Conservatives were once a lonely band of freethinkers
In the early 1950s, liberal intellectuals shaped the American zeitgeist, while conservatives, to quote Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, manned “tiny outposts” over a broad front, rarely communicating with one another.
When 39 American and European conservative intellectuals, calling themselves “traditional liberals,” formed an organization in the spring of 1947, they did not meet in America but thousands of miles away in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Their mood was somber, for statism had permeated the governments of Western Europe while communism ruled in Eastern Europe with a little help from the Soviet Army. Led by the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, these free-market scholars described their goal, rather grandly, as “the preservation and improvement of the free society.” Economist Milton Friedman contented himself with saying the meeting demonstrated that “we were not alone.” All too alone were conservative academics such as University of Chicago English professor Richard Weaver, Duke political scientist Ralph Hallowell, Louisiana State University political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Harvard historian William Y. Elliott, and UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Nisbet.
There were scattered conservative publications, with small circulations compared with those of established liberal journals such as The New Republic and The Nation. Human Events was a weekly eight-page political newsletter. Firmly anti–New Deal, it described the changes in American government since 1932 as “revolutionary” and called on Republicans to roll back the “iron curtain” that separated Washington from the rest of the country. But its call to action had attracted a circulation of only 5,000.
The one conservative youth group was the newly born ISI, with its paradoxical name, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (now the Intercollegiate Studies Institute). Encouraged by a $1,000 check from oil executive J. Howard Pew, ISI’s organizers argued that the push toward socialism in America had begun in the early 1900s with the formation of Socialist Clubs on college campuses. ISI’s plan was to “foment the organization of campus cells for the study and discussion of individualistic ideas.” The libertarian language reflected the ideology of its founding father, Frank Chodorov, who never met a government program he didn’t want to dismantle. With William F. Buckley Jr. as president, ISI reached 600 members in its first year and then quadrupled over the next several, revealing a campus appetite for at least some conservative ideas.
There were conservative newspaper columnists, such as George Sokolsky, and radio broadcasters, such as Fulton Lewis Jr., but liberals undercut their influence by linking them whenever they could with a “militant right wing.” CBS’s Mike Wallace, for example, invited his viewers one evening to listen to Lewis explain “the attraction the far right has for crackpot fascist groups in America.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When The Conservative Mind was published in 1953, liberals joked that the title was an oxymoron. But they stopped laughing when they read Kirk’s synthesis of the thought of leading conservatives from the late 18th century to the 20th century, including Edmund Burke, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Disraeli, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot. The work established convincingly that there had been a conservative tradition in America since the Founding. Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable. In fact, as NR publisher William Rusher pointed out, he gave the conservative movement its name.
As George Nash has written in his indispensable study The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, there were three reactions to the Left in the aftermath of World War II. The first, as represented by Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, consisted of classical liberals and libertarians, resisting the threat to individual liberty posed by the collectivist state. The second was the revolt of traditionalists, such as Weaver and Kirk, who urged a return to time-honored religious and ethical beliefs and a rejection of moral relativism. The third was, in Nash’s words, “a militant evangelistic anti-Communism,” shaped by ex-communists such as Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers, author of the powerful autobiographical work Witness.
Bill Buckley’s special genius as a master fusionist was his ability to keep these dissimilar, disputatious intellectuals on the same masthead for years to come. Why were there so few defectors? Because of Buckley’s extraordinary skill at harmonizing the conflicting voices of the conservative choir. Because he persuaded his fractious colleagues to concentrate on their common enemy — the Soviet Union — and set aside for the time being their undoubted differences. And because he helped them realize they were part of something historic — what Buckley would call “our movement.”
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
A reminder…the first “free election” in Russia was held in 1917. Lenin promised a “free” election where all votes would be equal and each citizen would be heard. The election was scheduled and a number of political parties provided the voters a choice. The Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks) campaigned with appeals to win the majority’s vote with the promise of “Peace, Landand Bread.” The energy of the Bolsheviks and the promises of Lenin were insufficient to win the election (they only garnered 23%) of the vote.
But Lenin’s cunning campaign continued after the sunset on the election day. There was corruption in the balloting. There were “extensions” to allow more ballots. There was a long and strong public propaganda messaging to the public that the Bolsheviks had won when they had lost. The agenda to “transform” Russia into the first Marxist governed nation did not cease after the polls closed on the “election day.”
Violence, manipulation of the news, vociferous protests, armed vandals, and an attack upon the Russian governing structure increased. Eventually the Russian Provisional Government was absolved and the tyranny of 70 years’ slavery to Marxist dogmas resulted.
The Russian population was well armed (probably more weapons were in Russia than any other nation at that time) and many of the Russians had military experience having faced the Kaiser’s army on the eastern front. So, the presence of weaponry and veterans was not a factor in opposing the Bolsheviks. The civil war that was inevitable between Red and White Russians attest to the fact that weaponry was accessible. No, contrary to many opinions today, Lenin’s success was not because “guns were outlawed.”
The success of Lenin’s transformation of Russia can be laid at the feet of the Russian population. The nation assented to and conformed complacently with the dictates of a vocal and violent minority. The nation resigned its “free election” and surrendered to the prevailing propaganda! The actual facts did not influence the population. They accepted what they were told and complied without any question. An unanswered question haunts the history of this event: “What would have happened IF the general population had not surrendered to the violence and vocal minority?”
However, history shows that often the vocal minority becomes the governing especially if violence is threatened. It does not matter how many guns there are and how many millions of rounds of ammunition are bought, the population generally complies with and coalesces around the presented politicians who promise “peace, land and bread.”
Following the Bolsheviks’ takeover, a number of events unfolded:
•The Tsar was arrested and eventually executed.
•The nation entered into a bloody civil war.
•The political opposition forces were systematically eliminated if they did not capitulate to the Bolsheviks.
•The leaders of the transformed nation devolved into greater savagery and left a legacy of evil.
And now we turn history forward to 2020…
The election day of November 2020 is past but the election continues. Shuddering similarities to Russia 1917 are noted. There is a magnitude of never-before-seen voting fraud. Ballot harvesting, corrupt ballot counting, and destruction of select ballots. Intimidation and fear are used to violate the “free election” upon which our Republic is maintained. Suitcases full of ballots were stealthily taken into the counting rooms; boxes of ballots suddenly appeared and the rightful observers to validate counting were forbidden to see the ballots.
There is even an echo of the Bolsheviks’ call for the Romanov’s removal, imprisonment, and eventually death. In a shocking TWEET, Keith Olbermann announced, “TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED AND ARRESTED, TONIGHT. Gripped by a paranoid delusion, threatening the nation’s safety, this can’t wait any longer. It won’t happen; in fact he’ll probably concede and instantly announce he’s running in ’24. Full video:https://youtu.be/q_7f-DfmNNQ.” Observed in this tweet is the intimidating propaganda ploy to silence any opposition to this criminal suggestion by claiming all opposing are “morons.” Unless you support and shout for President Trump’s removal and incarceration you are a “moron”!
The “transformation” of our Republic is now being announced as a funeral dirge. In the city of Minneapolis, protesters vandalized several local businesses and wreaked chaos in the city. But examine this event as a backdrop heralding the end of free elections in the USA—protesters marched to the city’s Uptown neighborhood, setting off fireworks as they carried the banner which read “America is Over.”During the protest, demonstrators attempted to block traffic throwing debris into the streets. Some went on to vandalize store-front windows.
The corruption of the ballot counting continues as the population is being groomed to accept the contorted fact that a violent, vocal minority has engineered the greatest coup in civilization’s history. The process will drag on causing the public to be desensitized, and eventually political figures will urge capitulation. Then the announcement will be made. And…it will be accomplished without a shot being fired!
A quote commonly attributed to Joseph Stalin highlights the election of November 2020 (or basically any election). There are several versions of the statement and the Progressives/ DEMS/ BLM/ ANTIFA/ RINOS are quick to castigate it as unfounded. However, one possible source for a version of the quote comes from Boris Bazhanov’s “Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary,” published in 1980 in Paris and 2002 in Moscow and appearing to be available only in French and in Russian. While a search of the Stalin Internet Library yields nothing resembling the quote in the Soviet leader’s published writings, the possibility remains that it could have been excerpted from an unpublished speech or private conversation. There is a sobering book translated from the French called “Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin,” published by the Ohio University Press in 1990. In it, Bazhanov details how Stalin’s governmental machine was built through vote-rigging, tapping into opponents’ communications, and extinguishing those who had a moral center.
Regardless of the historicity of the quote the truth it expresses is frightfully accurate:
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Welcome to 1917 in 2020!
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
Mikhail Kalinin (far left Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR) and Leon Trotsky (middle) greets Red Army troops. Polish–Soviet War.
Mikhail Kalinin (far left Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR) and Leon Trotsky (middle) greets Red Army troops. Polish–Soviet War.
“Woe to those who drag wrongdoing with the cords of deceit, and sin as if with cart ropes; Who say, ‘Let Him hurry, let Him do His work quickly, so that we may see it…Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight! Woe to those who…declare the wicked innocent for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!’”
History has shown the arrogance of culture’s “Intellectuals.”A quick scan of any historical period will highlight pompous politicians and the compliant masses eagerly led by the elitists.
There is a connection between the elite politicians and the violence of revolution. These go “hand-in-glove.” Consequently, where there are political elites managing the affairs of State there will be instigations of violence so the State’s ideals will be implemented. Especially is this true when Marxists takeover society and wield violence as a useful tool to advance their cause. This violence is presented to the public as necessary and justified. It is amazingly characterized in terms of non-violence! The success of the campaign relies upon the pairing of the elites and those used in violent actions.
Unfortunately, this pairing is visible in our time. While the general populace struggles with how they can satisfy the basic necessities of life, the elite enjoys an unrestricted binge and glut of pleasurable excesses. The crude comment by Marie-Antionette said—“Let them eat cake.” This reportedly came when the Queen was told that her French subjects could not get common bread and “cake” was a dream. The Queen’s callous remark highlighted her uppity opinion of the “perpendicular pronoun.” She became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to lose her head at the guillotine. Marie-Antoinette was also known and hated for her lavish lifestyle publicly flaunted.
The Perpendicular Pronoun
In our time two political “elites” share Marie-Antionette’s uppity opinion of the “perpendicular pronoun.” (But these are not the exception because the general rule is that all in the governing State feel empowered to feast on benefits while the general population struggles with a famine. The examples of these two present a façade of sensitivity but masks a cunning objective to change a nation’s destiny.
First, a report revealed the Speaker of the House consoling Americans. Her feigned sympathy was stated standing in front of a $24,000.00 refrigerator filled with gourmet ice cream! Incredulously Pelosi showed off her ample supply of designer ice cream, gelato and other frozen treats suggesting that she was compliant with social distancing. However, her “show” was a visible record of just how out of touch she is with the common citizen. She was buying ice cream by mail and restocking her supply for Easter when many Americans could not find a roll of toilet tissue. It’s her version of “Let them eat cake,” and hopefully she will be made to pay the price for her insensitivity.
A second illustration of the political elite’s arrogance vies with Marie-Antionette’s insensitivity. Fox News reported that Freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) wore outfits and jewels costing more than $14,000.00 for her spread in Vanity Fair magazine’s December issue. She was gifted a $2,850 suit from Loewe for the shoot, as reported by the Daily Mail.
The actions of today’s Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA/RINOS have far surpassed Marie-Antionette of 1793! And yet, we are told that people voting for those campaigning on the Democratic platform, and who call themselves “Democrats,” are “very satisfied” with what their elitist leaders are doing. A timely query is asked by Victor Davis Hanson: “Where is common sense these days?”
The political elites must find a way to further their agenda so that “transformation” of the USA occurs and the evils of our Republic’s rule are punished. We thus see how the elites utilize violence to navigate successfully their takeover. It is unfortunate that society has been desensitized to the violence seeking to destroy our nation. Even though cities burn, anarchy reigns and murderers roam freely, the elites are telling us long and strong that only “peaceful protests” are present in our nation’s metro areas!
I was appalled when I heard the first reports of these “peaceful” protests. And that shock increased when the Democratic Mayors and Governors, whose cities were burning, parroted the “peaceful” spin. Even when video reports are filmed with a backdrop of violence, arson, and assault we are told these are “peaceful.”As the situation devolved the statement was adjusted to say these were “mostly peaceful”!
How can reasonable people accept this flagrant untruth? The answer is understanding that this is not a new maneuver but one rooted in historical tactics to further Marxism.
Look back 1920-1923 and consider events framed by the Russian-Polish War. One interesting fact about this war instantly arises in regard to these “peaceful protests.”
A published paper (by MIROSŁAW SZUMIŁO 12.08.2020) discussing the war suggests “the Bolsheviks took power not to change Russia, but to use it as a trampoline for world revolution.”
Commanding the attack on the western front was Mikhail Tukhachevski. Preparing his troops for action he gave his famous order: “Soldiers of the workers’ revolution – turn your eyes to the west. On bayonets, we will carry happiness and peace to working humanity.” This was printed 9 May 1920 in Pravda as “Go West!” It solidified the Bolsheviks’ propaganda objectives and recruited troops.
Pay attention to the psychological ploy in the propaganda that fixed attention on “peace.” Who could say that “peace” was bad. But it subtly embraced the violence necessary for the revolution and the murderous intent of the bayonet! You have to admit the subtle cunning was masterful. Consequently, thousands were sacrificed and the remainder sulked back to the Motherland after being defeated at the Battle of Warsaw.
The elite Marxists announced happiness and peace was only possible at the point of the bayonet! And so, in today’s Marxist announcements we have the justification that arson, anarchy, and murder is actually “peaceful”! Isaiah would angrily object saying “You turn things around!” (29:16). How can “bad” be “good” unless the propaganda machine dictates that the population accept it? Anyone failing to accept the revised status as good is to be penalized.
The elitist arrogance that is visible today, was evident in the Russian leaders. Trotsky was bold in his speech about sacrifice for the Motherland but he lived almost permanently on an armored train, travelling from one front to the next, supervising progress, meeting officers and delivering rousing speeches to Red Army soldiers. Trotsky was as brutal to the common man as he was motivating and uplifting. One would never know his ruthlessness from his polished propaganda!
An poignant observation is made by Alexander Rubtsov regarding the Russian/Polish War. “Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky had a different scale: the Sovietization of Poland, the collapse of the Versailles system, and then a world fire! After World War II, the Soviet global project became more sophisticated and focused on assembling the socialist camp, national liberation movements, and all progressive humanity.”
The point not to be missed is the vision that the entire globe is targeted for the Marxist Project! In 1920 it was called “Sovietization.” In our current time is it referred to as the “globalization” of political, economic, and cultural differences so all become citizens of the “One-World Government.” And, who is surprised to learn that only the political elites are capable lead the sheeple to that grand utopia.
DO NOT ignore this unmistakable parallel…the “mostly peaceful protests” in the 1920s were advancing civilization at the point of the Marxist bayonets!
Threat to Our Republic
Americans beware! There is a visible and vocal threat to our Republic. Freedoms are being replaced with the tyranny of the elitists boasting they know better than the common citizen. These travel in armored cars and are far from the realities of daily existence. They stand in front of refrigerators feigning sincere concern while flaunting their superiority. They call for equality in wages and living standards while being gifted clothing that cost thousands of dollars. They strut and parade as royalty seeking the fawning of the peasants. The Democratic candidates in the 2020 Presidential election claim that a “transformation” of the USA is essential! We are told the “peaceful protests” will bring necessary results. This is a rephrasing of the Russian propaganda “On bayonets, we will carry happiness and peace to working humanity.”
Only those who do not think will accept that bayonets and peace are synonymous! Isaiah would have said, “You turn things around!”
It is all a LIE! And those who support and vote for the Democratic Party join in this lie.
The current political elitist reminds me of Mary Howell’s poem. The Spider and the Fly describes a cunning invitation to one to choose destruction. The poem is an enlightening read in the context of the invitation offered by the Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA on 3 November 2020. The poem also presents the unavoidable outcome for those who foolishly accept the invitation.
Here is an excerpt of the poem:
“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly; “‘Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy. “There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin, “And if you like to rest a while, I’ll snugly tuck you in!” “Said the cunning spider to the fly: “Dear friend, what can I do “To prove the warm affection I’ve always felt for you?”
Howell’s poem closes with a somber injunction to those being tempted:
“And now, dear little children, who may this story read, “To idle, silly flattering words I pray you ne’er give heed; “Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye, “And take a lesson from this tale of the spider and the fly.”
Today’s electorate has a choice to make. It can choose a proven administration that has brought historic levels of success and freedom to our nation. Or it can choose an administration that will transform our nation and turn toward a global vision in which they will “on bayonets carry happiness and peace to working humanity.”
The elitist actions of today’s pols echo the terrors yesteryear’s elites. This ought to convince the electorate of 3 November 2020 to either vote out every Democrat or to vote for those in that political party and sacrifice the security of our constitutional Republic. We are a nation governed by the Constitution and not by the whims of an elite minority who has neither respect for the Rule of Law, the principles of humanity nor the personal liberty of the citizens.
There is a historical connection between the terrors that have savaged civilization in times past and the positions advocated by the Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA!
Donald Trump is now in a fight for his political life. Pray and stand behind President Trump for eventual victory.
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
The inspiring ideals enshrined in the founding documents of our nation include a limited government that allows maximum personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and equal justice under the law. These are founded upon the pillars of inalienable rights, including the fact that all men are created by God as equal. But we have gone about “as far left” as socialist policies can take us if the Democratic debates are an indication of where America will be tomorrow.
“Our job,” Bernie Sanders spouted in the Iowa debate, “is to build the United Nations.” Not surprising from a socialist who has been photographed enjoying toasts with the leader of the old Soviet Union’s gulag communistic state. But frightening that he maintains substantial support in the Democratic Party.
The United Nations has been from its inception a design for socialistic world government. In its most recent COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain, Executive Director Stuart Scott called for the UN to implement drastic population-control policies and “family planning” such as control the Chinese. Other plans include a massive transfer of wealth from “western countries” (read, “United States”) to third world poorer nations in the form of “climate reparations.” The UN is a world dictators’ dream. This is what Bernie Sanders favors. National Socialism is not brave enough—we need International socialism.
It is inescapable, however, that we have already lost so many of our freedoms that have made America the envy of the world. Whether due to taxes, to regulations on our businesses, farms, homes, cars, to our activities, to our speech, and to our abilities to exercise without government interference our religious liberty—our American heritage has dwindled.
So the issue is whether we will preserve even the semblance of our once-cherished ideals of limited government, the sovereignty of the States, the protection of life and property that is so nobly enshrined in our founding documents? Will we maintain any semblance of our freedom over our own health care or will we capitulate to the totalitarian proposals of the Democrats by which the government becomes a monopoly funded 100% by the American taxpayer? Will we continue the path to a more limited government under president Donald Trump or listen to the siren song of socialists?
“The modern trend is in the direction of greater concentration of power in the hands of government. The problem of individual freedom within the framework of a more or less regulated economy will have to be fought out in our age, just as the question of political liberty and the free market were the issues in Jefferson’s day. … Jefferson felt that without liberty, life was not worth living. …In the difficult years that undoubtedly lie ahead, Americans will have to gather all their moral forces for the preservation of their way of life, their liberties, and their opportunities.”
Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to conduct impeachment hearings according to constitutional due process standards. Democrats are so desperate for power that they would overturn the election of a President of the United States based on their biased and partisan interpretation of his telephone conversation with a foreign leader.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was initially reluctant to risk the electoral backlash of impeachment. She finally bowed to far-left pressure, ignoring the President’s astounding economic and foreign policy successes. Her worst nightmare is coming true — rising approval for President Trump and rising disapproval for the Democrat Party and their presidential candidates.
This is because the impeachment process we are witnessing is decidedly un-American. Using secretive, totalitarian-style, one-party interrogations is not due process and is unworthy of a constitutional republic.
Democrats ignored the constitutional standard for impeachment to remove a president: “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” No unbiased adjudicator could conclude that President Trump’s telephone discussion with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is an impeachable offense. Far from a “high crime,” the President was carrying out his duty to the people of the United States. He was guarding our treasure and protecting our national integrity. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and he was right to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aide was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know.
Instead of thanking the President for his diligence, Democrats in Congress had the temerity to accuse him of committing an “abuse of power.” The Executive Branch of the United States government is separate and co-equal. George Washington University law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told the House Judiciary Committee that it would be Congress abusing power if they try to stop the President from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. Schiff, Nader and Pelosi ignored that unbiased counsel.
They have chosen instead to drag the country through an impeachment process while trampling the constitutional and due process rights of a sitting President. If they ignore his rights, why would they respect those of the average citizen?
Due process rules are not reserved to criminal trials alone. They are essentially the same in regulatory and administrative hearings. Those rules reach even to private entities operating under “color of law.” To suggest that a proceeding as grave as a presidential impeachment need not follow the same basic procedural rules of fairness is ludicrous on its face.
Hearsay is excluded from evidence in court proceedings because it is notoriously unreliable. Yet Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor were called before the House Intelligence Committee with great pomp and ceremony to offer only hearsay. Defendants always have a right to confront their accusers, yet the “whistleblower” remains an anonymous figure.
Adam Schiff went beyond hearsay to outright falsehood. Speaking on the floor of Congress, he reported that President Trump said to President Zelensky, “I want you to dig up dirt on my opponent and lots of it.” The President said nothing of the kind. Schiff later claimed it was a “parody.” This is the same Adam Schiff who said he had incontrovertible evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia. The only conclusion supported by evidence is that Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.
Democrats also violated the principle that the accused has a right to a vigorous defense. The earliest hearings were closed to Republicans. Information from those inquiries was selectively leaked to the press. Depositions were taken in secret. Rep. Andy Biggs, Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, compared the sessions to Soviet secret hearings. He proposed a resolution on the House floor to condemn and censure Schiff, but of course House Democrats tabled the proposal.
Long gone is the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn. It is now a party of hardcore leftists, more aligned with Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. They are now completely driven by extreme leftist ideology. Lacking evidence that President Trump committed any crime or even did anything morally wrong, they recklessly passed articles of impeachment, with no regard to the great damage they are doing to our Republic. The Democratic Party once had statesmen, but it is now the refuge of demagogues.
Their Stalinist impeachment show trial demonstrated gross disrespect for our elections and the peaceful transition of power. This has been nothing less than an attempted coup d’etat, but these de facto communist revolutionaries will face the wrath of the American voter. Tuesday, November 3, 2020 will be a day of reckoning.
As documented by Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller there are many socialistic organizations that have bypassed around the Congress of the United States and are transforming local American communities into little Leningrads after the likeness of the old Soviet Union. This is all done using the tool of RACE, supported by the “junk science” of leftist Universities. As a matter of fact, there is an entire network of George Soros-backed activist groups that have been pushing these policies at local levels. The catch-word that they use is EQUITY. Everything must be EQUITABLE.
For example, in many communities across America, local politicians have begun proposing “comprehensive race-based policies such as redrawing school boundaries to dismantle schools with too many white or Asian students.” The justification for this is “Equity.”
Margaret McCreary, a Fairfax County, Virginia, parent noted that the school board members all began using “equity” language to push a proposal that could move her children out of their schools. “It seemed like they were all in cahoots to do something, but at first we didn’t know what to make of it, because we didn’t know what they were talking about,” she told The Daily Caller.
This simply meant that unelected bureaucrats of a socialistic engineering stripe would seek to make the schools more “proportionate” by racial population. Too many whites and Asians congregate together and their parents naturally gravitate toward neighborhoods of similar racial population. These local schools reflect this “racial” imbalance.
The same goes for poorer minority neighborhoods and schools. Socialists like Barack Obama think this an atrocity for the common people to mingle with people with which they have the most in common. Activist busybodies, however, tone down their rhetoric and instead of “proportionate” they now use the word “equity.” A “white middle class” neighborhood is “inequitable.” Socialists need to make it more “equitable” by mixing up the population.
Fairfax was only one of many communities where these policies are being implemented. But these policies are much broader than local school districts. In a recent article, Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline Through Cultural Organizing(9-12-19), radical activist group PolicyLink explained that the Equity projects actually target entire communities, principally through THREE main systems: “education, law enforcement, and juvenile justice, and it centers the perspectives of youth and families who are most impacted on transforming those systems; dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline; and making communities just, safe, and whole.”
Social engineering from the top down of which Saul Alinsky would be proud.
How are entire local communities being radically transformed by these intrusive socialistic meddling policies?
First, academia has provided the so-called research. For example, a group tied to the University of Southern California (USC) called Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) functions to create the research that promises BILLIONS of dollars in economic growth to cities if they adopt certain policies. All government programs will be EQUITABLE.
Second, there are a cluster of “Community Organizing” groups, all primarily funded by George Soros and related magnates, that have set in motion to bring about these “equitable” changes. Some of these “community manipulating” groups include Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP); Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Government Alliance on Race Equity (GARE); PolicyLink; Center for American Progress (CAP); Race Forward; Haas Institute for Fair and Inclusive Society; Center for Social Inclusion (CSI); Center for Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII); Partnership for Southern Equity; W. Kellogg Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Foundation for Open Society; and California Planning Roundtable.1
An example of how these organizations mobilize by propaganda is a recent article in PolicyLink (9/12/19) entitled Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline through Cultural Organizing. In it we are informed that to “reduce” the “harm of policing” in poorer neighborhoods we need to challenge the “untested assumptions about the value-add of law enforcement.” It asserts that things like “parks equity” will assist to bridge racial performance gaps.
Translated, this means that poorer neighborhoods do not have the nice parks that more affluent neighborhoods do, and that local law enforcement are too involved in minority communities. Local policies will have to shift tax dollars around to change this.
Third, a sales pitch must be activated to bribe and lure unsuspecting local communities into this hole. Here is where academia comes in to play.
Rosiak explains that Fairfax County, Virginia, a wealthy District of Columbia suburb, was sold on sweeping social changes after county employees attended a 2014 conference to a group called the Local and Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). County officials were sold on making Fairfax County more wealthy. They adopted a program called “One Fairfax.”
GARE, combining efforts with PolicyLink and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC showed Fairfax what was called an “Equitable Growth Profile.” This “profile” found that the county’s gross domestic product would have been $26.2 billion higher in 2012 IF ITS RACIAL GAPS IN INCOME WERE CLOSED. 2 “’One Fairfax’ can only be realized with an intentional racial and social equity policy at its core for all publicly delivered services. A racial and social equity policy provides both the direction and means to eliminate disparities.”
Junk Science Brought In
The promise of billions of dollars that could be the case if equitable policies were adoptedis based on: (1) The assumption that if all white people continued to earn the same amount of money as they do now; and, (2) That all racial groups who earn LESS than that could earn the same amount of money as they do; (3) The city’s economy would be larger.
This is less than “Junk Science.” It is foolishness that denies common sense as well as human nature and that not everyone has the same capacity or desire to labor to earn the same amount of money as the next person. It also assumes without a shred of proof that disparity between incomes among different racial groups is due to some sort of ugly racism in the majority white population.
Listen to the same sales pitch by National Equity Atlas, and online tool created by PolicyLink, as it theorizes about Albuquerque, New Mexico. “We estimate that the Albuquerque metro economy would have been $11 Billion large in 2015 absent its racial inequities in income.” This is from PERE’s paper on the Albuquerque.
“Using data on income by race, we calculated how much higher total economic output would have been in 2014 if all racial groups who currently earn less than Whites had earned similar average incomes as their White counterparts, controlling for age.”
This is the core of it. No real science. No real examination of root causes of men’s successes and failures. No reality. Only the unsupported assumption that minority communities are poorer than white communities because of a racist mentality that exists in white America. THIS is the “racism” that socialist engineers are seeking to eliminate by hook or crook under the guise of EQUITY.
1 Luke Rosiak put this list together. See also my article on Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) published on this website.
The Christian flag is forbidden. But this past week city and state officials in Boston and Philadelphia celebrated the enslavement of China 70 years ago — and the slaughter of an estimated 100-plus million people since then — by holding a flag raising ceremony for the Communist Chinese regime at City Hall. Cities in Canada and Australia also bowed down to the regime. And President Donald Trump even sent “congratulations” to the Chinese dictator on the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, drawing sharp criticism from Republicans in Congress.
The events and statements honoring the mass-murdering regime took place even as the dictatorship in Beijing was brutalizing and killing protesters in Hong Kong. Those protesters, who are seeking to preserve their freedom, have been waving U.S. flags and singing the American national anthem as U.S. officials were cheering on their oppressors. Protesters from both China and America, though, were on hand to make their opposition to the groveling known.
Communist Chinese propaganda organs were thrilled by the events. Xinhua, a Communist Party of China-controlled “news” organization that doubles as an intelligence gathering outfit, celebrated the fact that Philadelphia “honored” China by hoisting its flag at city hall. “A flag-raising ceremony was held Tuesday morning at the city hall to observe the 70th anniversary of the PRC founding,” Xinhua reported, boasting that the mayor had announced “a day to observe ‘The People’s Republic of China Flag-raising Day.'”
Mayor James Kenney also provided some nice soundbites for the regime’s propaganda machine. In a proclamation celebrating the murderous regime’s 70th birthday on October 1, the mayor said his city had been “enriched with many key cultural events and business centers.” He also boasted that people of Chinese heritage — all of whom the regime considers either assets or enemies, according to intelligence experts ” were now active in “all aspects of life including in City administration.”
In Boston, a similar ceremony took place on September 29, and has been occurring for a decade now. Among those speaking at the deeply controversial event was Boston City Councilor Edward Flynn, the son of former Mayor Ray Flynn who also served as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. The politician, who did not return requests for comment, said he was “proud” to be there with his “friends” at the Communist Chinese Party front group behind the event. Also attending was State Senator Joe Boncore, a Democrat from Winthrop.
But the public was less enthusiastic about celebrating mass murder and genocide. As the flag was being raised, activists used loudspeakers playing music used by protesters in Hong Kong to drown out the regime’s anthem. Chants of “Free Tibet, Free the Uyghur People, Free Hong Kong, and Shame on China,” could be heard louder than the speakers. Among the hundreds of demonstrators in attendance were ethnic Chinese people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners, and others.
One of the protest leaders, Tibet Action Institute Director Lhadon Tethong, spoke out clearly. “The flag-raising here is a real honor, a privilege to be at Boston City Hall, this place where the American Independence was founded,” he explained. “That [Communist Chinese] flag stands for none of the values that this country was founded on.”
Numerous anti-Communist, pro-freedom Americans attended too. Camp Constitution Executive Director Hal Shurtleff, who helped lead the opposition, noted that he was very impressed with the Hong Kong students in attendance at the protests. “They were well organized, young and brave,” said Shurtleff. “One young man whom I spoke with admitted that he will suffer consequences for protesting the event.”
Shurtleff, who has been protesting the Communist Chinese flag festivities for years and sought unsuccessfully to have the Christian flag raised there too, brought a banner featuring the Christian flag reading “Banned in Boston.” He also brought a banner on persecuted Christians with information about Beijing’s brutality toward the believers in China. “We got the banner right in the faces of the communists,” he said, adding that his video of the event went viral and was seen by over 70,000 people in less than one day.
In previous years, Shurtleff distributed copies of Robert Welch’s book Again May God Forgive Us, which outlines the U.S. government betrayal of China into communist slavery. This year, he was “delighted” to see that protesters outnumbered communist supporters. “While there was at least one brief skirmish with an elderly anti-Communist Chinese man and a supporter of Communist China, and angry verbal exchanges, the protest was peaceful,” he said. “We noticed the arrogance displayed by the organizers. One of them walked by the barricades smiling at the protesters.”
Indeed, mouthpieces for the regime insisted that raising Communist China’s flag was entirely appropriate. “We need to learn from each other and understand each other better to promote a more peaceful world,” claimed Suzanne Lee, the founder and president emeritus of the city’s Chinese Progressive Association that worked with the city to bring the ceremony about. “But I think it”s important to keep that information going, rather than hitting head to head. Nothing can come of it when people don”t talk to each other.”
The Communist Chinese flag raising has been going on for a decade in Boston. In 2009, an official City Council resolution by Councilor Michael Ross and signed by the president of the city council extended its congratulations to the “People’s Republic of China” for the 60th anniversary of its founding. Apparently Boston even forged a “sister-city relationship” with Hangzhou, a city with an international reputation for communist barbarism and ruthless persecution of Christians. The city is also notorious for its organ-harvesting operations centered around the Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital.
Perhaps even more controversial than city and state officials celebrating the enslavement of the most populous nation on earth was President Trump’s message to mass murderer Xi, the regime’s supreme overlord. “Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People”s Republic of China!” the president tweeted on October 1, using the term “president” to describe the dictator.
Responding to Trump’s tweet, even some establishment Republican leaders were clearly uncomfortable. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, slammed the regime. “From the modern gulags used to incarcerate Xinjiang’s Uighurs, to the high-tech firewalls and censorship that control the flow of information, to the state’s extensive technical surveillance, to all of the Communist Party’s other tools of social and political control, Xi Jinping’s China looks disturbingly like a modern version of Maoist China,” he said in response to Trump’s comments.
Leaders among House Republicans, meanwhile, said the 70th anniversary was “not a day for celebration.” Rather, House GOP Conference leaders said, “it is an opportunity to remember the victims, past and present, of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” Since coming to power, they added, the regime has deprived its victims of fundamental human rights and human dignity. From the tens of millions starved to death, to the students mowed down in Tiananmen Square, to the Uighurs stuck in concentration camps, to the courageous people of Hong Kong, Beijing’s “appalling record of repression is clear,” the leaders said.
“On the anniversary of the PRC, the U.S. stands with the foremost victims of the Chinese Communist Party: Chinese citizens themselves,” said the two Republican leaders. “It is for their future, as well as that of their fellow victims in Xinjiang, in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and beyond, that we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party is left on the ash heap of history.” The GOP leaders in the House noted that the CCP is waging a campaign of aggression worldwide and that its victims within China are “subject to a nightmarish totalitarian dystopia with the PRC”s ever-expanding surveillance state and social credit system.”
The groveling before the most murderous regime in history was hardly limited to the United States. In Canada, various city governments also celebrated the regime’s enslavement of the vast Chinese nation. However, in Toronto, at least, the mayor very publicly refused to participate, citing “ongoing issues between Canada and China.” Protesters at the event, meanwhile, held signs with pictures of Canadians being detained in horrifying conditions as retaliation for the Canadian government’s role in arresting a leading Huawei executive for U.S. authorities.
In Australia, the Victoria Police disgraced themselves by raising the Communist Chinese flag at the station’s flagpole. Even more horrifying, the officers were forced to sing the murderous regime’s anthem as local and federal officials looked on. But again, there was outrage and criticism.
“Frankly I find it disappointing,” Victoria City Councilor Blair Barker told Australian media after the event, pointing to the brutality being unleashed against protesters in Hong Kong. “We need to be cautious about supporting a foreign regime that does not support our democratic values and principles such as rule of law…. I would have thought our own police force would be a little more judicious when it comes to associating themselves with authoritarian foreign states that have a very different approach to policing its citizens.”
Meanwhile, in Communist China, the dictatorship ordered churches to raise the Communist flag and sing the praises of the Chinese Communist Party for the 70th anniversary. “Many churches in Hangzhou have been required to raise the national flag and sing the national anthem for a long while,” an attendee of a non-government church in Hangzhou dubbed “Mr. Zhou” was quoted as saying in media reports. “Now, China is back to an absurd era, and some regions are even worse than the Cultural Revolution era.” Some churches have also been ordered to replace the Ten Commandments with quotes from dictator Xi Jinping.
Celebrating the founding of the People’s Republic of China is to celebrate over 100 million murders, genocide, torture, barbarism, forced abortions, the harvesting of body organs from dissidents, savage religious persecution, and institutionalized slavery. Raising the flag of Communist China is as disgusting as raising the flag of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany or the Soviet Union. Making the American celebrations even more grotesque, though, is the fact that it was subversives within the U.S. government who betrayed the Chinese people and their leaders so that Chairman Mao could take over. Never again should the flag of Communist China or any other band of mass murderers be raised in the Land of the Free.
Socialism in its original form was defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the Soviet Union confiscated all business, factories, and farms while murdering millions of dissenters and resistors in the process.However, aside from that classical definition, socialism has always referred to the redistribution of income and properties in the pursuit of equality—whether through the progressive income tax or various institutions of the welfare state.
Our Founding Fathers were well aware of socialistic redistribution and the collectivist drift toward the left by growing government. They all warned against it as an evil that burdens society. Samuel Adams, for example, pointed out that the founders had done everything in their power to make socialism unconstitutional.
The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson warned against our modern welfare state. “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” Jefferson rightly pointed out the immorality of it simply in the fact that it is unjust for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debt to the next generation. Our current debt of about $20 trillion is almost entirely owing to our socialistic quagmire of government taking care of people.
Jefferson added, “…we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority.” Plainly, to pass on debt to the next generation, which is part and parcel of socialism, is itself immoral.
In Jefferson’s second inaugural address in 1805, he observed that the redistribution of wealth was a violation of the basic and fundamental right of mankind. “Our wish … is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good,…equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.”
In other words, there never will be financial equality among members of a society because wealth and the accumulation of goods is the direct result of one’s own industry—or that of his fathers, as Jefferson put it.
He went on to point out that:
to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.
Such things as the income tax and the infamous “death tax” come to mind as examples of violations which the sage of Monticello had in mind.
Benjamin Franklin wrote on this topic at length. He told one of his friends in England why America would not adopt a welfare state. “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and I hope, shall reform it.”
A summary of Franklin’s views on welfare is as follows: (1) Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive. (2) Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive. (3) Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive. (4) Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.
Providing the means to increase immoral actions; breeding debilitating dependency; blunting the desire or necessity to work; smothering the instinct to excel—sadly, this is an apt description of America today. Such is the destructive nature of socialism. Franklin added:
To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.
Would that America had paid closer attention, not only to the advice from our founders, but to the structure and prohibitions of the law of the land—the Constitution—which made wealth redistribution illegal. But who studies the Constitution today? Certainly very little in public schools, if at all. And who reads the founders any more?
2 W. Cleon Skousen’s summary in The Making of America, p. 219.
NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth–“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”
President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.
For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.
Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?
Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.
The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.
Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)
One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.
Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.
NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.
The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.
United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:
For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).
Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.
Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.
Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.