourgeois society of the United States of America that saved the world from the scourge of German Imperialism, Japanese Imperialism, fascism, and the totalitarian communism of the Soviet Union. It is the bourgeois society of the United States of America that compelled then President Barack Obama to tour the world stating his regret by apologizing for everything that the United States of America stands for regarding world peace and the potential we represent for a better world. It is due to the”bourgeois society”of the United States that Barack Obama feels that it is necessary to transform America.
We were resisting bourgeois society’s [America’s] stifling constraints, Barack ObamaAfter graduating from Columbia University, Barack Obama moved to Chicago and began the final, most informative, stage of his Marxist preparation for his political career; training and working at the Saul Alinsky associated Gamaliel Foundation to organize the South Side of Chicago. At Gamaliel, where he finally became Director of the Developing Communities Project, Obama was trained by three Alinsky associates from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in the community organizing methods outlined in Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war. A picture on Obama’s presidential campaign website provided an interesting insight into his vision for his Presidency. The picture showed him teaching an Alinsky based, ACORN, community organizing workshop in front of a blackboard showing the topics he was teaching in that session, Power Analysis and Relationships Built on Self-Interest. After his work as an Alinsky community organizer, ACORN trainer, and attorney, early in his political career, Michelle Obama said, Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change’ (the transformation of America). Obama responded, I take that observation as a compliment. His goal is to transform America.
With this summary, the Democrat transformation of America that preceded him and the ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama, some insights into his statements and policy decisions are possible. The 1965 change in immigration policy which altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States and the progressive domination of our system of public education enabled Obama’s 2006 speech statement,
Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation “ at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
Although he purportedly intended to say,
Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation….
By his statement, Whatever we once were, regardless of the place in either statement of the word just, President Obama acknowledged that in the United States, we once were just a Christian nation since he stated that Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. Changes in immigration policy, Supreme Court Decisions, and public education have served to transform America. Many conservatives contend that President Obama always planned to link the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), immigration, and wealth redistribution, an important tenant of Marxism and socialist philosophy, on an American and global scale. President Obama said,
If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan (Obamacare). That is a commitment I’m making. Even though I don’t believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. If anything, this debate (whether illegal immigrants would be covered under Obamacare) underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform (giving Illegal immigrants citizenship) and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all (giving former illegal immigrants who could become citizens with comprehensive immigration reform voting rights and coverage under Obamacare, as Obama envisioned).
In my opinion, President Obama viewed Obamacare as a means of wealth redistribution which he would expand to global proportions as revealed by the linkage between illegal immigrants and Obamacare that he made in the above statement. The subsidies provided to low income Obamacare participants constitutes a substantial level of wealth redistribution, another way to transform Amercia.
One of the early advisers of the Obama Administration was Van Jones, a pre-Black Lives Matter, Marxist activist advocating against the adverse consequence of Eurocentrism and patriarchy on the black and all minority communities in the United States. Jones is also a wealth redistribution advocate. In an interview where wealth redistribution was discussed, Jones noted President Obama’s plan to bring about redistributive change, by stating, That sounds radical “ redistribution of wealth. But listen to our own president talking about the Constitution. Jones referenced the following statement by President Obama equating opinions of Supreme Court Justices with the Constitution which does not address wealth redistribution:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. The tragedies of the civil rights movement was “ because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
Clearly, President Obama understood that his plan to transform America through wealth redistribution could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservatives were disappointed when the Supreme Court upheld many of the redistributive aspects of Obamacare even when the text of the Act did not support Obama Administration applications of the law.
The Paris Climate Accord and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) were part of President Obama’s plan to transform America into a leader in global wealth redistribution. However, President Trump withdrew from both the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans Pacific Partnership because they are both methods of global wealth redistribution. A June 2017, National Public Radio article summarizing the provisions of the Paris Climate Accord stated, “To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year” which the Accord identified as a floor,’ not a ceiling. The article did not state how much of the $100 billion a year the United States would pay, but our share was probably planned to be similar to our share of the annual United Nations budget considering the Obama Administration’s skill at international negotiations. The article also states that
limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial revolution global temperatures by the end of the twenty first century) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked.
Under the Accord, that statement indicates that industrialized nations would pay at least $100 billion each year to under developed nations to achieve an indeterminate reduction in climate devastation; and the 2050 global temperature goal is a target the world hasn’t yet figured out how to meet. In addition, the article indicates that the Accord is totally voluntary, lacks verbal precision, and is filled with ambiguous phrases related to national commitments to the Accord such as,
Nations aren’t expected; voluntary pledge; not an immediate pledge; each target should reflect progress; this target date isn’t actually precise: the deal describes it as mid-century;’ greenhouse gases emitted would be balanced by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere carbon dioxide (balance) would be accomplished by growing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (but the Accord fails to guarantee sufficient land to add the needed forests); many sections of the deal, of course, don’t nail down any numbers at all; nations around the world should strengthen their cooperation;’ all parties ‘should’ cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing country parties; and at least 55 nations ” between them accounting for at least 55 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions ” are needed to formally approve the pact.
The globe’s worst polluters including China and India do not have to begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions for a decade or more under the Accord.
Similarly, according to a May 2017, New York Times (NYT) article on-line, the Paris Climate Accord was intended to be non-binding with no penalties for falling short of declared targets. This article stated the United States would contribute $3 billion in aid to poorer countries by 2020. A related November 2014 NYT article indicated that in addition to the $3 billion from the United States at least 10 other industrialized countries pledged a total of $3 billion prior to final drafting of the Accord. The pledged $6 billion was considered a means to mobilize industrialized nations to begin their annual $100 billion contribution to help poor nations deal with climate change. None of these articles discussed the way the United States would finance our share of this massive global wealth redistribution scheme. Consequently, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Accord.
In a related discussion of climate change regulation of greenhouse gasses in January 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost on to consumers.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, President Obama’s cap and trade plan, was rejected by the US Senate defeating President Obama’s plan. The plan failed due to the impact of the anticipated increases in the cost of electricity, other carbon based energy sources, jobs, and the economy as a whole. In August 2015, over the objection of Congress, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the 1,560 page, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation titled the Clean Power Plan which essentially established a carbon cap and trade plan similar to the one defeated by Congress in 2009. Obama’s 2008 prediction that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his cap and trade plan was quite accurate. According to one source, the 2012, market-clearing price of natural gas was $16 per megawatt; and by 2015, the price ranged from $167 in the Mid-Atlantic region to $357 in parts of Ohio, an 8.5 to 22.3 fold cost increase in only three years. The impact of these cost increases was most severe in industrialized states, states heavily dependent of coal fired electric plants, coal mining regions, states with high relative concentrations of middle and lower class manufacturing workers, and lower population states, Trump country. During his first year in office, President Trump, with input from the head of the EPA, used his Executive Order authority to eliminate the adverse economic consequences of former President Obama’s Executive Ordered cap and trade Clean Power Plan without sacrificing air or water quality.
During a July 2008 Presidential election campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO, Candidate Obama gave a speech which contained the following embedded statement,
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
This statement was totally out of context and unrelated to the rest of the quotation from this segment of the speech; and its removal would have avoided both consternation and confusion regarding its meaning and intent. The security force statement was preceded by promises to expand AmeriCorps to provide a service vehicle to meet national goals connected to a common purpose, a call for people of all ages to serve, a call for veterans to find jobs and support for other vets and our military families, and a commitment to grow our Foreign Service and double the size of the Peace Corps. Similarly, the security force statement was followed by a promise to utilize technology to connect people to service, (and) expand USA Freedom Corps to create opportunities to volunteer. This portion of the speech ended with the statement, This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change’ from the bottom up. Again, the security force statement is totally irrelevant to the rest of the quotation since none of the organizations are designed to achieve national security objectives and their stated functions do not require a civilian national security force that is powerful strong ( and) well-funded. Of course, these organizations would have to be well-funded to accomplish their stated goals.
In my opinion, a FACTCHECK.org article by Brooks Jackson discussing this Obama civilian national security’ force quote is deceptive and resembles a discussion of the meaning of is rather than a reasoned contextual discussion the words Candidate Obama used in his civilian national security’ force statement and the surrounding text contained in the link presented above. The FACTCHECK article begins with the question, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like civilian national security force? The article answers the question by stating, This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. The question and answer was prompted by a November 2008 Associated Press story by Ben Evans with the headline “Georgia Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship” that contained this embellished statement by Evans, Broun fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.’ The headline and statement is based on an interview of Georgia Representative Broun in which Broun stated, It may sound a bit crazy or off base, but the thing is, he’s (Obama’s) the one who proposed this national security force. That’s the thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.
The militaristic Hitler and Soviet Union concerns raised by Representative Broun about this security force statement comes from the fact that the term security is used in the context of military activities in the first sentence; and security is a significant part of the phrase civilian national security’ force in the second sentence of the statement. The militant connotation of the two sentences considered together in the context of a proposed civilian national security force is unavoidable but ignored by Jackson’s answer to the question. In addition, Jackson’s answer fails to consider the implications and internal context of the security force statement as anything other than an amplifier of a contextually unrelated discussion of the Peace Corps, networking, and the Foreign Service. As a highly respected orator, it seems improbable that Obama’s security force statement was an inept attempt to emphasize the importance of his commitment to the Peace Corps, networking, AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, and the Foreign Service. Jackson also failed to consider the possibility that as an Alinsky trained community organizer, Obama might have deceptively hidden his stated intention for a civilian national ‘security’ force in plain sight and hearing and actually meant what he said and said what he meant, an Alinsky style army of empowered activists. Finally, the security force statement stuck out like a sore thumb, screaming to be noticed. Unfortunately, nobody, including Jackson noticed; but Representative Broun noticed.
Given questions surrounding candidate Obama’s security force statement and his work as an Alinsky style community organizer, additional questions seem relevant. During his Administration, several groups that are not adverse to mass political demonstrations that include violent masked black clad protesters often causing extensive damage to private and public property were tolerated by local governments, law enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. Violent protesters have also infiltrated some mass protests that were planned to be non-violent. Groups that plan and conduct violent protests and invade other public political demonstrations to riot and create havoc include, Anonymous, ANTIFA, members of Occupy Wall Street, and Black Panther voter suppression activists, among others. Some suggest that the Obama Administration was more tolerant of these groups than other administrations by its relative inaction to suppress their activities. The plan of many of these groups is to transform America.
Another question about the Obama Administration is the possibility that the Administration installed and promoted an excessive number of progressives to critical positions who could impede succeeding conservative administrations and attempt to preserve the Obama legacy. The latest questions revolve around the actions of high level executives in the IRS, Department of Justice, FBI, and the US Intelligence community. Such a plan would be consistent with strategies outlined in Rules for Radicals and candidate Obama’s 2008 promise that We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
*Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. David Horowitz. 2009. David Horowitz Freedom Center. Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-6562.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
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.p;
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Extreme vetting will ensure that terrorists cannot hide among immigrants.
Psychologists and socialists developed a system of questionnaires and interview questions, “extreme vetting,” that could identify radical Islamic terrorists; and the terrorists will be unaware that they have been identified. “Extreme vetting” could also identify those unable to assimilate into our society. After WWII, social scientists developed questionnaires and interview techniques to identify and quantify traditional family dynamics and antisemitism in the Europe and United States. The same techniques could serve as a model for extreme vetting. Discussion of this extreme vetting model is based on research described in The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (TFS) by Rolf Wiggershaus translated by Michael Robertson.
Since The Frankfurt School, as this group of scholars was known, made significant contributions to the left’s Marxist, socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat agenda in Europe and North America, an introduction is warranted. The Frankfurt School was the only group of scholars whose contribution to Marxist thought was considered collectively significant by the editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT (ADMT). Indeed, several books have been dedicated to the evaluation of the contribution of this group to modern Marxism and the Progressive Liberal movement. This group of German scholars of largely Jewish descent was extremely influential in assuring Marxism’s “assimilation into modern social sciences.” After realizing that the communist revolution was not progressing as expected, this group of Marxists saw the need for a different more inclusive, multidisciplinary, incremental approach to social revolution. They saw that the contradictions between the philosophy of Marx and the realities of communism under Lenin, and later, Stalin in the Soviet Union were largely responsible lack of progress of the revolution in Western Europe and the United States. The group sought to accomplish this goal without stressing either the nature of the principles they promoted or their relationship to the widely discredited Stalinist version of Marxism by eliminating obvious Marxist terminology (ADMT p. 182-188), Stealth Marxism.
In 1923, the Institute of Social Research was established in association with faculty members and academic leaders of Frankfurt University to counter Soviet Communism and pursue an alternate path toward Marxism. In 1933, the group was exiled from Germany and moved to the United States where its principle leaders became faculty members at Columbia University. The group was directed by Max Horkheimer. His two principal associates were Friedrich Pollock and Theodor Wiesengrund-Adorno. Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Herbert Marcuse were significant, but lesser associates of the group. Walter Benjamin, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Jurgen Habermas were also important but even less integrated associates of The Frankfurt School. Publications by this diverse group included works in the areas of philosophy, sociology, social psychology, economics, national planning, musicology, psychoanalysis, political science, law, pop culture, literature, political economics, essays, and literary criticism. The motivation of this group was to promote an interdisciplinary approach, which became known as Critical Theory, for incremental transformation of society to one based on Marxist principles. With time, this approach has been expanded to include many aspects of the biological and ecological sciences, and whenever possible the physical sciences.
The Frankfurt School was at the forefront developing a model for extreme vetting. From the outset, research projects used psychological and sociological questionnaires and polling techniques as the basis for their critique of society. Their project methods included both written questionnaires and leader driven interview and discussion group methods. Their pioneering work in this area began in the early 1930’s. Eric Fromm was initially responsible for development of the questionnaires and interview techniques. According to Wiggershaus, he expected three categories of information to emerge from analysis of the data. First, he expected to develop a perspective of the political, social, and cultural views of respondents. Second, he sought to formulate social-psychological types and their relationship to various political party groups. Third, he hoped to discern methodological capabilities of questionnaires and further refine the procedures.
Fromm’s ideas for a methodology to accomplish these tasks were to infer the character structure of each person from the whole questionnaire. Questions, that would promote conclusions about the hidden, unconscious tendencies and instincts of each respondent which would reveal their character structure to trained observers, were embedded in the questionnaires. The exhaustive questionnaires included sections containing apparently innocent questions which would permit conclusions about hidden personality traits. The conclusions were validated by comparison with the general impression given by a person’s answers (TFS, p. 113-116). Accordingly, character structures should have a basis in explicit psychological theory, influenced by the empirical material of the research itself, and consistently differentiated. The purpose of these ideas was to develop a methodology that would fulfill the goals of analytical social psychology as he saw them (TFS, p.170-171). The methodology could be used for “extreme vetting” that would identify individuals with strong affinity for radical Islamic terrorism and an inability to assimilate.
Paul Lazarsfeld, was the primary empirical data analyst for the The Frankfurt School with an in-depth understanding of Marxist philosophy. He was a pragmatic and methodical social scientist. His experience evaluating, categorizing, and statistically analyzing psychological and sociological research data based on questionnaires and interviews was extensive. In guidance for interviewers and assistants Lazarsfeld noted that none of our assistants should appear in the role of a reporter or observer, but rather that each of them should blend into life naturally by means of some function or other useful to the people. His guidance was consistent with a previous statement about research involving interviews and questionnaires where he noted that
Only a researcher who is so close to the problem in his own life that he only needs to practice introspection to be able to produce a conceptual and methodological apparatus and possesses the scientific brutality to translate this experience into data and formulae which can be checked can help to make problems less opaque than they are at present (TFS, p. 166-167).
Lazarsfeld’s research was well received by the Rockefeller Foundation which financed a trip to the United States and resulted in an eventual position at Columbia University where he became the first Director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research which was the predecessor of the modern Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. This group could be contracted to develop a tool for “extreme vetting.”
Studies on Authority and the Family was an import result of the collaboration between Fromm and Lazarsfeld. Fromm claimed that the authoritarian, patricentric, bourgeois (Capitalist) Protestant society and family resulted in character types essential for authoritarian and capitalist societies. In Fromm’s view, these character types enjoy accumulating property and capital without regard for the effect of their accumulation on fellow human beings and feel that acquisition of power is even more important than accumulation of property and capital. Studies on Authority and the Family may be one of the most significant assaults on the paternal Judeo-Christian family and Christianity of the first half of the twentieth century. Fromm used the study to formulate his sado-masochistic character type as a product of the patricentric, bourgeois-Protestant society and family. Although data from the questionnaires was not referenced by Fromm, the study appears to be the basis for a great deal of subsequent psychological research designed to demonstrate the adverse effects of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, Christianity, and religion on individuals and society under both capitalism and authoritarian governments. Again, the methodology could be adapted to accomplish “extreme vetting” of immigrants.
Although the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation were approached for antisemitism research grants, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee provided financing for the project. One aspect of the project dealt with antisemitism from the perspective of psychology of the masses including the instincts and thoughts of men. The project was also designed to continue development of experimental psychological research methods. The questionnaire and interview methodology developed required interviewers who know the interviewees and whom the interviewees trust. Questions included, How do you distinguish a Jew from another person?, What do you think about the Detroit Riots?, and Do you go to church? The questions established the attitudes of respondents about Jews and anti-Semitism. The interviewers were told that the openness of everyday conversational situations would allow both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the material collected in a pioneer experiment in social research that would provide insight into what working people honestly are thinking about the whole Jewish question’ and why they feel that way. Polls and interviews could not provide the insights that would be gained from conversations. Obviously, techniques are know to develop tools that would work well for “extreme vetting.”
Wiggershaus reviewed collaboration between The Frankfurt School and a group of psychologist from the University of California at Berkley, R. Nevitt Sanford, Else Frankel-Brunswik, and Daniel J. Levinson, which was a key part of the anti-Semitism project. The Berkley researchers, who referred to themselves as the Public Opinion Study Group early in the project, developed a unique combination of questionnaires, interviews, and projective psychological tests. These collaborators concluded that an indirect means of assessing anti-Semitism would be advantageous and started working to develop a method to accomplish the task. The indirect questions were formulated by using two questionnaires given consecutively to various test groups. The first questionnaire contained no obvious anti-Semitism questions or questions related to other forms of prejudice. The second questionnaire contained a mix of questions related to Jews and ethnocentrism and other subjects mixed in a manner designed to disguise the intent of the questions. The purpose of this format was to find questions in the first questionnaire with high correlation to anti-Semitism displayed in the second questionnaire and develop a highly reliable indirect research tool. Wiggershaus observed that years later Adorno made the following statement about the process of developing the questions:
We spent hours waiting for ideas to occur to us for individual items for the questionnaire. The less their relation to the main topic was visible, the prouder we were of them. We then checked these items in constant pre-tests to restrict the questionnaire and exclude those items which proved not to be sufficiently restrictive (TFS, p. 373).
One result of the collaboration between The Frankfurt School and the Berkley Public Opinion Study Group was development of the F-scale (Fascism Scale). The scale was an effort to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes, providing evidence of a connection between anti-Semitism, fascism and the destructive character in experimental proof of the threat that anti-Semitism poses to democratic civilization. Similar methodology could be developed that would provide an IT-scale and an A-scale for Islamic terrorist tendencies and assimilation potential, respectively.
The questionnaires included questions such as, Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living; and The Jews should make a sincere effort to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they want to stop being persecuted. To access the level of anti-Semitism, respondents registered three levels of agreement or disagreement to each question. As in previous questionnaires, projective questions such as, What great people, living or dead, do you admire most? were inserted to evaluate respondent personality structures. Clinical case study methods including use of pictures of groups of people were used to evaluate reactions to various types of people and interpersonal relationships. Initially, seventy-seven women students participated in questionnaires ten of whom were evaluated in the clinical tests. These methods were used to reveal the groups concept of the personality which included determining modes of behavior and conscious convictions, deep-seated, often unconscious, tendencies influencing behavior and convictions, and overt and covert anti-Semitism.
According to Wiggershaus, one result of this research was A Scale for the Measurement of Anti-Semitism. The research also revealed two distinct modes of antisemitism. Affluent Jews, bankers, brokers, and merchants, etc., were viewed as oppressors by middle and lower class non-Jews who saw them as the immediate cause of their misery. Middle class Jews who usually embraced individual achievement while maintaining Jewish ethical and religious values — such as learning, intellectual achievement, social betterment, and things of the spirit contrary to the social behavior customary to their social setting were viewed as non-conformists and also experienced anti-Semitism.
The methodologies and questions exist to determine whether an individual is hiding their ties to radical Islamic terrorism and would support the Constitution of the United States over preference for Islamic enclaves governed under Sharia Law. This process would be extreme vetting. Psychologist and sociologist have developed questionnaires and interview methods that identify conscience and unconscious personality and cultural characteristics associated with what Fromm called the sado-masochistic character type which appears to be consistent with the personality type of radical Islamic terrorists. They developed a scale to measure antisemitism indicating that a scale to can be developed measure conscience and unconscious tendencies and attitudes necessary for an individual to become a terrorist. Similarly, a scale like the Fascism Scale can be developed to measure psychological dimensions, variables, and syndromes to evaluate a potential conscience and unconscious connections between radical Islamic terrorism and Islam. For conversational, individual, and group interviews, undercover intelligence officers and Special Forces operatives have the training and experience to blend into subject groups and conduct casual and non-threatening interviews necessary for effective extreme vetting. In my opinion, an effective system of extreme vetting could be implemented in a relatively short period of time. Such a system would provide far more confidence among We the People regarding immigration of people from areas known to produce radical Islamic terrorists.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Where border security and immigration are concerned, Democrat Party controlled national, state, and local governments act as Democrat crime syndicates, in my opinion. When sanctuary laws or rules are established by state and local governments and the national government recognizes the sanctuary status of these governments, all three levels of government combine to act as Democrat crime syndicates. They are “a group of persons or concerns who combine to carry out a particular transaction or project [illegal immigration]; [and] a loose association of racketeers [government entities] in control of [the] organized crime [of illegal immigration]….” The combination of sanctuary government entities and the “open border” policies of the current Democrat Presidential administration enhances the idea that Democrat crime syndicates control border policy and immigration in our nation.
“We the People” generally consider “squatters” as criminals. Unfortunately, most Democrat Party controlled jurisdictions consider “squatters” as violators of civil rather than criminal law. Consequently, “squatters” are categorized as renters not trespassers and given the same rights as actual tenants. Owners must pursue eviction in civil courts which can take months or years, and hundreds to thousands of dollars in legal fees, to remove the “squatters” from their property. Unfortunately, “squatters” often have no regard for the place where they “squat” causing hundreds even thousands of dollars in damage to the property. Often, “squatters” turn the property into illegal drug distribution centers, human trafficking distribution centers, or houses of prostitution. On the other hand, if the will of most of “We the People” in the United States was reflected in new landlord tenant laws, “squatters” would be treated as the criminal trespassers that they are, removed expeditiously as criminals, and fined or imprisoned appropriately. Therefore, such local and state governments controlled by the Democrat Party “[combine] to carry out a particular transaction or project [“squatter’s” rights]… [with] a loose association of… organized [criminal “squatters”]” making these jurisdictions Democrat crime syndicates.
Two recent South Texas Republican primaries and a special election demonstrate, Hispanics may be turning to the Republican Party. Mayra Flores flipped a 100-year Democrat House seat when she won a special election in June 2022. She will have to run again in November 2022. In two other Rio Grande Valley Republican primaries, Monica De La Cruz won outright, and Cassy Garcia was the highest vote getter and leads in polls for the May runoff. The winner will run against incumbent Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar. In a Virginia Republican House primary, Yesli Vega, won the party nomination. Vega said of Hispanics, “They are hard workers, and many have fled their native countries to come here to America to seek better opportunities not just for themselves, but for their children, for their families. Some folks have escaped socialism. These four Hispanic women clearly show a potentially seismic Hispanic shift from Democrat to Republican, especially if they all were to win seats in the US. House in November. Hispanics may be realizing that today’s Democrat Party with its near total rejection of traditional values and conservativism, no longer represents the values traditionally held by many Hispanics. Many are questioning Hispanic allegiance to Democrats and taking a closer look at the Republican Party.
half the size of the Black population. The Hispanic population is now 55% greater than the Black population. The Asian population has also increased from 0.2% to5.9%, a 30-fold increase. The only group that has declined during this period is the White population which has decreased from79.4% to 57.8%, a 37% decrease. The effect of illegal immigration on this population and demographic data could not be determined.
