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may be realizing that today’s Democrat Party with its near total rejection of traditional values and conservativism, no longer represents the values traditionally held by many Hispanics.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.

 

 

BLACK ALLEGIANCE TO DEMOCRATS?

BLACK ALLEGIANCE TO DEMOCRATS CONTENTS

Black allegiance to Democrats is puzzling to me. Historically, the relationship between African Americans and the two major political parties in the United States Is characterized by a switch in allegiance from Republicans to Democrats that occurred during the first 40 years of the twentieth century. Several factors contributed to this change in party affiliation and subsequent Black allegiance to Democrats. My question is, Is this allegiance still Justified?

Black Allegiance to Republicans from the Civil War to the 1940’s
A group of men sitting in front of each other.

 

 

 

 

 

After the Civil War, Reconstruction brought freedom, opportunity, education, the right to vote, and hold elected public office to freedmen, former slaves. In 1866, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act and took control of all Southern state governorships and legislatures, leading to the election of numerous African Americans to local, state, and national offices. Consequently, all of the First Blacks in Congress Were Republicans. African Americans were also installed in other non-elected positions of power throughout the South. Reconstruction resulted in the South’s first state-funded public-school systems, more equitable taxation, and laws against racial discrimination in public transportation and accommodations. Freedmen also bought farms, started businesses, and established many of the traditional Black universities that remain to this day. By 1870, three civil rights Amendments to the Constitution, championed by Republicans, were ratified to prevent the benefits of the 1866 Civil Rights Act from being overturned by future legislatures. Amendment XIII freed former slaves. Amendment XIV gave the rights of citizenship to all former slaves and all those born in the United States. Amendment XV ensured the right of former slaves to vote. Sadly, the punitive implementation of Radical Republican Reconstruction turned most southerners into White supremacists with the first KKK groups forming by 1867. Democrat anarchists and White supremacists were controlled under martial law and suppression by Yankee solders. Until the end of Reconstruction in the mid-1870’s, Southern state governments were controlled by Republicans including blacks, carpetbaggers,” and “scalawags.” Consequently, protected Freedmen prospered during and after Reconstruction despite subsequent, restrictive Jim Crow laws.

The 1876 Presidential election between Democrat Samuel B. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was one of the most contentious in US history. By midnight election day, Tilden lacked one electoral vote needed to win; and he was leading the popular vote by 250,000. However, Republicans refused to accept defeat, and accused Democrats of intimidating and bribing African American voters to prevent them from voting in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, the only remaining Republican states in the South. According to the article, Compromise of 1877,  after it became clear that the outcome of the race hinged largely on disputed returns from those three southern states, a bipartisan congressional commission was set up to resolve the election issue. While the commission worked, a secret meeting between Republicans and moderate southern Democrats negotiated an agreement that gave Hayes the victory in exchange for withdrawal of all federal troops from the South. As a result of the so-called Compromise of 1877, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina became Democratic once again ending the Reconstruction era.

Consequently, the Democrat Party regained control of the US House of Representatives and Southern State governments. Between the mid-1870’s and the early twentieth century, rulings by the United States Supreme Court restricted or overturned many of the civil rights granted to freedmen by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and Constitutional Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV. The fallacy of the living constitution concept where the law evolves with social mores is clear in the Supreme Court decisions that reversed the original intent of Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV by upholding Jim Crow laws including the idea of segregated separate but equal facilities did not violate the Constitution. In many respects, African Americans, most of whom lived in the South, were abandoned by Republicans when they were once ” stripped of their voting rights. Despite this, many African Americans both North and South maintained commitments to the Republican Party.

Great Migration Changed the Black Population from Rural to Urban

The Great Migration, relocation of more than 6 million African Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North, Midwest and West, from about 1916 to 1970, was probably the most significant factor in the political party affiliation reversal by African Americans. In the decade between 1910 and 1920, the Black population of major Northern cities grew by large percentages, including 66% in New York City, 248% in Chicago, 500% Philadelphia, and 611% in Detroit. By 1970, when the Great Migration ended, its demographic impact was unmistakable. In 1900, 9 of 10 Black Americans lived in the South, and 3 of 4 Southern Black people lived on farms. In contrast. the South was home to only half of the country’s African Americans, with only 20% living in the region’s rural areas in1970. This migration created a Black urban culture that would exert enormous influence for decades including eventual Black allegiance to Democrats.

Two factors were the primary causes of the great Migration. First, the outlawed KKK and White supremacists continued underground activities using acts of intimidation and violence including lynching Blacks to enforce Jim Crow Laws throughout the South. Second, a shortage of laborers became acute in Northern industrial centers, as WWI put an end to European immigration to the United States. Although the Great Depression slowed the migration, labor shortages resumed during WWII. During the periods of active migration, recruiters pursued African Americans with promises of good jobs and a better life in the industrial cities of the North, Midwest, and West. This activity offended many southern while supremacists.

Black residents ended up creating their own cities within big cities, fostering the growth of a new urban, African American culture. One of the most prominent examples was Harlem in New York City, a formerly all-White neighborhood that by the 1920s housed about 200,000 African Americans. Harlem became an important part of the artistic movement known first as the New Negro Movement and later as the Harlem Renaissance, which would have an enormous impact on the culture of the era. The History of African Americans in Detroit article reports that between1910 and 1930, the Black population of Detroit increased during the  great migration from under 6,000 to over 120,000, a city within a  city, and Detroit became the fourth largest city in the country. As in other cities, Black people were recruited for work in Detroit industries during WWI and WWII. Culturally, the African American community fostered the development of the Motown Record Corporation in 1960, according to Motown. From 1961 to 1971, Motown had 110 top 10 hits. Top artists included the Supremes with Diana Ross, the Four Tops, the Jackson 5. Related record label hit artists included Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, the Marvelettes, the Miracles, the Temptations, the Contours, Edwin Starr, Martha and the Vandellas, the Velvelettes, the Spinners, the Monitors, and Chris Clark. Smokey Robinson said of Motown’s cultural impact:

In the 1960’s, We were not only making music, we were making history. I recognized the bridges that we crossed, the racial problems and the barriers that we broke down with music. I would come to the South in the early days of Motown and the audiences would be segregated; and the kids were dancing together and holding hands.

The Greenwood District of Tulsa Oklahoma, with a population of 10,000, was another Black city within a city. Greenwood Avenue, known Black Wall Street, was the epicenter of this vibrant, affluent community.

After being disenfranchised in the South, urban African American centers provided the opportunity to begin a new era of increasing African American political activism as they found a new place for themselves in public life in the cities of the North, Midwest, and West. The civil rights movement directly benefited from this activism.

Unfortunately, the influx of African Americans to Northern, Midwestern, and Western cities caused animosity among Whites because they were competing for jobs and housing. The result was a rise of racial tension with White supremacist including KKK activity beginning in 1915. The summer of 1919 began the greatest period of interracial strife in U.S history including a disturbing wave of race riots in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville, Tennessee; Longview, Texas; Phillips County, Arkansas; and Omaha, Nebraska. The most serious was the 1919 Chicago Race Riot lasting13 days. A Black teenager was stoned by a group of White youths for being on an unofficially segregated beach and drowned in Lake Michigan. Police refusal to arrent the White perpetrator, identified by witnesses, started a week the rioting between gangs of Black and White Chicagoans. 15 White and 23 Black people were killed, 537 people injured, and 1,000 Black family’s homes were burned down.

Two years later, tensions between the races escalated as lynching increased in the Tulsa Oklahoma area. Armed Greenwood Blacks began to show up at courthouses to prevent White lynch mobs from killing Black people. When a young Black man was accused of sexually assaulting a young White girl, 75 armed Black men went to the courthouse to help the sheriff guard the accused. They were confronted by 1500 armed White men and retreated to Greenwood. This confrontation was followed by the Tulsa Race Massacre, which lasted over 18 hours from May 31 to June 1, 1921. On June 1, thousands of White anarchists poured into the Greenwood District, looting, and burning homes and businesses over an area of 35 city blocks. 1,256 houses were burned; 215 others were looted but not torched. Two newspapers, a school, a library, a hospital, churches, hotels, stores, and many other Black-owned businesses were among the buildings destroyed or damaged by fire. In 2001, the report of the Race Riot Commission concluded that between 100 and 300 Greenwood District Blacks were killed and more than 8,000 were made homeless over those 18 hours.

Unfortunately, after the Tulsa Race Massacre, the sheriff concluded no sexual assault had occurred; and he dropped all charges against the young Black man. The Tulsa Race Massacre remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history

The Black Conversion from Republican to Democrat

The Wikipedia articles, Democratic Party (United States) and History of the Republican Party (United States) both indicate that African Americans favored Republicans from the Civil War until 1936. In the article on Republicans, A line graph showing the number of civil rights act and republican studies. Paul Kleppner provides data showing that Northern Blacks

voted 60% Republican throughout the late nineteenth century. According to the article, When did Black Americans start voting so heavily Democratic?, the African American conversion from Republican to Democrat occurred between the 1936 and 1944 elections; and Black allegiance to Democrats became a consistent, dependable, political reality.

According to Black-American Members by Congress, all African Americans serving in the United States Congress from 1869 through 1935 were Republicans. Conversely, all the African Americans serving in the US Congress between 1935 and 1967 were Democrats. From 1935 to the present, most African Americans serving in the US Congress are members of the Democrat Party demonstrating solid Black allegiance to Democrats. From 1869 when the first African Americans served in the US Congress through the end of Reconstruction in1877, the number of African Americans serving gradually increased from three to eight in 1875. As soon as Reconstruction ended the trend reversed. In 1877, four African Americans served; and in 1879, there was only one serving. From 1879 until 1945, only one African American served in Congress in all but four congresses. Many congressional sessions during this period were devoid of African Americans. Three serving in a session of congress was the most occurring throughout this period. From 1879 through 1929, a few African Americans serving in Congress were from the South despite voter suppression and Jim Crow laws. From 1901 to 1929, no African Americans served in Congress; and between 1929 and 1967, there were no Republican African Americans in Congress. From 1967 to 1979, Senator Edward Brooke, III of Massachusetts, was the only Republican African American in the US Congress. In 1979, Republican Representative Melvin Evans of Vermont served a single term. From 1979 to 2009, all the Congressional African Americans were Democrats with the exceptions of 1995 when Republican Gary Franks from Connecticut and Independent Victor Frazer of Vermont who each served one term in the House and 1997 when Republican, Julius Watts, Jr. of Oklahoma started three terms in the US House. Watts was the only African American Republican in Congress from 1997 to 2003. Between 2003 and 2011, all African Americans in Congress were Democrats when South Carolina elected Republican Tim Scott to the House. In 2013, Tim Scott was elected to the US Senate. In 2015, African American Republican Mia Love of Utah, who served two terms until 2019, joined Scott in Congress.  In 2017, Republican William Hurd of Texas, who served one term, joined Love in the House and Scott as the three African Americans Republicans in Congress. In the current congress, Senator Tim Scott is the only Republican African American serving. Clearly, this information demonstrates solid Black allegiance to Democrats.

Factors Affecting Black Conversion from Republican to Democrat

In their 2020 article, Why are Blacks Democrats?, Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird, discussed, what are to me, a perplexing set of circumstances resulting in Black allegiance to Democrats.  African Americans are strong supporters of traditional values which is unique among most Democratic supporters; but, hey are not Republican. They note that since the 1960’s, the Black middle and upper classes have grown significantly while experiencing substantial diversification of more moderate racial, social, economic, and political views. In my opinion, this conservatism along with the strong traditional, Biblical Christian, values of a large segment of the greater Black Christian community, should result in renewed allegiance with Republicans. Nevertheless, Black allegiance to Democrats remains strong.

Democrat Support for Organized Labor

The Democrat Party was committed to organized labor. Black people moved out of the deep South to work in the factories of industrialized cities. Consequently, Democrat support for organized labor attracted African Americans to Democrats. African American participation in the early organizational phase of the labor movement brought exposure to the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). According to Communists in the United States labor movement (1937“1950) , the CPUSA also supported Civil Rights and creation of Fair Employment Practices Committees (FEPC) which promoted equal treatment of Black workers in unions with Black membership. In many UAW locals, White members engaged in hate strikes to protest hiring or promotion Black workers in their plants including the massive Detroit race riots in 1943. At the 1943 UAW Convention, delegates could not agree that the FEPC head should always be Black. The UAW resolved the issue by deciding that they would not take any stand on civil rights since it was outside the union’s economic sphere.

The CPUSA was active in organizing labor unions in the first half of the twentieth century. The CPUSA actively supported several service and small industry unions having significant African American membership. They helped organize most of the major unions of the country including the American Federation of Labor (AFL), Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), United Auto Workers (UAW), United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), now the International Union of Electrical Workers (IUEW), International Woodworkers of America (IWA), and the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU). From the mid-1930’s through WWII and the late 1940’s, the relationship between the CPUSA, union leadership, and our government was strained and at times, violent.

After the communist revolution in Russia, our nation distrusted communism. However, the CPUSA was a positive force for the labor movement which welcomed their contributions until power struggles within the various unions emerged. To assure the public that communists did not control the CIO, their 1940 conference resolved to condemn Communism, along with Nazism and fascism, as “inimical to the welfare of labor.” As the US military built up in 1940 and 1941 increased, US Secretary of War decided that labor strikes and slowdowns at key facilities were due to the CPUSA’s efforts to block Roosevelt’s military preparedness policy. Strikes at critical facilities were viewed as communist inspired for ideological reasons, rather than for better wages and working conditions. The most important of these strikes was at a bomber plant in June 1941 that built aircraft for the U. S. and Britain. The strike was so serious that the government seized the plant and army troops opened paths through the picket lines to allow workers to enter the plant. In 1946 the Republican Party took control of both the House and Senate. That Congress passed the Taft“Hartley Act, which contained a provision requiring all union officers to sign an affidavit that they were not Communists before the unions could bring a case before the National Labor Relations Board. The UAW expelled most CPUSA leaders who refused to sign the oath. By the early 1950’s, the CPUSA was insignificant in our labor movement.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression started in the United States with a stock market crash on Black Thursday, October 24, 1929. The result was a worldwide economic downturn that lasted until about 1939. It was the longest and most severe depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. No group of people, including African Americans, escaped the ravages of the Great Depression. Industrial production in the United States declined 47 %, real gross domestic product fell 30 %, the wholesale price index declined 33 %, and at its highest point unemployment exceeded 20 %. Although the U.S. economy grew between 1933 and 1937, growth remained substantially below long-term trends. In 1937“1938, the U.S. suffered another severe downturn but recovered and grew rapidly by mid-1938. The country’s output finally returned to its long-run trend path in 1942.

During the Great Depression, Union membership increased due to severe unemployment and the passage of the 1935 National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act  which encouraged collective bargaining and established unemployment compensation for laid-off workers. The role of the CPUSA during the start of organized labor exposed Americans, including African Americans to Marxism. Ultimately, the Great Depression taught people of all social classes the value of economic security and the need to endure and survive hard times. Americans rediscovered the virtues of democracy and the essential decency of the ordinary citizen. Thus, a decade marked by fundamental, even radical, social change ended for most with a reaffirmation of America’s cultural past and its traditional political ideals.

Roosevelt’s New Deal

The New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt,1 FDR’s, response to the Great Depression, appealed to African Americans. The New Deal benefited African Americans especially those who left the South for urban areas in other parts of the nation.  The New Deal included government programs and agencies like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided, jobs, unemployment, and welfare benefits for farmers, the unemployed, youth, the elderly, and African Americans. The New Deal produced a political realignment, between Democrats in the South and in big city machines, and newly empowered labor unions which included African American members, and other ethnic minorities. The realignment allowed Democrats to dominate presidential elections into the 1960s.

The Republicans were split. A minority supported the New Deal; but conservatives opposed the New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth. The majority of the Republicans in the U.S. Congress from 1937 to 1964 were conservatives. Some conservatives thought that the Roosevelt Administration supported communism, not traditional American values. Indeed, many conservatives believed then as now, that the left side of the political continuum is undergirded by Marxist philosophy which dominates their vision for the United States as patriots. Many conservatives believe that the policy initiatives of the New Deal and those of the Democrat Party from that period until today are based on Marxist philosophy. Hence, the fear of communism and its influences in the Roosevelt Administration.

The fact that New Deal policies supported the labor movement and its CPUSA participants contributed to conservative suspicions that the New Deal had its foundations in communism. By 1940, as the Roosevelt Administration prepared for the possibility of war, CPUSA union activities, promoting work slow-downs and strikes, became problematic. The Roosevelt Administration became critical of CPUSA union activities and slowly withdrew its support for CPUSA union activities. Although they had minor influence on policy, the fact that at least a dozen communists established a network of low-level government officials also contributed to conservative suspicions. The largest group worked in the Agriculture Adjustment Administration. They were all purged in 1935. Some moved to other government jobs. Other communists worked for the National Labor Relations Board, the National Youth Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the Federal Theater Project, and the Treasury and State Departments.

The fact that Roosevelt’s second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, 1941-1945, was a progressive with a “naive faith in U.S.-Soviet cooperation,” who supported the work and ideas of Nicholas Rrich, a prominent Russian émigré, artist, and peace activist also contributed to conservative suspicions that the Roosevelt Administration was sympatric to communism. Additionally, in mid-1944, Wallace toured the Soviet Union labor camps in Magadan and Kolyma. Although the camps were forced labor camps for decadents, the Soviets claimed the workers were all volunteers. Wallace was totally deceived and indicated that he was impressed by the camps. Consequently, he received a warm reception in the Soviet Union.

In the 1944 election, Wallace was replaced by Harry S. Truman as the Vice-Presidential candidate. Some commentators think that had Wallace become president in 1945, “there might have been no atomic bombings, no nuclear arms race, and no Cold War;” and a President Wallace would have been an appeaser that would have allowed the spread of Communism into countries like Iran, Greece, and Italy. After leaving office, Wallace became the editor of The New Republic, a progressive magazine. He also helped establish the Progressive Citizens of America (PCA), a progressive political organization that accepted members regardless of race, creed, or political affiliation including Communists adding to the perception that Wallace was at least a communist sympathizer.

The New Deal brought mixed benefits for African Americans. On the plus side, Roosevelt appointed an unprecedented number of African Americans to second-level positions in his administration. Although Blacks accounted for about 10% of the total population, the WPA, NYA, and CCC allocated 10% of their budgets to Blacks. They operated separate all-Black units with the same pay and conditions as White units.  New Deal administrators worked to ensure Blacks received at least 10% of welfare assistance payments. The Fair Labor Standards Act helped boost wages for non-White workers in the South.1 Other New Deal policies played a major role in creating new employment opportunities to non-White workers.

With the start of WWII, the ravages of the Great Depression ended; and the benefits of the New Deal spread in the economy. The proportion of African American men employed in manufacturing positions rose significantly. Overtime provided larger paychecks in war industries and average living standards rose steadily. Real wages rose by 44% during the war. The percentage of families with an annual income of less than $2,000 fell from 75% to 25% of the population. In 1941, 40% of all American families lived on less than the $1,500. The median income was $2,000 a year. Eight million workers labored in poverty. From 1939 to 1944, wages and salaries more than doubled. Overtime pay and increased employment lead to a 70% rise in average weekly earnings during the war. Membership in organized labor increased by 50% between 1941 and 1945. The War Labor Board discouraged strikes; and new workers were encouraged to participate in the existing labor organizations resulting in improved working conditions, better fringe benefits, and higher wages. Consequently, workers enjoyed a level of well-being that they had never experienced before.” As a result, consumer expenditures rose by nearly 50% by 1944. Individual savings accounts climbed almost sevenfold during the war. The share of total income held by the top 5% of wage earners fell from 22% to 17% while the bottom 40% increased their share of the economic pie. In addition, during the war, the proportion of the American population earning less than $3,000 fell by half. In 1932, most Americans African voted Republican. However, since Blacks felt the sting of the depression’s wrath even more severely than Whites, they welcomed any help. Roosevelt, the New Deal, and Democrats provided that help. In 1936, almost all African Americans (and many Whites) shifted from the “Party of Lincoln” to the Democrat Party. By the end of WWII, especially in several Northern states, Black allegiance to Democrats was solidified and survives into the 21st century.

New Deal Impacts on African Americans

Unfortunately, many programs were not specifically targeted to alleviate the much higher unemployment rate of Blacks.  Some were even unfavorable to Blacks. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, for example, helped many White farmers but reduced the need of farmers to hire tenant farmers or sharecroppers which were predominantly Black. Thousands of Blacks were thrown out of work and replaced by Whites. On some jobs, Blacks were paid less than the   National Recovery Administration (NRA)wage minimums because some White employers considered the NRA’s minimum wage “too much money for Negrs”. By August 1933, Blacks called the NRA the “Negro Removal Act.” An NRA study found that the NIRA put 500,000 African Americans out of work. In addition, the New Deal was racially segregated as Blacks and Whites rarely worked alongside each other. The largest relief program was the WPA. It operated segregated units, as did its youth affiliate the NYA. Blacks were hired by the WPA as supervisors in the North, but of 10,000 WPA supervisors in the South only 11 were Black. Historian Anthony Badger argues that “New Deal programs in the South routinely discriminated against Blacks and perpetuated segregation.”  Although work camps in the North were initially integrated, by July 1935, practically all the camps in the United States were segregated, and Blacks were strictly limited in the supervisory roles they were assigned. Kinker and Smith argue that “even the most prominent racial liberals in the New Deal did not dare to criticize Jim Crow”.

There was no attempt whatsver to end segregation or to increase Black rights in the South, and several leaders that promoted the New Deal were racist and antisemitic. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, former Chicago NAACP president, was one of the Roosevelt Administration’s most prominent supporters of Blacks. In 1937, when a Southern Senator accused him of trying to break down segregation laws Ickes wrote him to deny that:

I think it is up to the states to work out their social problems if possible. I have never dissipated my strength against the particular stone wall of segregation. I believe that wall will crumble when the Negro has brought himself to a high educational and economic status. Moreover, while there are no segregation laws in the North, there is segregation in fact; and we might as well recognize this.

Although Roosevelt appointed a “Black Cabinet” of African American advisers on race relations and African American issues and publicly denounced lynching as “murder,” he did not push federal anti-lynching legislation since he believed that such legislation was unlikely to pass. Since Southern Democrats were critical to his legislative coalition, he did not oppose Southern Jim Crow laws or support of federal anti-lynch laws to avoid alienating Southern Democrats and endanger New Deal programs.

The fact, that African Americans completely switched allegiance from Republicans, the party of Lincoln, to Democrats by 1948, baffles me. From Civil War until the 1968 Fair Housing Act, the last major modern Cilil Rights legislation, Republicans, not Democrats, championed African American causes. Senate Democrats filibustered or attempted to filibuster every piece of Civil Rights legislation from the first bill passed during the Republican Eisenhower Administration in 1957 to the last passed during the Democrat Johnson Administration in 1968. Although Democrat Presidents signed most bills into law, the votes of Republican Congressmen ensured passage of all the Civil Rights legislation of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Although African Americans benefited economically under FDR, his record on Civil Rights was, in my opinion, appalling. FDR made no effort to eliminate Jim Crow laws, including voter suppression, in the South. He did nothing to stop or reduce segregation anywhere in the nation. His efforts to promote equal employment opportunities for African Americans was marginal at best. He did nothing to promote fair and equitable educational opportunities for African Americans. Finally, and most egregiously, FDR never endorsed passage federal anti-lynch laws in Congress.

Despite the above issues, Black allegiance to Democrats and their poor Civil Rights record between 1877 and 1945 and beyond could be explained by one historical event which haunts me. In 1877, Republicans bought the Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in exchange for withdrawal of all federal troops from the South. As a result of the so-called Compromise of 1877, the last three Republican states in the south, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina became Democratic ending the Reconstruction era. The Democrat Party gained control of the south ushering in the Jim Crow era, Black voter suppression, segregated equal but separate facilities and institutions, anarchy and violence to keep Blacks in their place, and a rise in White supremacy and the KKK. After about 250 years of slavery, Republicans promised freedom only to basically allow freedom to be snatched away after only 12 years of freedom. This betrayal could explain why African Americans abandoned Republicans for Democrats in the 1940’s.

Modern Black Allegiance to Democrats

Since the passage of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960’s, Black allegiance to Democrats has been unwavering with at least 80% support throughout the nation. Republican President Dewitt D. Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was vigorously opposed by Southern Senate Democrats. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson, despite opposition by Southern Senate Democrats and most Southern Representatives in the House, signed all three of the 1960’s Civil Rights Acts into law. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was opposed by 78% of Senate Democrats and 74% of House Democrats. Rev. Dr. Maritn Lother King Jr. was present when Johnson signed the bill into law. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was approved by 75% of the Senate Democrats and 81% of the House Democrats. President Johnson signed the Act into law with King, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and other civil rights leaders attending the ceremony. The 1968 Fair Housing Act passed Congress with 76% Senate Democrat approved. All Southern Democrats objected except three and one who abstained. 71% of the House Democrats approved. The Fair Housing Act was signed shortly after the assignation of Dr. King. The fact that two of the three 1960’s Civil Rights laws were approved by Congressional Democrats, who were in the majority; and all three bills were signed into law by President Johnson, a Democrat, assured Black allegiance to Democrats from then until now.

The Johnson Administration also established numerous policies and legislation that strengthened Black allegiance to Democrats. After the assignation of President John F. Kennedy in November of 1963, President Johnson was sworn into office and began his work to create a Great Society using his War of Poverty as his main tool. The Great Society Executive actions and legislation he proposed were the most aggressive since Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Great Society included the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act establishing the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Job Corps to help the underprivileged break the poverty cycle by helping them develop job skills, further their education and find work, the National Work Study Program to help students pay for college, loans and guarantees for employers to provide jobs to the unemployed, provide funds to establish agricultural co-ops, aid to help unemployed parents to enter the workforce, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start preschool programs, the 1965, Elementary and Secondary Education Act guaranteed federal funding for education in low-income school districts, the 1965 Housing and Urban Development Act provided federal funds to cities for urban renewal and development, the 1965 National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act since the arts and humanities belong to all the people of the United States not just private citizens, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts to study the humanities and fund and support cultural organizations such as museums, libraries, public television, public radio and public archives, and the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act which ended immigration nationality quotas, although it focused on reuniting families and still placed limits on immigrants per country and total immigration.

In 1968, President Richard M. Nixon set out to revamp the Great Society. Many Republicans still wanted to help the poor while reducing costs. Other Republicans and supporters of traditional values resented what they saw as government handouts and felt the government should butt out of Americans’ lives altogether. Consequently, political infighting for social reform has been raging ever since. Johnson’s Great society initiatives reinforced Black allegiance to Democrats while the Republican efforts to streamline its social programs and the idea that government should butt out of Americans lives altogether pushed African Americas away from Republicans.

From the African American perspective, it is not difficult to believe that the Republican desire to control the costs of the Great Society welfare programs was racist and an effort to reduce their ability to improve their lives, economically, educationally, and culturally. African Americans did not and still do not believe that government should butt out of their lives. The crux of the debate is whether government welfare programs create dependency on government at the expense of self-reliance and hard work and reduce the ability of people to better themselves. Those who believe in traditional values felt that dependance on government creates low self-esteem, hopelessness, and depression. Conservatives also understand the African American middle class and business class was expanding long before the New Deal and Great Society including Jim Crow era expansion when the African American community looked after and supported each other because the government would not help.

According to the 2020 article, Why are Blacks Democrats? by Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird, the purpose of Black allegiance to Democrats is to leverage their political strength as a minority group in a majority based political system, Black Americans have come to prioritize group solidarity in party politics. This partisan loyalty became a norm of group behavior, something you do as a Black person, an expectation of behavior meant to empower the group. As candidate Biden said in the 2020 Presidential campaign, If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t Black! Support for the Democrat Party is insured through social rewards and penalties which recognize compliance and punish defection of racial group members. Interestingly, it is the social and spatial segregation of Black Americans that makes all this work. This decision to ensure collective action for the larger group interest is an effective strategy for leveraging political power, especially in a two-party system. A divided group minimizes the likelihood of responsiveness by either party, but as a partisan voting bloc, Blacks are positioned to push their issues onto the party agenda. If the Democrats fail to be responsive Blacks can threaten to withhold their vote by not turning out. This is how racialized social constraint maintains both Black party loyalty and Black political power. This African American requirement to maintain their individual Black allegiance to Democrats and ensure collective action leverage political power, and :group solidarity is a tenant of Marxism.  The Marxist disdain for individualism will be discussed later in the section, The Assault on African American Culture. The idea that Blacks withhold votes if Democrats do not give them what they want is counterproductive. An abstention is a vote for the other party. The question, Is Black Allegiance to Democrats Still Justified? will be considered in detail in the next section.

A map of the united states with red and blue colors.As the map on the left indicates, Democrat majorities are closely linked to counties with the largest urban populations in their respective states. Many of these urban areas also have higher education institutions and large numbers of progressive academics. Both groups vote for Democrats. In many states, the urban populations constitute most of the state population. Rural areas contain most of the state’s land mass, agricultural land and production, and renewable and non-renewable natural resource production all of which often contribute significantly to the state’s gross economic productivity. Rural voters usually vote Republican. In states where urban populations compose most of their state’s population, the state is usually controlled by the Democrat Party. Comparing the map above with the two maps below showing the results of

A map of the united states with each state 's electoral votes.
A map of the united states with the names of each state.the 2020 state elections confirms these observations. Urban Black allegiance to Democrats usually leads to election of Democrat mayors, city leadership groups, school boards, and prosecutors. Additionally, in states where urban populations form a majority, Democrat governors and legislatures are also usually elected. Urban Black allegiance to Democrats gives Democrats control over virtually all aspects of life in urban African American population centers and communities. Therefore, Democrats have had a responsibility to ensure that the lives of African Americans were improved since they gained Black allegiance to Democrats in the 1940’s.

For Democrats in these areas, Black lives should actually matter; and the lives of their African American constituents should have improved every day during the last 80 years. African Americans should have benefited from their Black allegiance to Democrats.

Is Black Allegiance to Democrats Still Justified?

To quote President Donald J. Trump while seeking the African American vote as the Republican candidate in the 2016 election and sitting President and candidate in the 2020 election, What do you have to lose? In other words, Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified? The question is not a Trump 2024 endorsement; but rather an endorsement of policies designed to make America great again (MAGA) and put We the People of the United States first in both domestic and foreign affairs. Under those Republican, MAGA, policies and initiatives, African Americans, and all minorities, achieved the lowest unemployment rates and highest prosperity in history prior to the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on the current status of education, poverty and fatherlessness, healthcare, crime, culture and the present economic situation for African Americans, indeed for all We the People, Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified?

In my old White man‘s opinion, African Americans should be asking some additional questions. Have African Americans benefited significantly from almost 80 years of Black allegiance to Democrats? Again, in my opinion, the answer to that question Is an emphatic, no. Another reasonable question is this, Has the progress made by African Americans during the last 80 years occurred because of Black allegiance to Democrats or in spite of that allegiance? This also seems to be a reasonable question.

One Black man’s answer to these questions appeared in an article by Larry Elder. In his 2004 Baltimore Sun article, The secret story of blacks’ success he observed that Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan L. Keyes proposed exempting Blacks from paying federal income taxes for a couple generations. Keyes stated that slavery “was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment.” In my opinion, Keyes like others, failed to mention that slavery existed for 170 years before Constitutional, federal, governance began or that British mercantilism forced the start of slavery and its continuation until 1789. British mercantilism made slavery an economic necessity for successful agriculture in the South during colonial times. This is not an excuse for slavery, it simply supplies a historical context for slavery. Larry Elder, an African American, asked Who argues with that? What he meant was, who agrees with reparations, not who disagrees that slavery was egregious, because slavery was egregious.

Elder noted that despite slavery, Jim Crow, and racism, the progress of American Blacks is simply astounding. Black America, if divided into a separate country, ranks No. 16 in gross domestic product. Elder quotes economist Thomas Sowell, another African American, as follows:

Black economic progress increased tremendously well before ‘level-the-playing-field’ government policies and programs. In fact, 40 [years after] Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, the income gap between Blacks and Whites closed faster ‘prewar’ than ‘postwar.’

The economic rise of Blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of Blacks out of poverty did not – repeat, did not – accelerate during the 1960s.

“The poverty rate among Black families fell from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.”

Elder observes that In America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible, authors Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom agree that the Black middle class expanded well before “affirmative action” In their book they state:

“The growth of the Black middle class long predates the adoption of race conscious social policies. In some ways, indeed, the Black middle class was expanding more rapidly before 1970 than after. … Many of the advances Black Americans have made since the Great Depression occurred before anything that can be termed ‘affirmative action’ existed.”

According to Elder, after President Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, Black income, business development, and business growth exploded. According to the National Review, by 1989, Black unemployment dropped from 20.4% to 11.4% while White unemployment dropped by only 4%…. A Black entrepreneurial class flourished.” According to the Census Bureau, the trend started under President Reagan continued through the Clinton years. Black-owned businesses increased almost three times faster than the total number of firms in the United States, receipts by Black-owned firms more than doubled, and from 1980 to 1990, the median income of Black households grew one and a half times faster than White households. Between 1992 and 1997, there was a 25.7% increase in Black-owned firms and a 32.5% increase in their gross sales.

In its 1963, Ebony magazine series called “If I Were Young Today,” Black high achievers offered advice to young Blacks. In his article, Paul Williams, said:

“Whatever one ds as a profession or livelihood, he should endeavor to read the current magazines pertaining to his work. One must keep pace with progress and what the other fellow is thinking and doing. In order to do this, he must read – read – read!!! He should strive to become a specialist and not just another architect, engineer or salesman.”

Elder noted that none of those offering advice even hinted at a need for race-based preferences. The road to success is simple, if not easily applied – hard work, sacrifice and, above all, the refusal to think like a victicrat. You know, the same formula used by Alan Keyes. To Democrats and progressives, “hard work,” “sacrifice,” and self-discipline (“read, read, read!!!”) are capitalistic values which they oppose. This begs the question, “Is Black allegiance to democrats still justified?”

Education

Black high school graduation rates are encouraging. In 1940, less than 8% of Blacks graduated from high school compared to 27% for Whites. By 2014, African American high school graduation rate was 86% and the White rate was 89%. At least two other internet articles came to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, a 2017, Pew Research Center article by Drew Desilver,  U.S. academic achievement lags that of many other countries, 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. Additionally, the 2020 Brookings Institute article, by Kenneth Shores, Ha Eun Kim, and Mela Still, Categorical inequalities between Black and white students are common in US schools”but they don’t have to be, is disheartening for African Americans. The chart and discussion below A bar graph showing the number of students in each class.portray critical inequalities in educational outcomes and opportunities for Black and White high school students. Teachers who use race as a classifier, which is unacceptable, instead of objective standards like test scores and grade point averages, often create racial disparities in opportunities for African American students. Racial differences in socio-economic status tend to account for most variation suspension rates, classification into specialized classes, and placement in advanced courses. Many educators suggest that sorting students into different educational experiences is attributable to students’ characteristics, race,

or Blacks don’t take advanced math because they confront steeper out-of-school challenges which is beyond the control of schools. In the authors view, schools create these socially relevant categories, and teachers and school leaders sort students into them creating categorical inequalities for Black students. Consequently, school districts where Black students are worse off academically or socio-economically, tend to increase the educational disadvantages that Black students face. Districts with greater inequality, segregation, and lower overall socio-economic status also has larger achievement and disciplinary gaps between White and Black students. With the insights they present, the authors claim that school districts can either perpetuate or undo categorical inequalities.

The National School Board Association article Black Students in the Condition of Education 2020, article reports that 45% of Black students attended high-poverty schools, compared with 8% of white students; and about 25% of Black students, higher than the proportion of Blacks in the U.S. population, were enrolled in predominantly Black public schools. In the 2017“2018 school year, only two thirds of the Black students enrolled in Individuals with Disability Education Act programs graduated with a regular high school diploma. This was the lowest rate among all racial/ethnical groups. The National Report Card achievement scores showed that almost seven times more White students scored above the proficient level in Geography; and almost three times more White students scored above the proficient level in Reading compared to Black students. The results were within this range for History, Civics, Science, Math, and Technology and Engineering Literacy. The article noted that the proficiency gap between White and Black students has not closed.

In addition, U.S. educators continuously replace core academics with transformational social and cultural engineering curricula. The fact that overall student outcomes in reading, science, and math lag behind at least one fourth of the world’s countries including competitors like China seems irrelevant to our educators. Unfortunately, Black students are about three to four times less proficient in core subjects compared to White students and far behind many students of the world. 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 America’s schools and elimination of America’s Christian identity. This identify perpetuated the Western Christian Paideia, 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 [paideia] 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 Paideia 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. Critical Race Theory, CRT, Critical Gender Theory, CGT, and Queer Theory, QT, were, and still are, useful tools for these revolutionaries. The educators trained for this transformation of our nation now teach our children, including African Americans, from Preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP.

According to the on-line Britannica article, Basic tenets of critical race theory updated in 2021 by Brian Duignan., there are six basic tenants of CRT. First, according to Duignan,

Race is an undefined social construction. [To] some theorists, race is a set of physical characteristics including skin color, certain facial features, and hair texture; and imagined set of psychological and behavioral tendencies. The [imagined psychological and behavioral tendencies] have been created and maintained by dominant groups (in the United States, whites of western European descent) to justify their oppression and exploitation of other groups on the basis of the latter’s supposed inferiority, immorality, or incapacity for self-rule.”

Second, Duignan notes that CRT considers racism to be the normal experience of most people of color. African Americans, and other minorities, face discrimination and unfair treatment in the public and private sectors. Third, the racial hierarchy of American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people. Our laws, from the Constitution and Amendments to the laws of today, represent institutional White racism, structural racism, designed to oppress all minorities. Fourth, minority groups are periodically assigned negative stereotypes that benefit the needs or interests of whites. Fifth, no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person may also be a Christian. Sixth, people of color are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism.

Progressives claim that CRT is not taught in our preschool through grade 12 schools, but Duignan contradicts this claim when he writes, generalized versions of some [CRT] claims appear in the curricula of some public schools. Indeed, CRT retraining or re-education classes are now required in major corporations and the military. In preschool through grade 12 schools, the curricula teach the basic ideas of CRT; but the curricula are not re-education; they are education. Our White children must be taught that they will all benefit from White Privilege, and they are all racist oppressors who will create negative stereotypes of minorities, benefit from laws, and institutions to maintain White dominance, oppression, and exploitation of minorities. Our Black and other minority children must be taught that they will be subjected to oppression, negative stereotyping, domination, exploitation, and legal and institutional obstacles designed by White people to maintain white superiority over them. To put it succinctly, CRT in our public schools teaches our children that White people are all cruel, mean, and evil, White Supremacists, whether they know it or not; and Black people are the oppressed victims of all White people. CRT curricula includes texts and literature written for each level of students, Preschool through grade 12. I my opinion, CRT is divisive and racist.

Critical Gender Theory, CGT, curricula, including texts and lessons developed for students from preschool to grade 12, is now taught in public schools nationwide. The Bartleby Research article on Critical Gender Theory states that gender, a device by which society controls its members, revolves around the theory that gender is a social construct designed to subjugate women as system of oppression. CGT refuses binary gender characterizations in connection with sexuality. This theory says get rid of the norm and we do not need to come up with categories that are outside the norm.

Queer Theory, QT, and CGT are interrelated aspects of Critical Theory’s critique of traditional Western Judeo-Christian culture and traditional family values. The on-line article Queer Theory is a review of Queer in The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice. CGT and QT are aggressive assaults on traditional values. QT is one of the key contemporary critical theories of sex, gender, and sexuality. Therefore, it is one of the handful of specific and activist-driven approaches to ‘applied postmodernism.’ QT disputes the power dynamics and social constructions concerning homosexuality. The QT review states,

QT exists to antagonize norms, that is, anything that can be considered normal by society (even [an] accurate, neutral description) that carries a morally normative exceptionwhich [QT] deems intrinsically oppressive. This attitude is probably most clearly understood in the dichotomy normal [which has a positive connotation] versus abnormal [which has a negative connotation]. QT wouldn’t merely seek to expand the boundaries of normal’ to include circumstances like homosexuality or intersex conditions; but to [establish] the idea that normal is constraining and oppressive.

QT seems to deliberately confuse anything that is. normal [or] commonplace [like] heterosexuality or the sexual binary. Any variation [from normal] must be understood pejoratively and seen as illegitimate. Society has strong expectations for people to [be] normal. [QT] sees these expectations as [an] application of dominance to create oppression. Conflation of normal [with] moral is the centerpiece of QT. [This conflation of normal and moral makes it] relatively easy for QT to keep muddying this water for its own activist purposes sometimes called queering, [queering something, or just being queer].

Being queer [is not] being LGBT because being queer cannot accept normalcy or stability even within those categories. In fact, there should be no categories at all other than queer [which is woke or critically conscious under QT doctrines] and ‘not-yet-queer [or] bad’.

In her 2021 Heritage Foundation article, Woke Gender, Emilie Kao observed that like CRT, gender theory,  CGT,  (and QT) emerged from universities and have been propelled into the mainstream by identity politics. CGT rejects any relationship between biology and gender as biological essentialism. Accordingly, the biology of sex and gender (the way one expresses being male or female) are performed social constructs. Therefore, gender (and the body itself) can be reconstructed according to CGT and QT.

According to Kao, progressives insist that others must accept this dogma. This latest iteration of the sexual revolution is destructive to children and threatens the rights of parents to determine the upbringing of their children. The political lobbying organizations and woke capital hidden from parents, are transforming medicine and education into fields for transgender activism. Children are treated with a one size fits-all narrative, affirmative care, that has no basis in science, common sense, or compassion. Affirmative care uses hormonal and surgical interventions on minors to affirm gender identity. It limits counselors and doctors to affirming that boys are trapped in girls’ bodies, and vice-versa, even in children as young as 4 years old. Twenty states also ban talk therapy for gender dysphoria, meaning that counselors are forbidden from questioning a child as to whether he or she is actually trapped in the wrong body.

Ultimately, CGT and QT drives wedges between children and their parents. They also drive wedges between parents and activist educators promoting CGT and QT ideas in the classroom confusing children about their gender when they are emotionally and physically unprepared for the ideas. As Prof. Melissa Moschella has explained, despite the Supreme Court ruling in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters affirming that parents have a fundamental and pre-political right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, judges have removed children from the custody of parents who opposed hormonal interventions for gender dysphoria. CGT and QT have so permeated American culture and law that parents who question it now risk challenges from the government. For parents to succeed in protecting children from woke gender ideology, they will need to do political battle. Like critical race theory, gender theory has entered pediatricians’ offices and classrooms through the work of political activists.

With this information in mind concerning the schools attended by African Americans, five questions seem reasonable. Have African Americans benefited significantly from almost 80 years of Black allegiance to Democrats? Has the progress made by African Americans during the last 80 years occurred because of Black allegiance to Democrats or in spite of that allegiance? Do African Americans approve of teachers’ unions, school boards, and educators who seek to undermine the rights of parents to demand an end to curricula, like CRT, CGT, and QT, that undermine African American’s traditional values, Christianity, and families? Should African Americans work to challenge or remove school boards that continue to fail to close the education gap between White and Black students? Since Democrats support teachers’ unions and school boards that support progressive curricula that failed our students, especially African Americans, Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified?

Poverty and Fatherlessness

Although the African American middle-class continues to grow, the Black family poverty rate was 23% with the Black female parent family poverty rate at a staggering 37% in 2014, the poverty rate declined 33% for all Black families and 55% for single female parent Black families. The trends related to poverty in the United States are similar for all families from 1967 to 2014. A chart showing the percentage of black families in poverty.

Chart: History of Poverty in Black American Families

Poverty among Black families is more severe for both two parent and single female parent families compared to all families in both categories. If White families in both categories was presented, the difference would be even more stark. The data clearly shows that single female parent Black families are three time more likely to suffer poverty than two parent Black families. Although the difference has declined since 2000, Black single female parent families are almost twice as likely to suffer poverty compared to Black two parent families. With this data in mind, the same two questions seem reasonable. Have African Americans benefited significantly from almost 80 years of Black allegiance to Democrats? Has the progress made by African Americans during the last 80 years occurred because of Black allegiance to Democrats or in spite of that allegiance?

In the Black Community News article, ’72 Percent’ Documentary on Fatherless Black Children, the Senior editor observed that Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report, The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, warned of the female-headed household crisis among Blacks due to an illegitimacy rate of about 24 % which would have devastating social consequences.

According to the author,

The saddest thing about out-of-wedlock pregnancy in the United States is the children are, for all intents and purposes, fatherless. A man is more emotionally and financially invested in his children when he lives with them and is married to their mother. Children who don’t live with their biological fathers are at higher risk for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, school truancy and drop-outs, and criminality. The majority of juvenile delinquents and adult prisoners grew up in female-headed households. Fatherless children are much more likely to suffer physical abuse, including sexual, because of the men their mothers bring home.

The Center for Health Journalism article, How Absent Fathers Are Hurting African American Boys by Lottie Joiner, painted a similarly dire picture for African American boys raised in fatherless homes. She described three Black boys who lived next door to her in a low-income neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Before their father died, he encouraged them to help their neighbors; and He kept close watch over them, warning his boys of the dangers that lurked in the streets. According to Joiner, after the boys’ father died life changed drastically for them. Although their mother tried to get help for her boys, none graduated from high school, two have criminal records, and the youngest was in drug rehab several times. Joiner asked, So what happened? and What did these young men need in their lives that their mother could not provide? She sought to answer those two questions with another, What happens to a boy ” specifically young African American men who are often faced with the eye of scrutiny from the world ” who ds not have a father present in his life. Joiner continued, If [young Black boys] don’t have a father in the home who can act as a source of support and one of your pillars for your formation of resilience, then you’re less likely to be resilient in the face of a lot of sources of trauma. She concluded that father-absence adversely impacted the mental health of Black boys and young men leading to major depression disorders. She quoted one Washington D.C. family therapist Ayize Ma’at who said, They’re hurting. They’reacting out pain. They’re just trying to meet a need ” the need to be included, to be loved, to be welcomed, respected, and wanted. Sadly, in my opinion, gangs often fulfill that need.

Another potential factor contributing to fatherlessness in African American homes is fatherless fathers or fathers whose fathers abused them, or their mothers. These men may not know how to be the kind of fathers or husbands they want to be or fear failure or becoming abusive themselves. These fathers could choose to be absent from their families. As noted previously, boys and young men raised without fathers are likely school dropouts, substance abusers, or become involved in gangs or other criminal activities, often becoming absentee fathers themselves. The result is generational fatherlessness in the less affluent segments of the African America community. Unfortunately, Joiner’s article was short on real answers to the problem of the adverse impact of fatherless homes on African American boys and young men. Her answer seemed to be, It takes a village with mental health and mentoring resources.

Speculation, concerning the causes of absentee father homes among African Americans, abounds. Some answers seem obvious to an outsider like me, who many African Americans would call a racist old White man.  The answers are socially, racially, economically politically, and regionally complicated. The answers also require patience, understanding, and open, frank dialog. Since 37% of the Black families living in poverty are fatherless, double the percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population, every potential factor should be considered. From my perspective, one potentially important issue may be government programs that provide resources to single moms where benefits increase based on the number of children in a home. Many conservatives believe that these programs incentivize father-absent homes rather than traditional family values. Three articles may provide some insight into the issue. According to the 2022 article, How To Get Government Help & Assistance As A Single Mom, a single mom can find government help. There are thousands of state and federal programs to cover food, rent, utility bills, and credit card debt so single moms can have extra money to spend on their children. In the 2020 article, How Much in Benefits Can a Single Mother Receive?, the author states, Mothers who are unemployed or make less than $25,000 per year are eligible for more benefits. Single mothers with many children also usually receive more benefits. In her 2022 article, 18 government assistance programs for moms with no income, Emma Johnson observes that about 56% of the people who live in poverty in the United States are women, and most of those are unmarried women of color with children who live below the federal poverty line. Universal Basic Income, or UBI, is an efficient, effective way to alleviate poverty and improve society overall. These programs give people a guaranteed sum of cash each month to get the services or resources they need. Single moms stand to benefit the most from this kind of aide. Each of these articles, and many others, provide links help moms find programs that meet their specific needs.

Since fatherlessness contributes to both poverty and criminality at twice the rate in Black culture compared to White culture, the same questions are relevant. Have African Americans benefited significantly from almost 80 years of Black allegiance to Democrats? Has the progress made by African Americans during the last 80 years occurred because of Black allegiance to Democrats or in spite of that allegiance? Other questions about how single moms are supported seem relevant, Should the programs be tied to required self-improvement classes or education with associated childcare provisions? Should the number of children receiving supplements be limited? Should the programs require non-abortive birth control where failure to comply would end subsidies for more children? Does welfare for single mothers encourage or discourage unmarried women from having babies? These are difficult issues to solve. Two final questions are appropriate. Have the programs supported by Democrats provided meaningful solutions to date?  Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified when it comes to fatherlessness and poverty in Black culture and many communities?

Healthcare

Several other factors contribute to fatherlessness in African American hones. Healthcare is a significant factor related to fatherless African American homes. In 1992, Black men were about 10% to 33% more likely than White men to die from most diseases, a trend that continues to this day. According to Jerry Kennard, in 2019, heart attacks and cancer accounted for about 44% of all deaths for Black men. For young Black men between about 13 -15 and 44 years of age, homicide was the leading cause of death accounting or about 30% of all deaths in this age group, exceeding heat attack and cancer deaths.

Crime

In his 2020 article, 100 Black Crime Statistics: Data, Trends & Predictions, Arthur Zuckerman provides important information concerning crimes committed by African Americans. He makes the following important statement regarding Black crime in the United States:

“Despite the massive disparity in population, Black felons outnumber Whites in crimes like manslaughter, robbery, and illegal gambling. They also take up large percentages of both serious and petty crimes. Tighter law enforcement measures might be needed to improve the safety [in Black] communities, provided that the suspects are judged based on their acts and not their skin color.”

African Americans comprise about 15%; Whites comprise about 62%; and bi-racial Whites and Whites comprise about 71% of the US population.  In 2017, 53.1% of the arrests for manslaughter, 54% of the arrests for robbery, 33.5% of the arrests for aggravated assault, 28.7% of rape arrests, 29.8% of burglary arrests, and 43.9% of the arrests for illegal firearms were Black. in 2015, 58.8% of the Blacks in prison had committed violent crimes; and, in 2013, Blacks accounted for 52.2% of all murder arrests while Whites made up 45.3%. In Black-on-Black violence, familiarity and proximity are critical factors.  According to the FBI, in 2018, most murder victims are acquaintances of the suspects when their relationship to each other was identified. Crimes committed by friends and family exceed those perpetrated by strangers. 70.3% of the violent incidents suffered by Black victims were committed by Black offenders. In 2015 2,380 Blacks were accosted by Black killers. The proportion of Black-on-Black homicides to the number of Black people killed was 89.3% in 2015. For all crime categories discussed, one striking statistic is greatly concerning. The rate of criminality is two to three times greater than the proportion of African Americans in the U.S. population. Gangs, their drug trade and the associated criminality, and resultant incarceration also contributes to fatherlessness in Black families. Where African American crime is concerned, the same two questions are appropriate. Have African Americans benefited significantly from almost 80 years of Black allegiance to Democrats? Has the progress made by African Americans during the last 80 years occurred because of Black allegiance to Democrats or in spite of that allegiance? Another relevant question is, Why is criminality so high among African Americans? The high proportion of father-absence among African American families may provide one part of the answer to these questions.

The Assault on African American Culture

As a racist old White man, and total outsider, the assault on African American culture and society seems to contribute to many of the issues adversely affecting African Americans. From my White privileged, white supremacist perspective, asking pointed questions designed to promote critical thinking and dialog, is the least provocative way to approach the issues. First, Ds the progressive assault, on traditional values, morality, and ethics in the overall American culture and society, contribute to African American issues related to education and the noted racial disparities, poverty and fatherlessness, healthcare, and crime? The answer to problems related to these issues is a resounding yes for both White and Black Americans; 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 Biblical Christianity, traditional values, and our system of governance.

Elimination of Christianity, especially Biblical 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 Biblical Christian Church and traditional Christian family to the nurture and training of each generation of Biblical Christian individuals. Evangelism, conversion of non-Christians, is a primary task of Biblical Christian churches and individuals. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whver 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 Biblical 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 ds 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 Biblical Christian family in relation to raising strong Biblical 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 Biblical 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.

It seems that African American culture and society have suffered greatly from the progressive assault on traditional values, including Biblical Christianity, the traditional family, individualism, and capitalism. Since Democrats support the progressive assault of traditional values, “Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified?”

Marxist progressives and Critical Theorists use education and telecommunication industries as tools of teaching and indoctrination. Marxism has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences. Consequently, our students, now from Preschool to PhD., Marxism PP, are taught by curricula determined by the left’s educational dictatorship. CRT, CGT, and QT are now stealthily taught in virtually every discipline, especially liberal arts and social sciences. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens, including leaders of the industries below, becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more progressive culture and socialist society in the United States. The cultural weapons used by progressive Critical Theorists to deliver their ideas to the people of the United States for this assault 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. The news media usually portrays interactions between law enforcement and Black criminals as prime examples of systematic racism” or White privilege. When these interactions result in a Black fatality, news and social media, and civil rights leaders often fan flames of protest before the facts are known. The chart below provides some interesting data regarding deaths caused by Police brutality. It shows that

A bar chart showing the number of people shot to death by police in the united states from 2 0 1 7 through 2 0 3 4.From The real number of unarmed black people killed by police Washington Post, 2022

the rate of Black deaths caused by police is about the same as the rate of Black criminality and less than total white deaths which are also like White criminality rates.

According to The U.S. Sun, 2020 article How many unarmed black people are killed by police each year? By Patrizia Rizzo, from 2013-2019, over 1,000 people were killed by police, and one third were black. The article also notes that 765 people killed by police in 2020, 28% were black. The article notes its discouragement since the Black population is only 13% of the U.S. population. As noted in the Crime section above, For all crime categories discussed, one striking statistic is greatly concerning. The rate of criminality is two to three times greater than the proportion of African Americans in the U.S. population. The article title implies that most of the blacks killed by police, 201 to 333 according to the percentages in the article, were unarmed. Yet, the article cites only three examples of unarmed victims killed by police brutality in America, noting that two of the three victims highlighted in the article resisted arrest; but, they should not have died. The article failed to supply actual data regarding the number of unarmed, compliant Blacks killed by police during the time periods discussed. Nor did the article mention that the rate of Black criminality and deaths at the hands of police is virtually identical. The article also failed to provide data about the number of Black deaths occurring during violent altercations with police involving weapons., guns, or hand to hand battles threatening the lives of police.

In her 2020 Wall Street Journal opinion article, The Myth of Systemic Police Racism, Heather Mac Donald wrote,

“The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is ‘no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,’ they concluded.

When an African American dies in an encounter with police, especially a White officer, is the news coverage and national civil rights activist’s response designed to discover the facts about the encounter, stir Black resentment toward police, and promote the CRT doctrine that our policing and criminal justice system is systematically racist? In my opinion, the facts are usually secondary to the narrative and CRT agenda.

A Result of the Assault: Breonna Taylor

One tragic incident puts the assault on traditional values and African American culture into perspective, the Breonna Taylor death at the hands of Louisville, KY, police. The incident tragically combines extra-marital relationships, potential single female parenthood, crime and drugs, policing, and the CRT narrative that our criminal justice system is systematically racist into a single event.

In the predawn hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by Louisville, KY. police executing a search warrant looking for illegal drugs and drug money. Taylor was a 26-year-old Black emergency medical technician. By the night of the raid, Taylor had broken ties with her previous boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a convicted drug dealer and accused weapons trafficker in Louisville. Taylor had been dating Glover on and off for several years. She resumed another apparently long term relationship with Kenneth Walker, which developed into a serious live-in relationship according to an American Thinker article. Walker had a license to carry a 9 mm Glock. Some reports note that Walker kept other weapons in Taylor’s apartment. The reason Walker had a license to carry was difficult to determine.

The American Thinker article provided details of the information evaluated by the court that issued the search warrant for Taylor’s apartment. Glover made frequent trips to Taylor’s apartment and once took a package from Taylor’s apartment to a known drug house. When Glover was arrested in January, he called Taylor who arranged for an associate of Glover to post bail. Taylor also was involved in procuring bail for another Glover associate. The article,  Fact-checking claims about Breonna Taylor’s death reports that a car registered in Taylor’s name stopped at drug properties under surveillance; and Glover listed her apartment as his home address leading police to  believe that Glover “used her apartment to receive mail, keep drugs, or stash money earned from the sale of drugs. This information was sufficient for the court to issue a warrant for the raid on Taylors apartment.

On the night of the raid, Talor and walker herd loud pounding on the apartment door, got out of bed, and went into the hallway yelling to learn who was pounding on the door of the apartment. Walker was in front, and Taylor was slightly behind and beside him. When plain clothed police broke through the door and Walker saw three men, he fired one shot that struck one office in the leg. Walker later claimed that he was afraid the intruders were Glover and associates, and he shot in self-defense. Walker also claimed that he did not hear police announce themselves.  Which is contradicted by a witness. It is reasonable to assume the Walker did not hear the police due to the other noise of the raid. The officers immediately returned fire to neutralize the shooter in accordance with active shooter protocol and training. Inexplicably, Talor, who was unarmed, was shot five times, once fatally, and died at the scene. Walker, the shooter, was unharmed. Much of this information is also reported in NBC on-line , USA TODAY, and other articles. Details of the case are also presented by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron at a Sept. 23,  2020, press conference.

As soon as social media started sharing news of Breonna Taylor’s death protests began. These early reports contained both false and incorrect information. She was unarmed [true] and shoot in bed [false].  She died due to a no-knock warrant executed at the wrong address [both false]. The claim that the target, Jamarcus Glover [false], was not in the apartment was a misrepresentation of the target which was the apartment not Glover. The raid was botched because no drugs or drug money was in the apartment. In situations like this, there is no guarantee that targeted money and drugs are at the target location when raids are conducted. This false information and misrepresentation of the situation quickly fanned protests and demonstrations in Louisville and other cities around the nation. Benjamin Crump quickly became the Taylor family attorney for litigation against the City of Louisville. He was joined by Al Sharpton, and other civil rights activists almost immediately who agitated the African American community with claims of injustice and systematic racism on the part of Louisville police. They also demanded that the officers involved be charged with murder before the facts of the case were determined. By late May after the May 25 death of unarmed George Floyd at the hands of a White police officer, later convicted of murder, large Black Live Matter demonstrations turned into a summer of protests that turned into riots, death, and $2 billion in property damage throughout the United States and Louisville. Breonna Taylor’s family received a $12,000,000 suit settlement from the City of Louisville, KY, on September 15,2020.

In my opinion, Breonna Taylor’s death was caused as much by the Marxist, progressive assault on traditional values, Biblical Christianity, the traditional patricentric family, morality, and ethics as it was caused by the Louisville, KY, police. The assault on traditional values, supported by Democrats, told Breonna that extra-marital relationships and pre-marital co-habitation are ok, dating drug dealers is ok, helping drug dealers and their associates is ok, and, if she knew the situation, living in the apartment listed as the address of a drug dealer is safe and ok. These issues are problems in both the Black and White communities; but, with the rate of criminality in the Black community that is 2-3 times greater than the percentage of Blacks in the U.S., the issues impact African Americans more severely. Is it reasonable to ask, “Is Black allegiance to Democrats still justified?”

Run, Resist, Don’t Comply or Die, Means You Probably Will Die

As a father and grandfather, the needless deaths of African Americans who are killed by law enforcement officers because they run from, resist, or don’t comply with the orders of the officers is unnecessary and tragic. It is incomprehensible to me that Young Black Americans, especially law abiding young Black boys and men, are taught by their community and civil rights leaders, parents, peers, educators, mainstream news outlets, and the entertainment industry that encounters with law officers are usually dangerous to them today. Every race has a few bad apple racists. Black assaults on Asians are a growing racist problem. The vast majority of White Americans abhor White supremacists and racists and want to see them punished as a scourge on the overall American Culture. Any law officer who racially abuses their authority must be removed from law enforcement. In today’s environment, law officers understand that every encounter with the public could result in their injury or death, loss of their job, or possible indictment, prosecution, and conviction if they fail to do their job safely and lawfully. Consequently, most of the law officers encountered by Black Americans do not want to harm them. In my opinion, if the greater African American community taught Black Americans this simple phrase regarding encounters with the law, the death toll would drop immeasurably.

Comply, don’t die.

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

 

MERRICK GARLAND IS A DISGRACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here were some of their findings:

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

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

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

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

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

A screenshot of two tweets with the same tweet.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

TWITTER VERSUS CONSERVATIVES

 

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

A twitter profile with the name of dr. Champlin

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

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

A screenshot of the select topic page.

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

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

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

A close up of the email field in a computer

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

A twitter feed with the following hashtags :

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

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

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

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

JUST A THOUGHT.

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

NATIONAL ISSUES REQUIRE SOLUTIONS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘JUST DO IT!’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUST DO IT!

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR FOUNDER’S NATION

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

“TRUMP SPEAK” AND “DEPLORABLE SPEAK” VERSUS “ESTABLISHMENT SPEAK”

 

Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.

A black and white photo of two men with glasses
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.

Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.

Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,

a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.

Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest  description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.

The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.

Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.

In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea,  or “fake news.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.

Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.

In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.

Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.

We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.

If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.

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

Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.

A black and white photo of two men with glasses
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.

Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.

Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,

a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.

Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest  description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.

The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.

Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.

In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea,  or “fake news.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.

Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.

In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.

Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.

We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.

If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.

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

REPUBLICANS: ACT STRATEGICALLY CONSERVATIVE AND TACTICALLY LIKE DEMOCRATS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE PRESIDENCY CONSTITUTE TREASON?

 

A person casting their vote into the ballot box.
Treason is being committed by those attempting to undermine the Presidency.

The current efforts to render the President of the United States of America ineffective and unable to fulfill his duties as President in both domestic and foreign affairs constitute treason, in my opinion. The coalition of conspirators opposing the President, though uncoordinated, includes progressives in most of the television, on-line, and print news media, including liberal commentators on Fox News Channel, Never-Trump conservative commentators and Republicans, the entire Democrat Party, Executive Branch leakers, administrators, faculty members, and students at most universities and public schools, and street demonstrators including the violent black clad Antifa rioters. The assault on President Trump is, in reality, an assault on the Executive Branch of the United States government, the Institution of the Presidency, and the Constitution of the United States of America. This uncoordinated assault on the Presidency is treason.

Treason was such an egregious crime against the Constitution that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The Merriam-Webster on-line definition of the four critical terms related to treason is necessary to follow the argument being presented. Treason is defined as The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. The definition of adhering is, to give support or maintain loyalty. Aid is defined as, to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end or give assistance. Comfort is defined as, to give strength and hope. Therefore, my expanded Constitutional definition of treason follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or in giving support or loyalty to enemies of the United States, giving enemies of the United States what is useful or necessary in achieving an end, assistance, or giving enemies of the United States strength and hope.

One phrase in the above definition of treason is key to this discussion, to personally injure the sovereign, the President. Again, the following Webster on-line definition of injure is relevant: to harm, impair, or tarnish standing or inflict material damage or loss. Although the President has made mistakes, in all my 70 years, the vicious, untruthful, malicious, and slanderous attacks on the Presidency are unprecedented. The listed conspirators seek to injure, harm, impair, and tarnish the standing of the current holder of the office of the President and inflict material damage to the Presidency and Constitution of the United States.

The conspirators seek only political gain, control, and power.
We the People be damned.

We the People will not forget that your acts are treason.
We the People will vote in 2018 and 2020!

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.