PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES

PROGRESSIVES VS TRADITIONAL FAMILIES CONTENTS

    Progressive Vision for Families

    Traditional Biblical Families

     Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

     Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

     The Biblical Christian Response 

     Progressive Vision for Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Biblical Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Warfare: A Clash of Worldviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education: Progressives’ Secret Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Biblical Christian Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

CHINA’S MARXIST WAR AGAINST HUMANITY

CHINA’S MARXIST WAR CONTENTS

A picture of the chinese president with his face in front.

MARXIST PHILOSOPHY

WAR, WARFARE, AND CONFLICT DEFINED

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHINA’S MARXIST WAR AGAINST HUMANITY
Tibet
The Democracy Movement and Tiananmen Square
Hong Kong
Uyghurs
Christians

CHINA’S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY UNCONVENTIONAL EXTERNAL TACTICS IN WAR
Global Economic Domination
Overt Intervention and Espionage
Weaponization of Covid-19
Weaponization of Illicit Drug and Drug Precursor Ingredient Trade

DISCUSSION

 

China’s Marxist war against humanity is being waged on virtually every front imaginable. This Global War is political, legal, economic, technological, educational, psychological, cultural, and militaristic, with propaganda, espionage, and surveillance as key weapons. China’s Marxist war against humanity is fought with patience and the understanding that victory can be theirs through either internal of external actions exerted against their foes. Marxists around the world view the United States as their greatest foe. Joseph Stalin said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. In the United States, the left has been following this strategy for at least 100 years.

MARXIST PHILOSOPHY

Ideologies and governance of the systems on the left are based on Marxist philosophy. Marxist philosophy predicts that societies will evolve into societies where all will share equally in all the benefits of society regardless of their willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. Wealth will be shared equally among all members of society from each according to their ability to each according to their need. To accomplish this lofty goal, individuals must sacrifice themselves to the good of the collective or society. The cost of this sacrifice is a loss of individual freedom. Historically, no society has ever accomplished this utopian vision for their Marx based society, and their people suffer. Throughout their history, Marxists have characterized themselves as Marxists, communists, or socialists depending on political expediency, cultural trends, and acceptance. After the Communist Revolution in Russia, the terms communist and socialist lost favor and became a political, social, and economic liability in Western Europe and the United States. The ideologies and governance systems underpinning the right are Judeo-Christian values, Adam Smith style capitalism, and democratic republican constitutional systems like we have in the United States.

For the purposes of this discussion, global political socio-economic systems are characterized as a linear left to right continuum. The systems and ideologies on the left include far left, dictatorial atheistic communist or socialist regimes, democratic socialists, progressives, liberals, and, in the United States, moderate Democrats and Republicans In Name Only, RINOs. The farther to the left the system or ideology is on this continuum, the quicker the practitioners will lead their societies to governance based on Marxist philosophy. The left vehemently disagrees with the assertion that their philosophical roots are Marxist because that associates them with communism and socialism. However, some younger activists on the far left in the United States are embracing and touting their Marxist, communist, or socialist roots. In my opinion, theocratic or dictatorial Islamist ideology and regimes, Islamists, belong near the far left of the political continuum.  For Islamists, the individual must be subservient to the good of Islam

sacrificing their personal freedom as with individuals espousing Marxist ideology. The fact that Islamists are not atheists is not relevant; it is the role of the individual and freedom that places Islamists on the far left of the political continuum.

WAR, WARFARE, AND CONFLICT DEFINED

For this discussion of Marxism’s war on humanity all connotations of war,warfare, and conflict must be considered. Merriam Webster’s on-line dictionary will be used to define these terms. War is defined as follows:

Noun:

“A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations or a period of such armed conflict,

A state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism, a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end [such as] a class war [or] war against disease.”

Verb:

“To be in active or vigorous conflict or to engage in warfare.

Warfare is defined as follows:

Military operations between enemies; hostilities,

an activity undertaken by a political unit (such as a nation) to weaken or destroy another [such as] economic warfare,

Struggle between competing entities: conflict.

Conflict is defined as follows:

A struggle, fight, or battle for power or property,

Strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that often results in angry argument,

A difference that prevents agreementdisagreement between ideas or feelings,

Competitive or opposing action of incompatiblesan antagonistic state or action [between] divergent ideas, interests, or persons, a conflict of principles,

Mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

Although Marxist nations have engaged in all the activities described in the above definitions, the most ominous aspect of Marxism’s war against humanity are Marxist, communist, former communist, socialist, and Islamist nations preparing their military forces and arsenals for war, armed conflict, against the non-Marxist or non-Islamist nations of the world. The most threatening nations in this category are the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s ally North Korea, Russia, under the former, Communist, Vladimir Putin, and the Islamist state of Iran. These four nations pose the greatest threat for war with the other nations of the world and all of humanity.

A BRIEF INTERNAL HISTORY OF CHINA’S MARXIST WAR AGAINST HUMANITY

China, the PRC, under the leadership of the CCP has been preparing for their role in China’s Marxist war against humanity since before the 1911 Xinhai or Hsinhai Revolution. The revolution ended 2,132 years of imperial rule in China and 276 years of the Qing dynasty. On January 1, 1912, the National Assembly declared the establishment of the Republic of China following the abdication of the last Qing emperor. After a period of political instability, the Chinese Nationalist Party (CNP) also known as the KMT founded by Sun Yat-sen gained power in China and admitted Chinese Communists into the CNP. Sun appointed Chiang Kai-shek  to build China’s  military; and after visiting the Soviet Union, Chiang adapted the Soviet military methods for the Chinese army but did not embrace communism. After Sun’s death, Chiang gained control of the CNP and China following the brutal expulsion of theA painting of mao zedong in front of the communist symbol. CCP from the CNP leading to a civil war in China which paused only to unite China in its war against Japan during WWII. After the defeat of Japan, China’s civil war resumed. The PRC and CCP led by Mao Zedong and his peoples Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the CNP in 1949. Chiang Kai-shek, his army, and followers were driven onto the Island of Taiwan where they remain to this day.

A map of china with major ethnic groups.Since the vast majority of the Chinese people are ethnic Hans who speak Mandarin and occupy the largest land mass in the PRC, Mao consolidated power in main-land China by suppressing or defeating the other ethnicities. The other ethnic groups occupying largest land areas on the PRC include Mongolians, who live under PRC control outside Mongolia, occupy the fourth largest land mass in the PRC. Tibetans and Uyghurs occupy the second and third largest land masses in the PRC respectively.

In my opinion, China poses a greater threat to the United States and our allies than Russia. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drastically increased the possibility of war in all Europe. During the post WWII, cold war, half of the twentieth century, Russia, and China took two different approaches toward world domination. Russia took a militaristic approach, while China and the CCP took a mostly non-militant approach to world affairs during the latter cold war period. The two exceptions were their intervention supporting North Korea during the Korean War and their invasion and conquest of Tibet in the early 1950’s. During the remainder of the twentieth century, the CCP concentrated on international diplomacy and the countries economic and technological development, global trade agreements which opened the billion people of China as a market for the rest of the world and financed sustainable expansion of their military. These actions included the 1978 Open-Door Policy, 1979 establishment of full diplomatic relations with the United States, 1983 US State Department classification of China as “a friendly, developing nation,” 1986 elevation to observer status within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT,  that promoted trade and economic development. GATT was superseded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) . In 2001, China was admitted into the WTO with friendly developing nation status giving China enormous economic advantages in competition with developed nations like the United States. These CCP policies allowed China to become one of the largest economies in the world, finance their military expansion and arsenal development in preparation for China’s Marxist war against humanity, and expand their influence around the world.

Unfortunately, the United States and most of the western world did not view the PRC as a significant threat during the twentieth century. Several US administrations believed that opening Chinese markets and exposing their people to capitalism, western ideas, and freedom would eventually lead to a rejection of communism. The hope of the western world, especially the United States, for China was nave, myopic, extremely self-indulgent since little in the history of the PRC under the strong arm of the CCP indicated such a possibility. Apart from the period between establishment of the open door policy in 1978 and the 1989 Democracy Movement protests, the CCP ensured that the vast majority of the Chinese people were never exposed to western ideas and culture.  The west vastly underestimated the totality of CCP control and domination of the people of China, another aspect of China’s Marxist war against humanity. As long as the CCP controls China, the Chinese people will never have the opportunity to choose any other form of government or economy. Those allowed to interact socially and economically with the west were dedicated communists who would use the global markets to extract money, technology, and diplomatic advantages from western countries. This control of access to diverse ideas and forms of governance is part of China’s Marxist war against humanity. It is a “conflict, [or] mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing demands existing between western governments and economies and Marxists including the CCP.

Tibet

CCP intolerance for descent, ethnic group autonomy, and freedom for the Chinese people began early in the history of the PRC. Tibet has been part of China since it was conquered by the Qing dynasty in 1720 but maintained considerable autonomy until the middle of the twentieth century. Shortly after the CCP gained control of China in 1949, they started to consolidate power in the lands of the major Chinese ethnic groups, including Tibet. Tibet resisted these efforts for about two years. In 1951, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the vastly inferior Tibetan army. Subsequently, Tibetan negotiators were sent to Beijing by their conquerors and presented with an already-finished document commonly referred to as the Seventeen Point Agreement which they were forced to sign without consulting with Tibetan leaders. The agreement forced Tibet’s government to acknowledge its shared heritage with China for the first time in Tibet’s history. By 1956, militias were battling the PLA in parts of Tibet over CCP land reforms. Finally, in 1959, the PLA moved against the Tibetan capital crushing the rebellion and forcing the Dalai Lama and a small contingent of government officials to flee Tibet across the Himalayan mountains to India. This action virtually ended Tibetan cultural, social, religious, and political autonomy, more of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

The Democracy Movement and Tiananmen Square

CCP intolerance for descent, ethnic group autonomy, and freedom continues to this day. In the late 1980’s, the Democracy Movement, which had its roots in the open door policy and expanded diplomatic relations and student exchanges with western countries and universities, exposed many Chinese citizens to the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of western nations. Some economic reforms opened opportunities for free markets and entrepreneurship to CCP elites, industrialists, and financers but not the majority of the population. Students and intellectuals, discouraged by the disparities of the economic reforms and lack of freedom, started to incite others to demonstrate and protest for greater economic freedom and democratic reforms for the Chinese people. By the spring of 1989, the Democracy Movement protests had spread to over 400 Chinese cities.

This descent and protests were unacceptable to the CCP and resulted in brutal suppressionA group of tanks driving down the street. of the protests throughout China. The world witnessed the brutality of the CCP suppression at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square immortalized by the Tank Man photo and video of a lone man standing in front of a column of PLA tanks. His fate, after by-standers pulled him from the scene, is unknown. Estimates of the death toll throughout China vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

After the protests were suppressed, four million people were reportedly investigated for their role in the protests, including more than one million government officials. The authorities arrested tens if not hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Many were jailed or sent to labor camps. They were often denied access to see their families and often put in cells so crowded that not everyone had space to sleep. Dissidents shared cells with murderers and rapists, and torture was not uncommon, more of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Hong Kong

In the spring of 2019, the people of Hong Kong learned the bitter lessons that the people of Tibet and China’s Democracy Movement had learned in the twentieth century. The PRC under the CCP will not tolerate freedom, real autonomy, or democracy for those under CCP control, more of China’s Marxist war against humanity. Hong Kong was a British colony for 155 years, from 1842 until 1997, when the British transferred control to the PRC and Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration prescribed the conditions and date of the transfer including a PRC guarantee that Hong Kong would maintain its economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer, until 2047. Under the joint declaration which included the “one country, two systems” principle. The Basic Law of Hong Kong is the regional constitution. The regional government was composed of three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial with functions similar to those in our constitution. Before the transfer, The Legislative Council became a fully elected legislature in 1995. Over the 175 years since Hong Kong became a British colony, its people benefited from the freedom, political autonomy, and prosperity of western capitalism, and free markets. Hong Kong developed into a major capitalist service economy, financial center, commercial port, the worlds tenth-largest exporter, and ninth-largest importer. Hong Kong was ranked 4th in the Global Financial Centers Index., and the Hong Kong dollar became the eighth most traded currency in the world. Hong Kong was also home to the third-highest number of billionaires of any city in the world, the second-highest number of billionaires of any city in Asia with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. In my opinion, the PRC under CCP leadership has viewed Hong Kong as a threat to CCP control of the people in China throughout the existence of the PRC. Hong Kong was a beacon of freedom and opportunity provided by Hong Kong’s democracy and prosperous capitalistic economy not experienced by the majority of the People of China under the CCP.

As improbable as it may seem, the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests were sparked by the investigation of a 2018 murder in Taipei Tiawan. A young man and his girlfriend both from Hong Kong got into an argument in Taipei where they were vacationing. When the man learned that the baby, she carried, was not his, he murdered his girlfriend. He was able to escape Taiwan and return undetected to Hong Kong where he used her bank account to pay off some of his debt.  This act resulted in his arrest and confession to murder. Since the murder occurred in Taiwan, he could only be charged with money laundering in Hong Kong. No extradition agreement existed between Hong Kong and Taiwan because the PRC does not recognize Taiwan as a separate country. In February 2019, the Hong Kong government proposed an amendment to the ordinances regarding extradition for case-by-case transfers of fugitives, on the order of the chief executive, to any jurisdiction where the city lacks a formal extradition agreement. While the proposed amendment would allow Hong Kong to extradite this defendant to Taiwan, the amendment also allowed Hong Kong residents to be extradited to mainland China and Beijing which led to the 2019 2020 Hong Kong protests. The people of Hong Kong feared extradition to the mainland for any form of criticism of the CCP or PRC. When the protests turned into riots, the CCP sent troops to Hong Kong to control the riots by instituting martial law and quell all forms of decent including journalists and Christian leaders, like Cardinal Joseph Zen, According to a USCRIF commissioner, the CCP is eviscerating the rule of law and civil liberties in Hong Kong in Cardinal Zen’s case. The result was the end of freedom and the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong in violation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Consequently, China’s Marxist war on humanity includes the fact that China does not honor written international agreements that they sign if the agreements do not serve the long-term objectives of the CCP.

Uyghurs

According to the article, Who are the Uyghurs and why is China bring accused of genocide? in the early 20th Century, the Uyghurs briefly declared independence for their region, Xinjiang Province. Sadly, soon after the formation of the PRC in 1949, like Tibet, the province was brought under the complete control of China’s new Communist government, another example of China’s Marxist war against humanity. The Uyghurs are the fifth largest ethnic group in China; but they only comprise 0.76% of China’s population. Uyghurs are mostly Muslim, see themselves as culturally and ethnically close to Central Asian nations rather than China, and speak their own language, similar to Turkish. Xinjiang Province is a mostly desert region that produces about a fifth of the world’s cotton and rich in oil and natural gas. Because of its proximity to Central Asia and Europe, Xinjiang Province is seen by Beijing as an important trade link.

Three aerial photos of a prison in the desert.According to this article, human rights groups believe China has forcibly detained more than one million Uyghurs in a large network of what the state calls “re-education camps” and sentenced hundreds of thousands to prison terms. 2020, BBC research showed that up to half a million people were being forced to pick cotton in Xinjiang. In addition, several countries, including the US, UK, Canada, and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide. These reports also claim that China has been forcibly mass sterilizing Uyghur women to suppress the population, separating children from their families, and attempting to break the cultural traditions of the group. By 2020, Xinjiang had over 380 “re-education camps,” an increase of 40% above previous estimates including evidence that new factories have been built within the grounds of the re-education camps. People who have escaped the camps reported physical, mental, and sexual torture. Women have spoken of mass rape and sexual abuse.

On one hand, China has dismissed claims that it is trying to reduce the Uyghur population through genocide and mass sterilizations as “baseless and says allegations of forced labor at re-education camps are “completely fabricated.” On the other hand, China says the crackdown on Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province is necessary to prevent terrorism and root out Islamist extremism. Re-education camps are an effective tool in its fight against terrorism. Additionally, in 2017 President Xi Jinping issued an order saying all religions in China should be Chinese in orientation. Since Islam and Christianity invoke allegiance to Allah or God as at least equal to allegiance to any state power, these religions lack the needed Chinese orientation. Consequently, further crackdowns, especially on Islamic Uyghurs, were inevitable.

Human rights groups accuse China of exaggerating the Uyghur threat of terrorist activities to justify Chinese repression of the Uyghurs. China cannot have it both ways. Do Uyghur re-education camps exist or not? Are the camps in effective tool to fight terrorism? If so, the camps must exist. China’s Uyghur genocide, forced sterilization of Uyghur women, forced labor in re-education camps, and attempts to destroy Uyghur traditions and culture are examples of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Christians

The Chinese have encountered and reluctantly accepted Christianity since the Seventh century. While the Mongolian Empire conquests reached Eastern Europe, the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, Mongolians often adopted important parts of the culture of those they vanquished. The practice allowed for greater control of conquered populations. They also took some of the best and brightest back to Mongolia to increase their knowledge and power. The Eastern Orthodox Christianity of Byzantium was one of the cultural imports to Mongolia. The Papacy made overtures to the Mongolian Empire and western China in the thirteenth century after traders like Marco Polo opened both trade and Papal dialog. In the middle of the fourteenth century China’s Ming Dynasty conquered the Mongols and started to eliminate all non-Han influences like Christianity. By the sixteenth century, little meaningful Christianity remained in Mongolia and China. The Jesuit order was founded in 1540 and started planning to send missionaries to India and China. Jesuits struggled to gain a Christian foothold in China for over 100 years. During this period of dynastic civil war between the old Ming and victorious Manchurian Qing Dynasties, Jesuits suffered. For the most part, Jesuit Catholics had relatively few Chinese converts to Christianity.

The Protestant missionary movement started in earnest after the Second Great Awakening worldwide revivals of the early 1800’s. For the first half of the century, China restricted missionaries to the area around thirteen costal factories. After the first opium war, missionaries could live and work in five coastal cities; and after the second opium war, they were free to travel and work throughout China. One estimate indicates that some 50,000 foreign missionaries worked in China between 1809 and 1949 including unmarried Protestant women and men with their wives and children. Missionary work slowed after the 1911 Xinhai or Hsinhai Revolution ended imperial rule with the formation of the Republic of China. This republic was plagued by WWII and nearly 40 years of civil war between the CNP and CCP. The CCP was victorious and in 1949 established the PRC. By 1953, Mao Zedong’s CCP expelled all foreign missionaries from China; and the PRC persecuted any group that did not unconditionally support the government, more of China’s Marxist was against humanity. As a result, Christians were driven underground in secret home churches. Foreign missionaries infiltrated China and smuggled Bibles to home churches for distribution to Christians.

During the decade from the late 1970’s, the Open-Door Policy and full diplomatic relations with the United States were established, the Democracy Movement grew among the general population, the home church movement grew openly, and foreign missionaries were free to travel, preach, and distribute Bibles. The Democracy Movement exposed many Chinese citizens to the freedoms and prosperity enjoyed by the citizens of western nations resulting in dissatisfaction, protests, and riots throughout the nation. Sadly, for Chinese Christians, the CCP response to the unrest was violent suppression ending in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The suppression also included ideologies that did not fully support CCP ideology, including Christianity and the Home Church Movement. Biblical Christianity, home churches, foreign missionary work, and non-Sinicized Bible distribution are once again a covert enterprise.

Why do the Marxists of the world and the CCP have such disdain, distrust, and actual fear of Christianity? The answer is found in one word, individualism. The role, value, and relationship of the individual to the value of the society or group are direct, antithetical opposites in Marxism and Christianity. For any form of Marxism to succeed, the individual must submit to the good of society. In Christianity, the individual Christian 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). Each individual is one of God’s children.  heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17 NIV). For Marxists, the individual has no value compared to the value of the society. Individuals are worthless. For Christians as co-heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. The infinite value of the individual in Christianity is incompatible with the worthless value of the individual in Marxism. Consequently, any idea or world view, like Christianity, that elevates the induvial over the collective or society must be devalued or eliminated for Marxist systems like the CCP to succeed. Since churches that preach Biblical Christianity rather than the Sinicized, Cultural Christianity preached in CCP sanctioned churches, Biblical Christian churches and Biblical Christian families in China will suffer increasing persecution.

The article, China Ramping Up Persecution of Christians As It Demands Worship and Allegiance of Xi Jinping: Watchdog relies extensively on ChinaAid for its information. This watchdog group has been reporting on China’s persecution of its approximately 96.7 million Christians since at least 2006. ChinaAid is “gravely concerned” with how state-sanctioned churches are being treated in China. The CCP escalated its persecution of Christians throughout 2022 by clamping down on churches and online religious content. The Chinese government is using charges of “fraud” to financially suffocate the house church movement, which consists of Christian congregations that have not registered with China’s official Protestant church. The traditional Christian practice of giving tithes and offerings is the basis for the fraud charges against house churches under the “Measures for the Financial Management of Religious Activity Venues,” which were updated June 2022. ChinaAid noted that the infamous ‘zero-COVID’ policy, authorities limited or eliminated Christian gatherings and multiple house church pastors and elders have been jailed and potentially face years in prison. In addition, the Chinese government is cracking down on Christian websites and apps to “remove Christianity from cyberspace, another aspect of China’s Marxist war against humanity. “China’s state-run religious groups lavished compliments and praise on Xi with more extravagant words and phrases than China’s state-run media, showing that religious Sinicization is evolving from supporting the CCP to worship and allegiance to Xi Jinping,” ”

In April of 2019 a seminar, titled, Christianity’s Enormous Harm on China’s Security. was presented to CCP members. It encouraged all CCP members to maintain correct views regarding religion and avoid being persuaded by its ideology. The goal is not only to curate a socialist-friendly church; they hope to erase it according to ChinaAid. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to think that Biblical Christians in China will face re-education camps like the Uighurs of China. Persecution of Chinese Christians is another example of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

CHINA’S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY UNCONVENTIONAL EXTERNAL TACTICS IN WAR

China’s Marxist war is a struggle or competition between opposing forces [Marxist China and humanity, particularly the United States and our global allies] for a particular end,world domination. The current CCP leader, X­ Jinping assumed leadership of the CCP in 2012 as its first leader born after formation of the PRC in 1949. Since that time, his power as leader has increased incrementally. At that time, Xi began to use the term Chinese Dream to encapsulate his vision for the future of China. The dream expresses the hope for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” an empire with thousands of years of history. Stated another way, The Chinese Dream is about Chinese prosperity, collective effort, socialism, and national glory. In 2013, he quoted Confucius, saying “he who rules by virtue is like the Pole Star, it maintains its place, and the multitude of stars pay homage.” Xi also stated that the Western world was “suffering a crisis of confidence” and that the CCP has been “the loyal inheritor and promoter of China’s outstanding traditional culture.” Xi has pursued world domination more aggressively each year. After election to his second five-year term as PRC and CCP President in 2017, Xi made his plans for world domination clear by stating “To achieve great dreams there must be a great struggle.” China has entered a “new era” where it should take “center stage in the world.” He said that “socialism with Chinese characteristics” had led to China becoming “a great power” and that its “flourishing” economic model offered a “new choice” for developing countries. In his unprecedented third five-year term as party leader, Xi Jinping and the CCP see world domination as the Chinese Dream. Everything China does around the globe is designed to accomplish the Chinese Dream, or China’s Manifest Destany.

The unconventional tactics in war used by Xi and the CCP include a strategy to achieve global economic domination; covert intervention, espionage, and theft of intellectual property and technology related to the military, industrial development, manufacturing, computing hardware and software, communications, artificial intelligence, and medicine. Other unconventional tactics in war used by Xi and the CCP include the spread of Covid-19 from Wuhan Provence in China to the rest of the world. China also sells fentanyl and other illicit drugs or their precursor ingredients to Cartels and other criminal organizations around the world. Globally, millions died from Covid-19, fentanyl, and illicit drug poisoning. In my opinion, these tactics are part of China’s version of Manifest Destany or China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Global Economic Domination

The  2021 National Review article, What China Really Wants: A New World Order by Manyin Li is a frightening article outlining China’s plan to dominate the world, China’s Marxist war. The article is a translation, with commentary, of speeches by Jin Canrong, the Chinese State Master, a professor at the Chinese People’s University in Beijing, a U.S. expert, and an adviser to the CCP’s Organization Department and United Front Department. Jin’s words contradicted all the beautiful public utterances of CCP leaders, such as, We will never become a hegemon’ and, We have no intention to challenge the U.S. leadership.’ Accordingly, the article indicates that the CCP plans to increase China’s Gross Domestic Product, GDP, three-fold between 2021 and 2049, the 100th anniversary of the PRC when China will enter the club of developed countries. Unfortunately for the people of China, much if not most of the GDP increase will go to development of infrastructure, manufacturing, military equipment and personal, global investments including third-world country infrastructure, and the wealth of CCP elites and leaders.

Manyin Li noted six phases required to accomplish this goal, outlined in the discussion that follows. Phase one has four parts. First, after the 2008 US mortgage crises and recession, China purchased $800 billion of US Treasury bonds at the request of our government to stabilize the bond market. Second, China recognizes that there are about 6 million Chinese people in the United States which the CCP could possibly influence because of ties to family members in China which the CCP can use as leverage. For this purpose, China established illegal Chinese police stations near China towns in the United States and around the world. Consequently, many Chinese provinces, cities, and universities have strong relationships with their counterparts in the US. Large multi-national US corporations have built factories and established large product marketing efforts in China. These corporations and Chinese corporations sell their products in the United States benefiting the US economy with lower priced goods. These factors make the two countries inextricable. As Jin Canrong expressed it, The two countries will be inseparable, to the point that I have you in me, and you have me in you.’ This is a result of globalization. Unfortunately, many multi-national US corporations have moved manufacturing to China at the expense of US jobs to reduce labor costs and increase profits. In many ways, this has made the US dependent on China for end products and supply chain components for US based assembly plants. Third, the two countries have cooperated on international affairs for decades. Cooperation includes counterterrorism, North Korea, the first nuclear treaty negotiations with Iran, and the Paris climate accord. The latter two efforts eventually failed to gain support in the US congress. Fourth, China is using its economic prowess to gain alliances throughout the world by financing infrastructure projects in developing countries in Central Asia, Africa, and South America. These countries support China in international affairs and institutions like the United Nations. The CCP’s Phase one activities have given China enormous wealth and international statue.

Phase two is co-rule with the United States. Xi Jinping was the first CCP leader to consider China as a world power, rather than a regional power. In 2013 Xi Jinping proposed an agreement with the United States featuring a policy of no clash, no confrontation, mutual respect, cooperation, and a win-win situation with no war between the two nuclear powers. The US agreed to the general concept; but, from China’s perspective, rejected the idea of co-rule with China. However, the CCP envisions a world where China gains sufficient power that the US must accept China as, at least, an equal.

Phase three is the Chinese squeeze play when the Chinese squeeze the US out of the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. US diversity, freedom, and polarization lead China to believe that we could not act in the face of multiple adversaries which the CCP would foster on the world stage. In his speeches, Jin Canrong stated,

For the U.S., the best situation is to have only one external enemy. If there are two, it would be at its wits’ end. I guess that Americans would be totally disoriented if there were three or four enemies. China’s strategy is to ensure that the U.S. has four enemies.

One more trick is to ensure that the U.S. be trapped in debt crisis.

China’s global squeeze play has the following additional two parts:

“The first is looking westward and called One Belt One Road,’ which will create physical connections between East Asia, West Asia, Africa and Europe by railroads, highways, pipelines, gas lines, optical cables, seaports, transportation hubs, and airports to form a huge network. The second pillar is the Asian-Pacific Free Trade Zone. Looking eastward, it was written into the declaration of the 2014 APEC meeting.”

According to Jin Canrong, China has made the greatest gains in global power during the twenty first century. In his view, the US wasted 20 years of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan with no strategic plan for those wars. Strategically, the US lost status on the world stage to China.

Phase four involves significant differences in military tactics, expenditures, and openness which places the US at a significant disadvantage. In the words of Jin Canrong,

“The U.S. military is transparent [regarding weapon systems development which we reveal once the systems become part of our arsenal], we know everything about it, while China’s is not. The two nations have very different thinking in military strategy. China does not show its prowess but hides it. We have hidden killers never made known to others.”

China and the CCP are patient and stealthy when they militarize significant global territory like the militarized islands they built in the South China Sea. This overt action is a hostile component of China’s Marxist war against humanity. China waited until the US was wayed down in Syria, Afghanistan, or Ukraine to construct these militarized islands. During this period, China has also continued with its global economic foreign investments like One Belt One Road, the Brick Bank, Asia Investment, Air Defense Identifying Zone.

The fifth phase of China’s plan for world domination is to change the free world. In 2020, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that if the free world doesn’t change China, communist China will surely change us. According to Jin Canrong, China’s capital investments in the US will find a good outlet and we can make money and control the market. Jin goes on to explain China’s hope to gain control of the US Congress, and other western nations, through their investment strategy as follows:

Our government hopes that eventually China will have investments in each and every congressional district in the U.S., making it possible for China to control thousands of votes to influence congressional members’ stance toward China. In fact, the U.S. representatives can be controlled. The U.S. has 312 million people, who elect 435 representatives. That means 750,000 people in each district on average. The normal turnout rate is 30 percent, about 200,000 voters who determine who gets elected. Generally, the two contenders have about the same number of supporters, separated by only 10,000 votes or fewer. Therefore, if you control a few thousand votes, you would be his/her dad. China, if playing well, will be able to buy out the U.S., making the U.S. Congress the second Standing Committee of our People’s National Representatives.

In my opinion, China and CCP have made significant progress towards accomplishing their goal to control the US Congress. China is buying or attempting to buy farmland, agribusinesses, and other industrial facilities throughout our nation. In North Dakota near the Grand Forks Airforce Base China attempted to buy farmland and an agribusinesses which could serve as a base to gather intelligence on a strategic US Air Force asset. In Oklahoma, the Chinese Communist Party arranged purchase of at least 300,000 acres of agricultural land, the source of illegal marijuana sold throughout the United States and beyond. These are two examples showing that China is actively pursuing its goal to buy out the U.S., making the U.S. Congress the second Standing Committee of our People’s National Representatives. Three recent media reports in The Wall Street Journal, Vision Times, and Breitbart reported that the CCP influenced the election of 11 progressive members of the Canadian Parliament in Prime Minister Trudeau’s party. A web search of the phrase CCP contributions to Democrats provides a plethora of articles, many asking whether the Democrat party is compromised to the CCP including these three, Breitbart, the Federalist, and Extremely American-Worldwide. In December 2022, ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, donated $150,000 to both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Foundation. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, D-N.Y., is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) advisory council. Is it a coincidence that AOC defended TicToc against a complete ban in the US? Is the CCP succeeding in its efforts to coopt Representatives in the Democrat Party? Consider these three words, Marxists support Marxists. This is another overt component of China’s Marxist war against the United States.

Phase six of China’s global plan is to become the global hegemon. Jin Canrong statement of Xi Jinping’s CCP Plan is frighteningly simple,

“[China must] survive; develop; earn dignity; [and pursue] hegemony. Our new country has experienced two phases: to survive and to develop. President Xi now wants dignity. After this is achieved, we will [pursue hegemony]. But that will be achieved by the next generation. The task of this generation is to gain equal footing with the U.S. while that of the next generation is to administer all other countries, the United States included.”

China’s Manifest Destany according to Xi is to become the global hegemon in the next two generations, 2049, the 100th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. If Xi succeeds, the United States will be administered by China. We will be communized’ by China. How is your Mandarin? This is the culmination of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

In his ending commentary on Jin Canrong’s speeches, Manyin Li is frank about the errors of US foreign policy regarding China since the end of the cold war with Russia, Li stated,

China has deceived Americans and the U.S. government, as well as Europeans and Australians, and misled us into a situation in which we are enabling the CCP to change us.

The hope of U.S. engagement policy was to invite China into an international community based on free trade and mutually beneficial cooperation, ultimately changing China. Yet in the last 40 years, the CCP has become more internally authoritarian. At the same time, the U.S. has fully let the CCP enmesh with us and use our free system to its own advantage. But no American could have ever imagined that the CCP is plotting to ensure four enemies against the U.S. at the same time, a debt crisis to trap us, and even to control our Congress. It is one thing for a nation to strive for greatness  respecting international rules,  it is another thing to do so by enmeshing with cooperators or competitors not only to take advantage of them but also to undermine them.

[Additionally dealing] with an enemy already enmeshing with us is more difficult than fighting a war on others’ land.

Most of the Chinese people are truly proud of their country’s modernization. Whatever the U.S. does against the CCP would be seen by a great number of Chinese as blocking China’s rise.

According to LI, the CCP believes it can gain control of the US by controlling our global corporations because of the market potential of the 1.4 billion people in China and the lower prices of products made in China and marketed throughout the world. In the words of the CCP, Wall Street will prevail over the U.S. government. However, Li warns Wall Street that

They either have never known or have forgotten that the CCP once deprived Chinese property owners of all their wealth and properties. In a few decades, American companies may suffer a similar fate if the CCP grows more powerful. Profiting in the present, American businesses fail to see possible long-term damage to the U.S.

The CCP’s model includes a police state, high-tech surveillance, censorship of media and the Internet, speech restrictions, lifelong privileges for ruling-party officials, wealth concentrated in a small group of CCP officials’ clans, stark inequality, oppression of the religious, the Sinicization of all ethnic minorities with coercive measures, etc.

Manyin Li ends his discussion of the CCP’s plan to become the world hegemon with the following admonition for We the People of the United States:

America’s decline is the CCP’s best opportunity to pursue its goal: the dominance of the whole world. The more divided and chaotic the U. S. is, the likelier it is that the CCP will succeed. Americans must prove to the world that democracy is still, and will always be, better than authoritarianism. We must do everything to improve and strengthen our democracy. It’s not easy to keep America safe and strong while forcing the CCP to change. First and foremost, it requires a better, stronger, and more united America.

China, the CCP, and Xi Jinping have a plan to accomplish total global domination, including the United States in two generations, 2049. Their preference would be to accomplish this goal peacefully by economic and political domination; but China is building a powerful military industrial complex for war if necessary. This is China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Until Xi Jinping became the leader of the PRC and CCP The conventional wisdom was that China would seek an expanded regional role but would defer to the distant future any global ambitions. Now, however, the signs that China is gearing up to contest America’s global leadership are unmistakable, and they are ubiquitous. The six phase Chinese plan for world domination and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace article, China has two paths to Global Domination by Jake Sullivan and Hal Brands make China’s global ambitions clear. China is expanding its navy at an alarming rate, investing to dominate high-tech industries, control waterways off its east coast, and create a global chain of bases and logistical facilities. Belt and road projects financed by Chinese banks will convert economic influence into economic coercion globally. According to these authors, China has two paths to global dominance. The first path requires that China establish regional dominance over the nations surrounding China in the western Pacific as a springboard to global dominance. This would require dominance over Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, India and Vietnam providing significant stand-off distance between the US Navy and mainland China in the event of War. Unfortunately for China, many of these nations are repulsed by China’s efforts to dominate the region. If China cannot convince these nations that the Chinese economic and political model will provide a better more prosperous and free future than the US model, China cannot be a true global power. China will remain surrounded by U.S. allies and security partners, military bases, and other outposts. China will not achieve regional dominance much less global hegemony.

The second path to world dominance is more audacious and unexpected. This would require China to undermine the U.S. global alliance system and develop China’s economic, diplomatic, and political influence and dominance on a global scale. China would put increasing emphasis on shaping the world’s economic rules, technology standards, and political institutions to its advantage and in its image. This alternative approach would be fundamentally more important than traditional military power in establishing global leadership. For the second path to succeed, China would also need to supplant the US in converting economic power into political power, become the world leader in innovation, shape key international institutions, and set the rules of global conduct. China’s global diplomatic efforts to secure peace between Saudi Aribia and Iran and Russia and Ukraine are examples of this stealthy aspect of China’s Marxist war against the US and our allies and replace the US as the diplomatic leader of the world. China is investing its infrastructure, military industrial complex, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. China’s, approach to ideology may be flexible, but its cumulative effect is to expand the space for authoritarianism and constrain the space for transparency and democratic accountability.

According to Tarun Chhabra of the Brooking Institution, Beijing’s flexible authoritarianism abroad, digital tools of surveillance and control, unique brand of authoritarian capitalism, and weaponization of interdependence, may in fact render China a more formidable threat to democracy and liberal values than the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. Apparently, China is currently preparing for both paths to global hegemony with an emphasis on the second path based on overt intervention, espionage, weaponization of Covid-19, and illicit drug and drug precursor ingredient trade in countries around the world.

Overt Intervention and Espionage

A map of the world with countries that have been in decline.

A table with several countries and their names.China’s Marxist war against humanity is global in scope. While China prepares for possible war, its plan for economic domination relies on overt intervention into the economy and culture of targeted countries. In developed countries, like the United States, China’s overt economic intervention includes investments in existing corporations or using Chinese corporations to enter markets where openings would be profitable and offer inroads to US politics. China’s objectives in these activities, primarily total dependance on or interdependence with China were discussed in detail previously. In developing countries, China invests in infrastructure projects, natural resource development, and manufacturing that the country is unable to pursue without assistance from outside sources. As noted, these Belt and Road projects in 147 countries include railroads, highways, pipelines, gas lines, optical cables, seaports, transportation hubs, and airports, [many with military base implications], to form a huge network. China is most interested in developing countries with valuable natural resources especially extensive rare earth minerals necessary for electric vehicles and chip manufacturing allowing China to control global markets for these invaluable natural resources.

Readers of the 2021 DW Global Media Forum article, Study looks at China’s secret loans to developing nations, by Kristi Pladson could easily conclude that the Chinese state banks, under CCP direction, are predatory lenders. The goal of these Chinese lenders is eventual control of the project assets they finance and the third world governments whose projects they finance. This is another way for China to peacefully achieve global dominance and hegemony. According to Pladson, these Chinese state bank contracts contain the following predatory provisions and terms that “go beyond maximizing commercial advantage:”

“Such terms can amplify the lender’s influence over the debtor’s economic and foreign policies….

Chinese contracts include a clause that allows the creditor to terminate the contract and demand repayment in the case of significant law or policy change in the borrowing country. [These demands] take on a different dimension when the lender is a state entity and not a private firm subject to standard financial regulation.

The contracts also contain unusually far-reaching confidentiality clauses,’ [including clauses that] contain or refer to borrowers’ promises not to disclose their terms  or, in some cases, even the fact of the contract’s existence.

This secrecy prevents other lenders from reliably assessing a country’s creditworthiness. Most importantly, citizens in lending and borrowing countries alike cannot hold their governments accountable for secret debts.

The severance of diplomatic relations with China is also classified as a default and breach of contract, requiring the debtor government to repay the entire loan amount immediately.

30% of the contracts require loan-receiving countries to deposit collateral in special escrow accounts. Borrowing countries may also be required to deposit the revenue from projects backed financially by these banks into said accounts. In the event of bankruptcy, the Chinese bank could then seize these assets.

[Most Chinese bank] contracts  hinder borrowers from accessing standard debt restructuring mechanisms. China explicitly obliges borrowers to exclude Chinese lenders from collective restructuring initiatives [involving other nations].

Such a provision conflicts with an agreement reached in November 2020 by China and other G20 countries. [Once again, China does not adhere to international agreements that China signed, much like their treatment of Hong Kong.]”

Most of the 147 countries of the world with projects financed by Chinese banks are obliged by contract to support China in world diplomacy and organizations like the United Nations (UN). In the UN, nations contractually indebted to China compose 75% of its 193 member nations. Does this fact contribute to votes against the US in the UN? Is China gaining a position of global dominance through its Belt and Road foreign policy and predatory lending tactics? More evidence of China’s Marxist war, a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end, global domination and hegemony.

Between 2004 and 2018, China and the CCP installed nearly 550 Confucius Institutes, CI, at colleges and universities around the world with nearly 1200 Confucius classrooms in elementary and secondary schools according to BBC News. CIs are another form on China’s overt intervention into countries around the world. The CCP goal was to establish 1000 Cis around the world. According to China, CIs offer language, cultural programs, and a bridge reinforcing friendship” between China and CI students. CIs are agreements between host universities or schools, a partner university in China, and China’s education ministry which oversees CI operations and provides partial funding, staff, and other support. Consequently, the CCP controls Ci staff members who are usually Chinese citizens making them potential espionage agents.

Critics contend that CIs are a way for Beijing to spread propaganda under the guise of teaching, interfere with free speech on campuses when they attempt to limit discussions of Topics like Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, and Hong Kong, spy on students, and serve as bases for broader espionage. According to the BBC article, “They are platforms for an authoritarian party that’s fundamentally hostile to liberal ideas like free speech and free inquiry to propagate a state-approved narrative. Since the Communist Party of China doesn’t have a free press or rule of law to check its use of power, it’s no surprise there have been strong indications that CIs are used for inappropriate covert activities like intelligence gathering and [infiltrating] military research [programs].” After the Chinese military moved into Hong Kong and took control of its government in violation of international treaties, CIs attempted to squelch discussion of the CCP crackdown on campuses and communities where they were located. As a result, schools, and governments closed Cis around the world because their activities constituted unacceptable foreign interference. By 2021, 75% of the Cis in the US had been closed. At one time 120 CIs were operating in the US. CIs are another form of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

A 2018 CNBC article observed that in China trade secrets aren’t secret. China’s Intellectual Property, IP, system takes whatever trade secrets it wants for its own companies. In 2018, the United States Trade Representative found that “Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.” China’s system can force companies to give up their technological or trade secrets if they want to do any business in the country. Additionally, allegations of outright IP theft, is rampant in China. In some situations companies have to disclose other Information, such as annual reports which would list US based executives, to  enter the Chinese market. These executives would be potential targets for Chinese espionage. The major issue we face in China IP is China has a different system that is very much state-oriented and state-controlled.

According to an April 2022 NYT on-line article by Ana Swanson, China Continues to Fall Short of Promises to Protect Intellectual Property, U.S. Says, China used unfair means and pressured companies to transfer key technology that would give its companies a competitive edge. CCP bodies and officials have also continued to make worrying assertions about their IP system. China’s system serves the needs of domestic innovation and provides a strategic resource for Chinese competitiveness abroad.

In 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray described a far-reaching Chinese campaign of economic, medical, and military espionage, data and monetary theft and illegal political activities, using bribery and blackmail to influence US policy. Every major Chinese enterprise in the world has an internal “cell” answerable to the CCP to drive the political agenda and ensure that the company is compliant with CCP directives.   The CCP operates in every country under the natural cover of business. “The Party machine is everywhere. For [the CCP], business is inseparable from espionage and politics.” These “agents”, as well as targeted individuals in important positions in foreign companies, can be recruited or persuaded using a variety of methods. This overt intervention in global trade and business is another for of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Weaponization of Covid-19

Weaponization of Covid-19 is one of the most egregious examples of China’s war against humanity. China’s failure to fully and openly cooperate with the entire world to determine the origin of Covid-19 or stop the exodus of people from Wuhan at the start of the pandemic are inexcusable. In a May 2021 MedPagna’s  Today on-line article, Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD and others concluded that Covid-19 escaped from a Wuhan Institute of Virology, WIV, laboratory as early as September 2019. An on-line NBC News article draws a similar conclusion. Satellite imagery showing increased car parking at Wuhan hospitals even before September through November provides circumstantial evidence of an early fall start to the pandemic in Wuhan. The article also indicates the World Health Organization, WHO, investigation of the origin of Covid-19 was hampered by a lack of cooperation by Chinese authorities and scientists. The failure to cooperate may have contributed to the global severity of the pandemic. The June 2021 on-line Reuters article, First Covid-19 case could have emerged in China in Oct 2019  study by David Stanway draws similar conclusions. The article indicates that early cases had no known connection with the Huanan market, implying that Covid-19 was already circulating before it reached the market. A Chinese-WTO study acknowledged there could have been sporadic human infections before the Wuhan outbreak. The U.S. National Institutes of Health, NIH, confirmed to Reuters that the samples used in the study were submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) in March 2020 and later deleted at the request of Chinese investigators, who said they would be updated and submitted to another archive. Critics of the Chinese said the deletion was further evidence that China was trying to cover up the origins of COVID-19. Harvard researcher Alina Chan asked, “Why would scientists ask international databases to delete key data that informs us about how COVID-19 began in Wuhan? All agreed that the problems of doing this follow-up research in China will cause problems and delays in discerning the origin of Covid-19.

A 2021 MIT Review article by Antonio Regalado made several important observations about the Covid-19 origin controversy. Accordingly, Matthew Pottinger, a former deputy national security advisor at the White House and journalist working in China during the original SARS outbreak, believes it is very much possible that it did emerge from the laboratory and that the Chinese government, CCP, is loath to admit it. Pottinger says that is why Beijing’s joint research with the WHO is completely insufficient as far as a credible investigation.

The Chinese-WHO team led by Liang Wannian looked at two origin theories, the animal origin and lab-leak origin. Almost immediately the team eliminated the lab-leak origin theory. They said that Wuhan lab scientists claimed they had never seen or worked with a virus like Covid-19. Liang believed the Wuhan scientists and reasoned, If it doesn’t exist, there will be no way that this virus would be leaked. Additionally, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which received grants from Dr. Fauci at the NIH, collaborated with the Wuhan lab for many years, and funded some of its work, says there is “no evidence” whatsoever to back the lab theory. However, knowing that Wuhan researchers were in the business of retrieving samples from bat caves and bringing them to Wuhan for study. They could have come into contact with unfamiliar viruses. The labs [have not been] entirely forthcoming about what viruses they do know about. The article is skeptical about the claims of the Chinese-WTO team in the following statement: The WIV possesses gene information about similar viruses that it has not released publicly. Other information disappeared from view when the institute took a database released offline. The article also indicates that the Chinese-WHO team never asked for the off-line data bases. Why?

After rejecting the lab leak theory out of hand, the joint Chinese-WTO team searched China for the creature that is the link between bats and humans giving rise to Covid-19. Eventually, the group plans to release a 300-page report. Unfortunately, Liang said China had tested 50,000 animal specimens, including 1,100 bats in Hubei province, where Wuhan is located. But no luck: a matching virus still hasn’t been found. Liang has not found a direct progenitor of the virus. He claims that the pandemic remains an unsolved mystery. Almost in desperation, The Chinese-WHO team went on a fishing expedition postulating that the intermediary may be some imported frozen species, which they hunted for almost one year. They postulated that such an intermediary could have come from thousands of miles from China’s shores. Now three years later, an internet search failed to find the intermediary species for Covid-19. If China had found it, the species would be at the top of every search. Why is the world tolerating such malarky from the Chinese-WHO team?

Jamie Metzl, a technology and national security fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted that the Chinese-WHO team isn’t set up to carry out the sort of forensic probe he believes is necessary. Everyone on earth is a stakeholder in this, he says. It’s crazy that a year into this, there is no full investigation into the origins of the pandemic. In February, Metzl published a statement in which he said he was appalled by the investigators’ quick rebuttal of the lab hypothesis. Reluctantly, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who “was supported by a bloc of African and Asian countries, including China, for election as WHO Director-General, Issued the following statement regarding the search for the origin of Covid-19: I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study. Now after three years or more, it is still crazy and appalling that the world still tolerates China’s intransigence regarding its role in the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Chinese-WHO efforts to determine the origin of Covid19 are totally inadequate primarily due to the CCP’s failure to cooperate with the rest of the world totally and openly. Is the CCP responsible for deletion of samples used in the study that were Wuhan submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), deletion of entire data bases, trivialization of massive hospitalizations in the fall of 2019 and 2020, and the disappearance of WIV scientists hospitalized in Wuhan with Covid-19 like symptoms in the fall of 2019? According to this article, one of these scientists may have been patient zero.

Based on the discussion above, Covid-19 originated in the WIV and was most likely released accidently into the City of Wuhan, in my opinion. The next question related to the rapid spread of Covid-19 and its possible weaponization, must be discussed and evaluated. According to Sky News Australia, over 9,000 athletes from 100 countries who participated in military games in Wuhan in the fall of 2019 returned to their homelands with many exhibiting Covid-19 like symptoms. Some US athletes had these symptoms in December of 2019, Consequently, Covid-19 originating in Wuhan was carried to the US by athletes participating in the Wuhan military games. Mr. Asher said, My concern was that the Chinese were doing research in, as we learned later, quite uncontrolled circumstances that was most definitely related to biological warfare ambitions in the future.'” Wei Jinsheng, China’s most famous defector to the United States, said he

“learned there was an unusual exercise by the Chinese government during the military games. I thought that the Chinese government would take this opportunity to spread the virus during the military games to as many foreigners as would show up.”

The question is, How were these athletes exposed to Covid-19? Were they accidentally exposed by asymptomatic Wuhan residents, or were symptomatic Chinese intentionally brought to the games as Jinsheng implies? Regardless of the mechanism, athletes from the games carried Covid-19 to as many as 100 countries by the late fall of 2019, Chain’s Marxist war against humanity.

In addition, the 2020 Voice of America, Associated Press on-line article, Where Did They Go? Millions Left Wuhan Before quarantine, has some very interesting observations of real travel from Wuhan to other parts of China and the world based on a Chinese itinerary search tool, Baldu Maps, available to researchers. 5 million people left Wuhan before the January 23, 2020, quarantine closed the province to the annual Lunar New Year exodus. China claimed that the first case of Covid-19 was identified in mid-December 2019, in Wuhan. The data shows that the first destination of most Wuhan travelers was provinces and cities adjacent to Wuhan. This article did not track those who left China from Wuhan. The top 10 global destinations for travelers from high-risk Chinese cities around Lunar New Year, according to their analysis, were Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Australia. The article noted a high correlation between the early spread of coronavirus cases and the geographical risk patterns they identified. The first case of the virus outside China was reported on Jan. 13 in Thailand, followed two days later by Japan, the countries with the highest connectivity risk, according to WorldPop’s analysis. Within 10 days of Wuhan’s quarantine, the virus had spread to more than two dozen countries; nine of the 10 countries with the most flight connections to at-risk mainland cities also had the highest numbers of confirmed cases, mostly afflicting people who had been in China. All these cases were identified before China closed its airways to international travel and quarantined Wuhan from the rest of China.

An April 2020 on-line ABC News article noted that that 3,200 flights flew from China to the U.S., including more than 1,000 flights that went to Los Angeles and nearly 500 each landed in San Francisco and New York  all three among the eventual hot spots of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. More than 100 flights from China arrived in six other American cities: Chicago, Seattle, Detroit, Dallas, Washington, D.C., and Newark, N.J. More than 761,000 Chinese nationals and Americans returning home from the PRC entered the U.S. during that critical four-month period. This massive travel meant that the flow of the virus into the U.S. and other countries probably came quickly after it began spreading quickly in China. As early as January, cases were happening globally and specifically in the U.S. Among the flights were 50 direct from Wuhan. Twenty-seven of those flights went to San Francisco and 23 to New York. ABC News also analyzed thousands more flights during the period from Italy and Spain, which had the highest numbers of cases outside the U.S. by the end of March. Cities that took in at least 100 flights from China, Italy and Spain were the starting point for flights to every state in the country, potentially exasperating the domestic spread.

According to these two articles, the CCP allowed millions of Chinese to leave Wuhan directly to the rest of the world before their January 23, 2020, quarantine. The CCP also allowed people who left Wuhan for other Chinese provinces and cities to leave China for the rest of the world before the quarantine as well. The CCP knew that this virus was a dangerous, pandemic level virus by December 2019 following the military games cases and the WIV scientist episode. Yet the CCP allowed people to leave China for the rest of the world. Why? The Chinese-WHO team searching for the origin of Covid-19 believed WIV scientists who claimed that no Covid like virus existed in the lab and are still looking that species between bats and people that is the virus origin. Why? The CCP has removed critical scientists, information, data, and databases that must be made available to determine how Covid-19 originated and spread around the world when this information would help to prevent or mitigate another pandemic like Covid-19. Why?

It is my opinion that once the CCP determined how dangerous Covid-19 was to people, they allowed the virus to spread around the world, China’s Marxist war against humanity. Knowing the inhumane actions of the CCP during the Chinese civil war and toward Tibetans, Democracy Movement Protesters, Uyghurs, Christians, and Hong Kongese, It is not hard to believe that WIV was conducting gain of function, biological warfare research where Covid-19 was being tested and accidently infected WIV scientists who infected Wuhan Chinese. According to this idea, the CCP then allowed Covid-19 to spread around the world to test the efficacy of Covid type viruses as biological warfare agents. Additionally, the CCP knew how devastating the virus would be to the Chinese economy and could not afford to lose ground to the rest of the world. Such a worldwide release insured that the world economy would not gain on the Chinese economy. This hypothesis is consistent with the CCP and XI Jinping’s stated goal of becoming the world only superpower. Covid-19 was, from this perspective, a highly successful test release of a highly contagious human-to-human respiratory virus that had devastating effects on human populations and national economies. Such a hypothesis is also consistent with the words of Chinese defector, Wei Jinsheng who indicated that during the military games. I thought that the Chinese government would take this opportunity to spread the virus to as many foreigners as would show up.” Whether the release of Covid-19 was accidental or intentional, Covid-19 was the result of gain-of-function and/or biological warfare research or not, or the CCP facilitated the release of Covid-19 to the rest of the world or not, the PRC and CCP under the leadership of Xi Jinping gained invaluable information about the efficacy of human-to-human transmission of respiratory viruses like Covid-19.

The weaponization hypothesis is also supported by the following factors: 1) the PRC’s refusal to fully and openly cooperate with international investigators regarding the origin of Covid-19, 2) the Chinese-WHO team boondoggle search for the intermediary species, 3) the CCP’s failure to disclose the actual number of Wuhan fatalities in Wuhan during the fall of 2019 which could show that the PRC should have closed worldwide travel before January 23,2020, 4) CCP influence over Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the CCP candidate for WHO Director-General, and 5) WHO’s  failure to sanction the PRC for its failure to fully cooperate with the world regarding all of the CCP’s Covid-19 information and insights needed to prevent a future pandemic like Covid-19.

The reader can answer this question for themselves. Did the PRC, led by the CCP and Xi Jinping weaponize Covid-19 or not? A final consideration in this discussion is the global impact of PRC, CCP, and Xi Jinping’s culpability regarding Covid 19. If the world determines that China is primarily responsible for Covid-19, the status of the PRC, CCP and Xi Jinping would be greatly diminished, possibly irreparably. The previously noted MIT Technology Review article concluded with this statement:

More than any other hypothesis, a government-sponsored technology program run amok along with early efforts to conceal news of the outbreak would establish a case for retribution. If this is a man-made catastrophe,’ says Miles Yu, an analyst with the conservative Hudson Institute, I think the world should seek reparations.’

Mister Yu also discussed his distrust of the CCP and its potential treatment of foreign Covid-19 investigators and scientist working in China which is chilling. What you say in a press conference [in China] may be different than what you put in a report once you have left the country. Based on the evidence to date and the history of the CCP, it is my opinion that the CCP is hiding the truth and weaponized Covid-19 as part of China’s Marxist war on humanity.

Weaponization of Illicit Drug and Drug Precursor Ingredient Trade

Illicit drug use accounts for over 100,000 overdose deaths in the United States every year. Most of these deaths are the result of opioids; and the vast majority, over 70%, of the opioid deaths are the result of fentanyl poisoning.  In the US, opioid fatalities are most frequent among Whites. The racial and ethnic breakdown is Whites 70%, Blacks 17%, and Hispanics 12%. Males are about twice as likely to die of drug overdoses than females. A map of the united states with a map showing where fentanyl is.According to a Council on Foreign Relations on-line publication updated in April 2023, Most fentanyl in the United States is  smuggled across the southern border, U.S. officials say. Fentanyl coming directly from China”previously the dominant source has significantly decreased since 2019, but China is still the main manufacturer of the ingredients needed to create fentanyl. Other illicit opioids include oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, heroin, and methadone which is primarily used in addiction treatment centers. Mexican cartels move most of the illicit drugs to the US across our open southern border. The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl is about 2 milligrams or 0.007% of one ounce. Depending on where the fentanyl comes from (i.e. illicit or prescription), the lethal dose may be lower. Causes of fatal fentanyl overdose can include illicit forms of fentanyl, heroin laced with fentanyl, stimulants mixed with fentanyl (e.g. cocaine), higher doses than prescribed, doses more often than prescribed, crushing and snorting tablets, injecting fentanyl, mixing fentanyl with other illicit prescription drugs and alcohol. Fentanyl laced fake prescription drugs cause an increasing number of deaths sense these concoctions contain varying amounts of fentanyl that is unknow to the user. Unfortunately, Mexican cartels are mixing fentanyl combinations without naming fentanyl as an ingredient creating poisonous drugs that will kill unknowing victims. A bar graph showing the number of overdose deaths among age groups.More than 1,500 kids under the age of 20 died from fentanyl in 2021, four times as many as in 2018, says epidemiologist Julie Gaither. The fentanyl deaths account for nearly all of the opioid-related deaths in this age group in 2021.The chart on the left shows age and sex related drug overdose fatalities. Dealers who sell these concoctions and fentanyl should be prosecuted for one count of murder for each person they poison.

At least 70,000 US citizens die annually of fentanyl poisoning. China is the supplier of most of the illicit fentanyl and precursor fentanyl ingredients used by Mexican cartels to produce the fentanyl they smuggle across the open, southern US border for sale to Americans. The annual US citizen fentanyl poisoning rate is greater than the total number of military personal who died during the Viet Nam War. Consequently, Mexican cartels, and China are waging an undeclared war against We the People of the United States of America. China’s Marxist war is killing Americans with fentanyl and its precursors.

Annually, cartels kill at least six times more Americans with illicit drugs and fentanyl than the Taliban Killed in all three of their 911 attacks on Pennsylvania, New York City, and The Pentagon. Many in the US believe that the Mexican cartels should be designated as terrorist organizations. Then, the US should impose economic sanctions against Mexico to force the country to end the cartel problem themselves or cooperate with our military deal with the cartel problem. If invited, our military should use overwhelming force, decimate the cartels, and leave Mexico as soon as the well-defined mission to eliminate illicit cross-border drug trafficking is accomplished. Then, if Mexico fails to keep cartels in check and control their drug trafficking, repeat the military mission until Mexico eliminates the cartels within their borders.

Annually, China, the CCP, and Xi Jinping supply the fentanyl, or its precursor chemicals needed for Mexican cartels to manufacture fentanyl. This fentanyl kills five to six times more Americans than died on 911 and in the Viet Nam War combined. Stopping the flow of fentanyl and its precursor chemicals manufactured in China is a complicated issue. Drastically reducing, hopefully eliminating, the Mexican cartel demand would eliminate one market for these Chinese poisons. Sadly, China could attempt to provide these products directly to US drug gangs, increase mail sales, direct internet sales, and social media marketing in the US. To accomplish this, China would need to use independent smugglers to get the product into the US. If China engaged in such an operation, Xi would risk high probability of smuggler conflicts the US Coast Guard and a drastic increase in US-China tension. Of course, if the Mexican cartel market was eliminated, the better option for China would be to abandon its Mexican cartel-US fentanyl market.

Weaponization of illicit drug and drug precursor ingredient trade particularly related to fentanyl is another example of China’s Marxist war against humanity.

Discussion

China’s Marxist war against humanity since its revolution that ended the last Chinese empire is a story of civil war brutality that led to formation of the PRC under control of the CCP. Almost immediately, the CCP began brutal PLA suppression of non-Han ethnic minorities in China including Tibetans and Uyghurs and religious minorities primarily Christians. Repression of these groups includes forced relocation to re-education camps, forced labor, and genocidal persecution. Large scale protests and riots against the austerity and control of the general Chinee population like that of the Democracy Movement or the Hong Kong autonomy protests are met with the same brutality, imprisonments, party purges, and re-education tactics used by the CCP whenever resistance to its dogma is encountered.

In 2020, autonomy protests erupted in Hong Kong. After the CCP used the PLA to end the protests, the CCP revoked the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the PRC guarantee that Hong Kong would maintain its autonomy, economic, and political systems for 50 years after the transfer, until 2047. This CCP act demonstrates that Xi Jinping and the CCP will not tolerate proponents of democracy and capitalism to infect the rest of the Chinese population. The act clearly demonstrates to the rest of the world that China does not respect international law or treaties that the PRC and CCP sign and agree to respect. Therefore, China’s Marxist war against humanity is without limits, compassion, or dignity.

From the time Xi Jinping was first installed as PRC and CCP leader, he has stated that The Chinese Dream’ is about Chinese prosperity, collective effort, socialism, and national glory, and the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” He has quoted Confucius, saying “He who rules by virtue is like the Pole Star, it maintains its place, and the multitude of stars pay homage.” He said that “socialism with Chinese characteristics” had led to China becoming “a great power” and that its “flourishing” economic model offered a “new choice” for developing countries. Xi’s Chinese Dream is world domination, politically, economically, and militarily. Xi’s Chinese Dream is to replace the United States of America as the world’s only superpower. Xi plans to accomplish his Chinese Dream, China’s Marxist war, by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the PRC.

To accomplish their Chinese Dream, the CCP has a detailed plan. Although the plan may be unattainable, it reflects Xi’s Chinese Dream. The plan starts with the goal of a three-fold increase in China’s gross domestic product by 2049. Whenever possible, China will buy US Treasury Bonds as they did during the 2008 mortgage crisis when they purchased $800 billion of our debt as requested by our government. China plans to use globalism and multinational corporations with co-mingled ownership, factories, and markets in the US and China to gain economic leverage whenever possible. Medical supply and pharmaceutical industry globalization is causing critical medical supplies and equipment and drug shortages related to supply chain and active pharmaceutical ingredient problems. This includes leveraging the millions of Chinese citizens, permanent residents, and visa holders to encourage joint ventures with Chinese corporations and perform military, industrial, technological, medical, and pharmaceutical espionage. In many industries, US corporations have moved most of their production to China giving China control of both supply chains and many end products. China is also financing infrastructure projects in developing countries around the world, especially west Asia which could connect to the Middle East and Southern Europe, South America, and Africa. These efforts provide allies in global politics and access to the mineral and other natural resources which include rare earth minerals needed for emerging Electric vehicle batteries chip manufacturing. In most of these infrastructure projects, China uses predatory financing where countries cannot meet obligations and default giving China control over the projects and their profits. As China’s global economic, military, and political power increases, the US will have to consider China as at least a global equal according to the plan. At this point China will attempt to gain South China Sea allies and drive the US from the area including the Taiwan Strait which would allow the PRC to invade Taiwan. With US debt exceeding $31 trillion, Chinese planners want to ensure that the U.S. is trapped in a debt crisis.” The US may do the trapping for China. China’s weapons development is secretive while ours is more open. China uses this to their advantage. The Chinese hypersonic missile program, which totally surprised the west, is an example which the US must counter. China plans to gain control of the US House of Representatives by purchasing enough land and commercial investments in every House District to gain enough economic influence to affect congressional polices related to China and globalism in general. In two generations, by 2049, China plans to be the Global hegemon and control the world’s economy, culture, and politics. Every component of their plan is underway. China and the CCP simply need to maintain their momentum and ensure that they maintain control. My question is, How is your mandarin?

In 2020, Carnegie Institute researchers Jake Sullivan and Gal Brands observed that Xi Jinping’s China is displaying a superpower’s ambition. Signs that China is gearing up to contest America’s global leadership are unmistakable, and they are ubiquitous. In my opinion, the United States has the same myopia toward Xi Jinping and China as we had toward Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on September10 2001. That is, China is at war with us; but, we are not at war with China. China is effectively fighting on the the economic front, the geo-political front, the cultural front, and the public opinion front and preparing to fight on the military front and the space front. Sadly, the United States is not effectively fighting China on any of these fronts. In fact, Marxist progressive ideology, espoused throughout the left in the US, is closely aligned with the CCP’s Marxist ideology.

We are a 50-50 Democrat-Republican nation with each party more interested in political power than solving the problems facing our nation internally and internationally. Much to Xi’s delight, progressives seek to undermine and abandon our heritage, Constitutional law, economic system, Judeo-Christian values and culture, and traditional family structure. Progressives pit races, genders, sexes, economic classes, age classes, management and labor, and regions of our nation against each other hoping that the largest among each of these divisions will be and vote democratic. This would give the Democrat Party control of the legislature, a majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. In all likely hood, the Democrat majority would be slim. A 2% majority would, in my opinion, be huge. Xi understands that if the people and politicians in the US are expending most of our energy and attention fighting each other, we will not pay attention to China and its march toward replacing the US as the world’s only superpower. Xi also understands that he has an ally in the progressives of the US whether they understand this fact or not. This is part of China’s Marxist war.

Xi Jinping sees the deep divisions being fostered and encouraged by the Marxist progressives in the United States. In my opinion, he will use everything at his disposal, TICTOC comes to mind, to promote and encourage division within our country. Another form of Chiona’s Marxist War against humanity.

Xi Jinping understands that a nation divided cannot stand.

Do we?

How’s your Mandarin?

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISPANIC ALLEGIANCE TO DEMOCRATS?

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Is Hispanic Allegiance to Democrats Justified?

Heritage

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

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

Education

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

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

The Educational Opportunity Monitoring Project: Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps

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

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

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

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

Poverty

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

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

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

Crime

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

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

Race and Crime: Who Attacks Whom? 

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

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

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

The Assault on Hispanic Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

GLOBAL FREE TRADE: REALLY?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR FOUNDER’S NATION

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEMOCRAT PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

 


CONTENTS

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

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

ALINSKY  RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although he purportedly intended to say,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

CAPITALISTS, CAPITALISM’S PROBLEM

 

Capitalists capitalism’s problem is the result of the behavior of some capitalists throughout history, call them Godless immoral capitalists. The behavior of a few capitalists provides evidence for the need to control the raw nature of man according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Smith observed that controlling this raw nature is one of the few reasons for government involvement in commerce and industry. Abuse of the labor force was the rule during the much of the Industrial Revolution. These Godless immoral capitalists abused child laborers, working women, and laborers in general who lacked viable employment alternatives. The result was a rapid rise in the labor movement which included Marxists who formed communist and socialist parties throughout the industrialized Western world. Over time, progressives and liberals combined forces with Marxists to form the modern political left.

Evidence for the statement, capitalists capitalism’s problem, in relation to socialism.

The behavior of Godless immoral capitalists is continually cited as evil and prima facie evidence that societies based on Marxist philosophy are better for humanity. Pictures of child laborers fill our textbooks as examples of the evils of capitalism. Factory fires where exits were chained on the outside to prevent laborers from taking unauthorized breaks resulting in extremely high labor casualties are cited as additional examples of the evils of capitalism. Unethical and often illegal business schemes such as Enron and Ponzi schemes like that of Bernie Madoff are also cited as evidence of the evils of capitalism.  Unfortunately, in developing Third World countries abusive labor practices still occur.

Consequently, capitalists capitalism’s problem remain a major issue in the debate between capitalism and the Marxist alternatives of the left, socialism, and the progressive and liberal movements. It is interesting that while Godless immoral capitalist’s behavior is highlighted by the left as abuses of capitalism, the behavior the communist regimes of the old Soviet Union, now Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela, among others, are totally ignored by the left in these discussions.

The ratio of the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation within each corporation is an additional issue in which capitalists capitalism’s problem is paramount. Several internet sources indicate that the ratio was approximately 20 to 1 in 1950, 40 to 1 in 1980, 120 to 1 in 2000, and 200 to 1 in 2014. In a very few corporations, the compensation ratio now approaches 500 to 1. To put this in perspective, during the same period of time executive compensation increased 1000% while employee compensation increased only 11%. From the perspective of the left, the compensation differential is most concerning in the industrial manufacturing and service industries. This is especially true in situations involving labor unions or the desire of employees to join the labor movement. The following statement can be found in the online Bloomberg article, CEO Pay 1,795-to-1 Multiple of Wages Skirts U.S. Law:

When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel, said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, in an interview. ‘It’s not that either hates labor, or wants to crush their lives. They just don’t care.’

The statement, They just don’t care concerning corporate executive’s attitude about the executive to employee compensation ratio seems to qualify as the raw nature of man. Such indifference could also be considered Godless immoral capitalist behavior, a prime example of capitalist capitalism’s problem.

During the formative years of the labor movement, the raw nature of man reared its ugly head in the form of riots resulting in property damage and human suffering. The Communist Party in the US was so deeply involved in the violence of the labor movement that federal law precludes participation in labor leadership by members of the Communist Party. This behavior included violence between competing labor unions for membership. Labor union violence continued past the middle of the 20th century. It is safe to say that Godless immoral behavior is unfortunately endemic to the human condition.

The phrase Godless immoral capitalism was coined for its relationship to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Contrary to popular opinion on the left, religion and morality have been essential in the rise of the United States of America to its position of prominence in the world today. In his Farewell Address to the Nation, the Father of our Country, George Washington, said:

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. “ The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. “ A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity (happiness). “ Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. “ Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure “ reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, 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 in the course of time and things, 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?…

In my opinion, most of the current societal problems in our nation, including capitalists capitalism’s problem, are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition about Religion and Morality.

Does the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Founders and Biblical Christianity substantiate the advice given to the United States of America by the Father of our nation? The Bible does provide numerous scriptures related to the source of wealth and the requirement to treat laborers fairly. Some relevant New International Version Bible scriptures follow:

But remember the Lord your God for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18a).

Do not take advantage of a hired man who is (comparatively) poor and needy. Pay him because he is counting on it. Otherwise you will be guilty of sin (Deuteronomy 24: 14-15).

Honor the Lord with your wealth. (Proverbs 3:9a).

So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and fatherless, but do not fear Me says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 3:5).

Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5).

The worker deserves his wages (Luke 10:7b and 1Timothy 5:18b).

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4).

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you. (1Thessalonians 5:12).

The Godless immoral capitalist behavior, capitalists capitalism’s problem, previously described, including the corporate executive to labor salary ratios are inconsistent with the advice of George Washington and the cited Scriptures.

In my opinion, many of the Marxist left’s objections to capitalists capitalism’s problem are justified. Prior to the early 1900’s, treatment of the labor force, including women and children, was consistent with what I call Godless immoral capitalism. Similarly, the violent behavior of the labor force as they sought to organize themselves in their effort to secure better wages and benefits and working conditions was equally Godless and immoral. The behavior of both sides in the labor management struggles was the epitome of the raw nature of man. Nevertheless, the capitalistic economy that evolved in the United States developed into the largest and most successful economy in history. Our nation also became the most potent military, political and economic power of the 20th century. In the 21st century, everything from our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional capitalistic political economic system is being challenged by the left.

For the last 200 years, the philosophical leadership of the left has worked to gain dominance in virtually every form of communication in the Western world including the United States. The left’s first objective was to marginalize Christianity in society. Second, the left established an educational dictatorship in the entire public education system. Third, the left has learned to use both our United States and State judicial systems, which lack effective checks and balances, to thwart the will of We the People when the left is unable to accomplish their goals through the legislative process. Progressive ideology dominates all forms of the news media, telecommunication entertainment, movie and theater entertainment, and the advertising industry which is filled with subtle social, political, and economic messages. The cinema graphic industry produces works filled with stories of excesses and adverse impacts of capitalism on society and the environment. Millennials are probably the first generation that have been exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PH.D. and the media generated progressive agenda.

In light of the fact that Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democrat party nomination for president, the philosophically Marxist progressive agenda is gaining wide popularity with younger citizens. In polls, a surprising number of millennials favored socialism over capitalism. For millennials, capitalists capitalism’s problem is ingrained in their psyche. Wealth redistribution through heavy taxation of the œ1% is their answer to all their problems. The wealth of the 1% will pay for their higher education, eliminate their college loans, subsidize their healthcare, save Medicare and Social Security, and save the planet. They see corporate executives secure prescription monopolies for the purpose, in their mind, of securing drastic increases in prescription prices. They look at the rise in the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation ratio, stagnant or falling labor compensation compared to the unprecedented increase in corporate executive compensation; and millennials are revolted. Finally, millennials hear statements regarding the executive compensation to employee salary ratio indicating that these executives no longer ask the question, How much is in enough? but now ask How much can I get? When millennials are told that corporate executives just don’t care, they conclude that capitalists capitalism’s problem is a good reason to reject capitalism as a fair economic system.

No one can actually speak for them; but, based on remarks from his Farewell Address to the Nation, that George Washington and the other Founders as well as their Biblical Christian morality would indicate that capitalists need to make real changes in their behavior. In light of the fact that the Marxist or socialist, progressive, liberal agenda dominates all aspects of culture in the United States, it seems that capitalist leaders should begin evaluating their decisions and behavior in relation to solid moral and ethical standards.

Although it is the fiduciary responsibility of corporate executives to maximize profits for shareholders, it might be appropriate to start asking do our decisions benefit both our stockholders, and equally important do our decisions benefit our employees as efficiently as our executives have benefited from their compensation. This change in attitude toward employee management relationships would provide a positive employment atmosphere and could even have a positive effect on productivity. Asking the question, is this decision moral and ethical could also lead to reductions in potential environmental problems caused by manufacturing, energy production, and reduce land, air, and water pollution. To accommodate this change in approach, corporate boards of directors would also have to allow executives latitude to affect change.

The system of constitutional capitalism that has evolved in the United States since the Revolutionary war has given our nation the most potent political socioeconomic system of governance in history. Unfortunately, conservative and capitalistic institutions have failed to recognize the all-inclusive and pervasive influence of the left in our society. The left is now the dominant force training and evangelizing the youth of the United States of America. The cultural mores and ideology of the left dominate our education system, information system, and economic ideology of our young people.

Donald Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives cannot become complacent simply because he is a Republican. He was a pragmatic, innovative, populist. Capitalists, corporate executives, and conservatives cannot assume that the results of the last several elections, the dramatic shift to Republican office holders, indicates movement towards conservative and Republican principles and ideology in our nation. Polls regarding the attitudes of millennials show a strikingly different philosophical and ideological attitude of the next several generations of voters. Conservatives and Republicans cannot assume that these voters will always be undependable Democrat voters in the future. From the perspective of young voters completely immersed in Marxist and progressive philosophy, capitalists capitalism’s problem is a reality in their mind. The welfare of the middle and lower classes will determine the political socioeconomic future of the United States of America.

A relevant question is, How can conservatives and capitalists change the negative populist  perception about capitalism that prevails in the minds of a growing percentage of current and future and young voters in the United States? The answer to that question will determine the future of the United States of America.

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 “COLD WAR” IS NOT OVER

 

In my opinion, the left, Marxists, communists, and progressives of the world were not fighting the same Cold War that the United States and our allies were fighting. For the left, the strategic “Cold War”is a philosophical ideological “Cold War.” With this thought and the recent death of Fidel Castro in mind, it seems an appropriate time to consider the place of Fidel Castro, in the world and the nature of the Cold War. After his revolutionaries defeated the Cuban dictator Batista, Castro openly embraced communism. He nationalized the economy of Cuba and sought support from the communist regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Old Soviet Union, today’s Russia. He brutally eliminated political opposition. With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba became the center for communist revolutionary expansion into several countries in Latin America. Probably the most notable was Venezuela. The communist dictator of Venezuela nationalized the country’s oil industries which had been developed by North American and European petroleum companies. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to position nuclear missiles on the island nearly bringing the world to a nuclear disaster before the missiles were removed from Cuba. The fall of the USSR effectively ended Soviet financial support of the Castro regime, and greatly reduced Cuba’s influence in the western hemisphere. From this perspective, Fidel Castro was a central figure in the Cold War in the Americas.

To me, the Cold War was a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest between the United States and the USSR, the two dominant nuclear powers of the world at the time. These two powers competed to bring allies into their spear of influence throughout the world. The Cold War ended when the United States and our allies were victorious after fall of the USSR. Dismantling the USSR  in non-Russian Eastern Europe completed the process. Although the USSR was a totalitarian communist regime, it was not the only totalitarian communist regime in the world. China, North Korea, Vietnam, the communist regimes of the Eastern European Soviet bloc, Cuba, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America were also totalitarian communist regimes. Without the support of the USSR, Eastern European countries overthrew their communist governments embracing various forms of democracy.

A poster of the cold war with an american flag and a communist.
During the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the USSR said, communism will outlast capitalism, not We will bury you!”

However, several powerful totalitarian communism regimes still exist in Asia and Latin America and communist revolutionaries still battle to control countries in some parts of the world. It seems appropriate to ask a question. Did we actually win the Cold War? We certainly did not eliminate totalitarian communist regimes and revolutionaries as a threat and influence in the world. Perhaps a more important question to ask is this. Did we understand the nature of the Cold War from the strategic perspective of our Marxists, communist enemies. In a 1960’s speech at the United Nations, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev used a phrase that was translated We will bury you!” A better translation of the phrase is, communism will outlast capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxist philosophy expressed in The Communist Manifesto, Khrushchev’s phrase provides a simple strategic description of the goal of communism or Marxism for the world. Khrushchev was not speaking of a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest, he was speaking of an evolutionary paced contest of philosophy and ideology, Marxism versus capitalism. Given the attitude of millennials in the United States toward Marxist ideas underpinning communism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism, or the brutality of totalitarian communist regimes, and their lack of understanding of capitalism and this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, we should ask this question. Was Nikita Khrushchev correct when he said, Communism will outlast capitalism?

In my opinion, the Marxist of the socialist, progressive, liberal movement certainly out foxed the conservative capitalistic thinkers of the United States and the world. One of the principal objectives of America’s Crossroads is an informative discussion of the goals and tactics of the left as they seek to convert capitalistic societies, especially the United States, into Marxist societies. Pragmatists of the left have been formulating and slowly teaching and implementing their ideas since the early 1800’s.

When considering the question,is Marxist philosophy the  basis for leftist ideology, it is important to understand that Marxist philosophy has been largely integrated into the modern social sciences. Ideas like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, curtailing or eliminating inheritance rights, diminishing the influence of Biblical Christianity, eliminating or degrading the Biblical family among other topics are all concepts now embedded in liberal arts and social science curricula at all stages of our education system. Competition, individualism, self-confidence, personal responsibility, and strong moral and ethical values are critical elements to successful capitalistic societies. The Biblical Christian church and family are institutions where these values are taught and modeled for children by church leaders and parents. The role of the individual in Biblical Christian culture and Marxist or progressive culture is antithetical in nature. Before a society like the United States with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalist economy can be converted to society based on Marxist philosophy, the population has to embrace Marxism. To accomplish this goal, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship where their ideas are taught in virtually all the liberal arts and social science curricula throughout the educational system. Marxist progressives have accomplished many of their objectives toward globalism in both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.

Finally, it is my opinion that the left has even managed to integrate its philosophy into jurisprudence in the United States. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, legal progressives slowly started to substitute case law and the opinion of judges about the Constitution for the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury versus Madison was critical to this evolution in jurisprudence. Consequently, this shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Constitution exposed a flaw in our Constitution. There are no meaningful constitutional checks or balances on the decisions of the federal judiciary. Marxists and progressives on the left have succeeded in using this flaw to enact laws and regulations that could not be instituted through the legislative process.

Since the people of the United States of America have failed to understand the Cold War from the perspective of the Marxist or the socialists, progressives, and liberals, We the People are close to losing the real Cold War, the philosophical battle between communism or Marxist philosophy and capitalism. The extremely important philosophical or ideological “cold war” is not over; and, in my opinion, capitalism and conservative Judeo-Christianity is losing.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARXIST LEFTIST IDEOLOGY

 

Liberals and progressives vehemently object to the contention that Marxist leftist ideology  accurately reflects the origins of their approach to society and governance. In my opinion however, the programs and policies of the left are based on Marxist philosophy. The fact that Marxism rarely surfaces during discussions of ideas underlying the cultural, social, political, and economic issues of our time is powerful evidence of the stealth nature of Marxism. Pseudonyms, such as socialism, liberalism, the progressive movement, the left, and the far left, substitute for the term Marxism in most discussions. Each term has its roots in Marxist philosophy.

A picture of karl marx with his name on it.
Although they disagree, Marxist leftist ideology is an accurate description of progressive thought.

Marxist leftist ideology is philosophically based on the concept that all societies will evolve into societies in which all people share equally in all the benefits of society regardless of their personal willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. The theorized evolution will occur locally first, regionally, nationally, and finally expand into a global reality. Under Marxist social theory, all property and wealth will eventually be held in common, and as Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people.

For the most part, socialist philosophers, both before and after Marx, postulated that their vision of social change would occur at an inevitable but evolutionary pace. Socialists, including Marx and Engels, felt that the worsening plight of laborers resulting from the expanding industrial revolution would soon be a catalyst for the change they predicted. These changes would eventually have global scale and impact.

The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, demonstrated the staged demise of Marxism and its hidden influence that continues to this day, as follows:

Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism, which distinguishes between the value of Marxism as ‘an interpretation of past history’ and its ‘fantasy’ character as a political ideology, and argues that while the intellectual legacy of Marx has been largely assimilated into modern social sciencesso that as an independent explanatory system or method Marxism is ‘dead’ “ as an efficacious political doctrine it is simply ‘a caricature and a bogus form of religion.’

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

But it is precisely the distinctive explanatory power of Marxist thought in many areas, and its capacity to generate not a religion, but a body of rational norms for a socialist society, which seems to many thinkers to make Marxism an enduring challenge to other modes of thought.

Consequently, it is safe to conclude from these two statements that

Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences.

Consequently, liberals and progressives are able to disassociate themselves and their ideas from the relationship between Marxism and totalitarian communism. Hence, they substitute phrases such as the rich should pay their fair share in taxes and inheritance taxes for wealth redistribution. Regardless of protests to the contrary, the statement Marxist leftist ideology, is in my opinion a statement of philosophical fact.

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.