The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan

INTRODUCTION:

As the holiday season is in full swing, Patriots cringe as we watch the American Communists and those who want to destroy the American way of life crawl out from under their rocks and once again begin their ongoing war on religion and escalated it to the all out  “War on Christmas” (again).

Just as predictably many talking heads showed up on talk shows, some have written books or are there to hawk their past published books.

Others are just there to complain and yet give no rhyme or reason of why the war goes on with no apparent end in sight.

Some. not many, will even cite Karl Marx;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

While others might cite the idea that the American Communists do not want people to believe that there is anything more important then the "State" (In this context, Centralized Government)

If people stop and really think, both are considered correct by those wishing to destroy the American way of life.

Like a number of wars throughout history, the how or the why they started gets lost in time.

What if someone were to say that the war on religion, thus the War on Christmas, began in Italy ca. 1920's. I'll bet that people would call that person nuts.

"Hello." You can call me nuts.

Since 2008, the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky have become common names in debates about the ongoing destruction of the America way of life. I can imagine people reading the list, nodding and then all of a sudden, stop and say, “WHO is Antonio Gramsci and what does he have to do with the destruction of America?”

Everyone knows who Karl Marx is, but few people will even mention Marx's "comrade in arms" Friedrick Engels (1820-1895), both were the “great scientists” that laid the foundations of “scientific socialism” [1] in Manifestoof the Communist Party and “were the first to explain that socialism was not the invention of Utopian dreamers, but the inevitable outcome of the workings of modern capitalist society”.[2] Considering that Friedrick Engels DID say in the Preface of the 1888 edition of the Manifesto, “Yet, when it (Manifesto of the Communist Party [sic]) was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:....”.

However, few know that after the publication of the Manifesto and the defeats suffered by the Socialists during the Revolution(s) of 1848, different ideas developed on how to implement Marx's ideas into society.

 Just as today, where there is a division within the Democrat Party between the few so called “moderates” (what was once known as Blue Dog Democrats) and the Liberal/Socialist/Occupy Wall Street/Black Lives Matter Democrats, a division between the three philosophies of Marxist Socialists also developed.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works and large-scale industries. Does this sound like the Fabian Society of Great Britain and America and the modern day Progressives or in reality the American Communists.

Then there were "Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society would be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers. This is similar to the system in France where industries are owned and managed by the workers. Or more locally, your neighborhood farmers CO-OP.

Finally and very well known and often cited, the “Bolshevist” socialists, those that believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship[4] much like the unions and Occupy Wall Street of today.

It is this group who would eventually be the symbol of Communism, though if one were to read Marx's Manifesto, no where does the word "government" appear.

These differences would come to the world's attention in 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) along with Leon Trotsky lead the Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Tzar of Russia.

This revolution not only established what we, today call Communism but also separated the Revisionist's idea of peaceful social revolution as envisioned by Marx and Engels [4] and the Bolshevik's theory of armed conflict to overcome the injustices of the capitalistic economic system[5]. This revolution not only caused a split within the American Socialist Party but also a split between the international socialists and one of the leaders in the theory of the “peaceful” change was Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci believed that capitalism was so firmly entrenched that violent revolution would only serve to further strengthen the Bourgeoisie (modern capitalists, owners of means social production and employers of the Proletariat, wage laborers) resolve to maintain “control”.

Antonio Gramsci was born January 22, 1891 on the island of Sardinia,Italy and would grow to be considered a leading Italian Marxist as well as a major theorist.

Gramsci's belief in Marxism along with his membership plus his actions as a leader of the Italian Communist Party brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926 when he was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. This five year sentence would eventually become twenty five years when a year later he was transferred to another prison and an additional twenty years imprisonment was added to his sentence. It was during his imprisonment that Gramsci wrote the Prison Notebooks. It is within the pages of these notebooks that, I feel the foundation of the war on religion and the “War on Christmas” and the peaceful destruction of the America way of life was laid.

Cultural Hegemony

Although no translation of Gramsci's Notebooks actually gives a black and white definition of Cultural Hegemony, his often quoted characterization of hegemony as “the 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige which the dominant groups enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production” In other words, the ruling group(s) uses its political, moral and intellectual leadership[6] to impose the direction of social life (culture) whether it be religion, the family or the basic traditions.

Gramsci felt that in order to bring about the defeat of capitalism, it would be necessary for the proletariat to develop a counter-hegemony (counter culture) and bring this counter culture to institutions such as schools and colleges, the churches, charities, media, and most importantly, the Family.

America and the free world has faced and to some extent defeated armed aggressors out to destroy free societies. BUT, cultural hegemony is the saboteur who quietly infiltrates and slowly works to destroy a society from within. Unlike an enemy with a weapon that can be stopped with equal or superior force, those seeking the destruction of traditions can be everyone, because everyone is part of the culture.

As the old Pogo cartoon said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”

Continued in "The War Nobody Saw Coming - The First Attack"

[1] Foster, William, History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, 1952.

[2] Iliad Foster, William, Chapter 2.
[3] “The social revolution originally envisioned by Marx and Engels would begin witha proletariat dictatorship. Once in possession of the means of production, the dictatorship would devise the means for society to achieve the communal ownership of wealth. Once the transitional period had stabilized the state, the purest form of communism would take shape. Communism in its purest form would be a classless societal system in which property and wealth were distributed equally and without the need for a coercive government.” 
[4] Russell, Bertrand, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1920.
[5] Gramsci, Selections from the prison Notebooks, Translated and edited by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Norwell Smith, New York, 1971. In T.J. Jackson Lears' The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities, The American Historical Review, Vol. 90, Issue 3, pages 567-593, June, 1985.
[6] Moraes, Raquel de Almeida, University of Brazil, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education.

Let me know what you think.

The War Nobody Saw Coming – The First Attack

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan”, I introduced you to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how by changing the culture, a group of could subvert a capitalist society by changing it’s tradition and thus the culture instead of using forceful revolution as proposed by Lenin. I could spend more time and countless words on attempting to explain, “How 'small' groups of socialists could change the traditions and thus change the culture and eventually push America further towards Socialism” Instead of me writing a number of words, let's let a number of pictures take the place of a thousand words. Afterward we will take a closer look at opening skirmishes AND what would be the foundation for the attack on our culture, our religious traditions and as we know it, the War on Christmas.

Welcome back, now we're ready to look at the what has happened since Gramsci's theory of 'cultural hegemony' was published in his Prison Notebooks, particularly when it comes to the war on religion in general and Christmas in particular.

Most Patriots and some sheeple know that the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of....” (The Establishment Clause) and the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (springing from National citizenship [sic.]); nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (of the State [sic.]); nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (of the State [sic])” (Due Process).

It was the twisting of these two amendments plus a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists that would give and continues to give those wanting to change America the ammunition for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to destroy one of the primary principles and traditions behind the founding of America.

When asked when the war on religion began, many will say, “1963, when the SCOTUS ruled in Abington Township School District v. Schempp (Reading of the Bible in public schools) which was joined by Murray v. Curlett (School prayer) were unconstitutional. Very few people know of or even want to mention the first two major skirmishes, the opening shots if you will, of the war on American culture that occurred earlier in 1947, when Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. al was argued before SCOTUS. This was followed a year later in 1948 with McColhum v. Board of Education of School District No. 71.

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947)

Background: A state of New Jersey statute authorized the various school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of students to and from schools. This state statute allowed the township of Ewing to reimburse parents for public transportation of their children to both public and private schools (most private schools at this time were Parochial...OM). Arch R. Everson, executive vice president of a group called the State Taxpayers Association of New Jersey brought suit in state court because he believed that the money collected for public education was being used to support students attending schools which provide religious education on behalf of a particular religion and thus violated the Establishment clause. The state court ruled that the reimbursement plan WAS unconstitutional, but the verdict was overturned by the state Court of Errors and Appeals, thus it ended up at the SCOTUS.

The Arguments The ACLU joined Everson's side as “Friend of the court” (amicus curiae) argued that the Establishment Clause prohibited a STATE from establishing an official religion and the use of tax money to transport students to parochial schools was a tacit endorsement of religious education. The attorneys for the Board of Education argued that in addition to prohibiting the establishment of a State religion, the First Amendment also prohibits actions which prevent the free exercise of religion, thus by withholding the assistance to the parents would discriminate against the parents of parochial school students and thereby violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Decision and Rationale The SCOTUS upheld the New Jersey's State Court of Errors and Appeals by a five to four majority. Justice Black writing for the majority that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students. Basically, “... state cannot tax A to reimburse B for the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to violate the due process clause because the children are sent to these church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any nonpublic school, whether operated by a church or any other non government individual or group.”

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Background This case revolved around the fact that board of education allowed public school buildings to to be used by various religious groups to give religious instruction once each week. The children who didn't participate were forced to go elsewhere in the school for secular studies, but they were not actually given any regular academic instruction because this would have put them ahead of their religious counterparts. Attendance in religious classes was recorded and reported to teachers, as was the non-participation of non-religious students. The mother of one student, Vashti McCollum, an atheist who would write about the case in 1953 and would later in 1962 became the president of the American Humanist Association, complained that the program of providing religious instruction in schools violated the Establishment Clause. McCollum also complained that the school district's religious education classes violated the Fourteenth amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

The Arguments Once again the ACLU joined the case as amicus curiae along with the American Unitarian Association, Synagogue Council ofAmerica, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the BaptistJoint Committee of Religious Liberty also filed briefs that argued McCollum's position. The Board of Education argued that the Champaign Council on Religious Education, a group of Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths, had obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine, inclusive. The parents had signed printed cards that gave permission for their children requesting that their children be permitted to attend. These classes were held weekly, thirty minutes for the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expenseto the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. The classes were taught in three separate religious groups by Protestant teachers, Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although at the time there had apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. The classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building.

The Decision and Rationale

In an 8 to 1 majority ruled in favor of McCollum and the ACLU. The court ruled that by allowing:

(1) the use of taxed – established and tax supported public schools to teach religion to students, the government aided these groups in the spreading their faith.

(2) As Justice Black wrote in his majority opinion, “Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. ...Here not only are the State's tax supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State”

With this decision the skirmish that began with Everson in 1947 would eventually become a war on religion beginning in the public schools and expanding to any tax supported property. This case not only held that the Establishment Clause (1^st Amend.) applied to the states through Due Process (14^th Amend.) but would further entrench the “...building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

I fully realize that these cases may not mean much to some nor will they make the connection to what is happening today, but I will ask you to consider the following.

No matter how hard the Socialists/Left tries to deny or try to rewrite history, America was founded on one simple principle (tradition if you will), FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion.

It is this FREEDOM that has been the cornerstone that has guided families, as well as the majority of Americans throughout our history. Yes, there were times that some used religion for dubious ambitions, but as a people, we learn, and in most cases when discovered it got and still gets corrected by the people and in some cases, unfortunately, the Federal Government.

Just as religion is the cornerstone of American society, education is the foundation.

As Attilito Monasta wrote in his biography of Antonio Gramsci, “Education is a field where theory and practice, culture and politics inevitably merge together, and where intellectual research and achievement combine with social and political action. However, a distinction, if not an opposition, between these two aspects of education is not uncommon and the ideological use of culture and science often pushes toward both the ‘neutralization’ of the educational and political effects of cultural development and the ‘justification’ of the political power by domesticated theories, which, therefore, can be defined as ‘ideologies’. It is difficult, within the traditional division and separation of disciplines and fields of cultural research, to define all of that ‘education’, since education is consistently related to the growth of children and the schooling of pupils, no matter whether from  nursery school or university.[1]

Now,as people listen to the talking heads, out to make a buck on the “culture war” and the War on Christmas, I will ask people to look back over “recent” history and remember that as Antonio Gramsci wrote and the film clip explained, “that by infiltrating and destroying or corrupting the traditions of a society, in this case, America, one can successfully destroy the greatest country in the world.

As Rand Paul said, "Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be ' Constitutional' does not make it so."

Continued in,YOU guessed it, "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So"

[1] Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIII, no. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000

American Communism by Any Other Name Still Means Destruction of America

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism [1]

"Watching Elizabeth Warren give a speech to her fold, you realize she's one of the rare Democrats who can excite her base in the same way Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders can excite their own." As Politico's Katie Glueck wrote on Friday, July 17th, 2014, liberals' minds may be with Hillary Clinton, but their hearts lie with Warren.

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008.

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?" [Glenn Beck would say "Progressives are Communists with patience."  BUT history shows and tells us that Progressives are Revisionist Socialists. Some would say its semantics BOTH means the destruction way of the American way of life and Freedom. I feel based of on research of the writings Karl Marx as well as that of Socialists and Communists from early ca. 1880's - 1890's; Progressivism is a a hybrid of both or as I have come to believe and called American Communism]

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." [Does she REALLY mean, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank, [we are ready have one] with State capital and an exclusive monopoly" (Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, page 26) or is she implying that "The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works." (Morris Hillquit, History of Socialism in America, 1910 Pages 369-377)?...OM] 

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." [Does she REALLY mean, "...the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan." (ibid) or maybe she means "The extension of the public lands to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power." (ibid page 376) or perhaps, "The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swap lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the pubic domain."(ibid)...OM]

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." [Could she mean, "Centralization of the means COMMUNICATION and transport in the hands of the State (ibid Page 26) or maybe she meant, "The collective ownership of railroads, TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, steam lines and all other means of SOCIAL transportation and COMMUNICATION (ie. Internet...OM)" (ibid Page 376)...OM]

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."[Or in other words, "The capitalist class, in its mad race for profits, is bound to exploit the workers to the very limit of their endurance and to sacrifice their physical, moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed. Capitalism keeps the masses of workingmen in poverty, destitution, physical exhaustion and ignorance." (ibid page 370)...OM]

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." [Is this the same as "The Organization of the working class into a political party  to conquer the public powers now controlled by capitalist"? Or maybe she is hinting that "The struggle between wage workers and capitalists grows ever fiercer, and has now become the only vital issue before the American people. The wageworking class, therefore, has the most direct interest in abolishing the capitalist system."(ibid Page 371)...OM]

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." [Maybe she should have just said, "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,..."(ibid Page 26) ...OM]

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." [Maybe she should have first reminded everyone that, "In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."" Thus taking the Social Security TRUST fund and putting it in the General budget so that it could be "borrowed from". Or that the "National insurance of the working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age", (ibid Page 376) or maybe she wants, "The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted for American use." Didn't FDR take these socialist/progressive ideas and put them into law ca.1935?...OM]

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." [Maybe she should tell her fearless leader, President Obama after all "Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts" Can we say "woman speak with forked tongue" or is it just hypocrisy?...OM] 

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." [Change traditions, you change the culture, change the culture you change the nation....OM]

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform." [So do the majority of the American people, except we believe that it should be done legally, not by flooding the borders an attempting to "tug on the heart strings" because they are children, thus using Cloward & Piven [3] to flood the system....OM]

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" [Warren better re-read the 14th Amendment and the definition of citizen, "a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country or a person who lives in a particular place." Thus, "While a corporation is a "person" within this Amendment, it is not a "citizen" of the United States whose "privileges or immunities" a State is forbidden to abridge. A State may therefore impose upon a corporation created by another State restrictive conditions respecting its doing business (but not interstate commerce) within the first named State. (Corporation is citizen of State creating it. Bank of United States v. Deveaux (1809), 5 Cranch. 61, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2 but is not citizen of United States, therefore liberty may be abridged by State. Western Turf Assoc.v. Greenberg (1907), 204 U. S. 359, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2)[4] and of course there is always Citizens United.]

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." [Actually we work for what we earn and the government has no right to redistribute our or anyone else's wealth...OM]

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-of-progressivism/455955/
[2] Berger, Victor L., Social Democratic Herald, whole no. 1, July 9, 1898.
Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900; published in Appeal to Reason, Sept 15, 1900, page 3
[3] Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty", The Nation, May 2, 1966.
[4] *Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Application, Devin-Adair Co., 1940.

*Thomas James Norton was a Member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

In the Hour of the Wolf – Random Thoughts about Twitter

Another sleepless night and as I stumbled into the living room to turn on the T.V. before heading to kitchen to start the coffee. As the coffee brews, I light the first of what will become one of many cigarettes I will smoke today and half listen to the T.V.

Coffee is ready, I pour a cup wander into living room, I glance at the screen and some “talking heads” and some “personality” are talking about who’s going to win, who’s going to loose and why.

Will it be Hillary or Sanders? Will it be Cruz, Bush, Trump or another candidate? 

During this back and forth there is never any mention of the Constitution. 

I would half way expect one of these various media brain trusts to say something like candidate ________, will work within the confines of the Constitution and work to defund everything that is not constitutional.

Maybe if they did work to remove some of these redistribution of wealth programs, we wouldn't need a new tax plan accept to lower the tax rate?

Needless to say, most likely if they did that as POTUS, they would serve only one term.

Of course, for the Hillary and Sanders supporters, as well as Obozo, the Constitution is a hindrance and the working American taxpayer is just a piggy bank.

After getting another cup of coffee, I power up the computer and settle in to check email, glance at the news and as regular as clockwork end up on Twitter.

I scan the threads, see the great tweets, photos and of course, the usual back in forth on who would be a better candidate for conservatives.

A number of tweets catch my eye and I do what I feel is my duty as a Patriot and a Marine engaged in the fight to save America, ask the hard questions.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR HERE AND NOW, I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE.

One question that I asked,

“Why the “sudden” change in Trump’s support of Hillary and being strangely silent till last year about the Democrats.”

Needless to say, I opened the flood gates of insults and comments but no real answer. However there was one prominent answer among them, 

“Ronald Reagan was a life long Democrat and he switched.”

I reminded them, that yes he switched in 1962, and as he said, 

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.”

Now, I don’t nor will I claim to know exactly why Reagan left the Democrat party, but I venture to say that it may been something to do with what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, who was a former socialist, but later went on to support Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and even John Kennedy said about the 1960 Democratic platform:

“That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” (Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM)

Then there was my question about how Trump could support ethanol subsidies and government mandates that ethanol be blended with gasoline and how someone who claims to be fighting for the Constitution can support someone who believes in something not in the Constitution?

To which I got one the most intelligent and honest answer I’ve heard in a long time:

“Well, nobody is perfect. I just like him”

Eventually the subject of eminent domain raised its ugly head when a follower tweeted:

“The Bush family used eminent domain to build a stadium for “their” baseball team.”

Now I don’t claim to be a lawyer, nor do I play one on Twitter, BUT as Eric Bolling said and I paraphrase, too many people haven’t read the last line of 5th Amendment of the Constitution. Before everyone reaches for their copy of the Constitution or search the web:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Key word is public use.

So what is public use:

“…relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc.”

Let’s look at this meaning.

Does a parking lot for a privately own business really affect all or most people of country, state or even the city?

Maybe it may bring jobs to a few. Maybe it will bring tax money to a city BUT will it allow use by everyone or just a select few?

One argument Trump brought up, was the use of eminent domain by federal government for roads, bridges and even the XL pipeline. SPOILER ALERT! Project in work on federal use eminent domain and the takeover of state's property in order to have the:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

or maybe it is:

"The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain."

Without going into a long drawn out explanation and spoiling an ongoing project, let’s just say that the use of federal eminent domain is:

“The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power [1], but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wideranging [sic] that vast numbers of objects may be effected.”[2]

Before getting off the subject of Trump, let me repeat what I said earlier:

I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE. I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

NO, I’m not a Cruzbot as I have been accused of being. I attempt to look beyond the hype and ask questions and expect intelligent answers, preferably based on the Constitution and facts, feeling that maybe by asking these questions, people will stop, think (I realize that it hurts) and learn.

Speaking of which, it never ceases to amaze me how people can or will make statements without even reading or knowing the basic facts.

Case in point as a number of my great followers know, I do not believe in the use of tax money for government handouts including funding for schools and even refer to those who receive them as slaves to the government, I had one follower make the statement:

“Well you’re retired and you receive handouts from the federal government.”

Wrong, No where in my my profile does it say I’m a retired Marine. But, this follower ASSUMPED I was retired and doesn’t know, that short of being medically retired, a service person (I hate being politically correct) retires after twenty years of honorable service.

Wrong, because the benefits received by retired veteran are NOT “handouts” but they are or have been earned through 20 plus years of faithful service to the “company” called America. Yes, I used the term “company” because, just like in the civilian world, when they hire an employee, they usually have a contract or a promise that if you work “X” number of years, you will receive certain things.

The same is true with the armed forces, when a man or woman signs that contract, blank check if you will, that they are willing to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic with their lives if required. In return, America made a contract, a promise, that laid out certain benefits, all of which can be traced back to the Article 1, Sections 12 thru 16. So for all of you who believe that veteran benefits are just handouts, think again.

To me, handouts are the redistribution of wealth using taxpayers’ money for various unconstitutional social programs, welfare or whatever PC name they call it, Medicaid, funding of schools, etc. Social Security and Medicare are NOT included.

WHY? Because the unconstitutional, in my opinion, BUT government programs REQUIRES working Americans to, by law, to fork over a portion of their money to a badly run federal retirement plan and medical plan and at a certain age, Americans get that money back.

This just goes to prove how lack of fore knowledge or the lack of comprehension has infested people.

Finally, for now, just as afterthought, I have often used the terms American Communism and American Communists to describe what others, including well known talking heads, use the softer terms such as: liberal, progressives, socialism, elites or big government and no one has said a word, BUT insist on still using the softer terms.

Why? Are they afraid to offend? Are they so brainwashed by “talking heads” and the lame stream media that even in the face of information from ORIGINAL sources they refuse to accept the fact that for over a century, America has been heading towards it unique form of government control of production, distribution and consumption or as early American socialists, Bliss and Berger defined as communism.

I believe people who use these softer terms do so as a self-denial that communism has taken hold of American life and this government control, big government if you will, because they realize that due to their inattention, taking freedom for granted and just plain assuming that most of what Washington does is, constitutional.

Or is it because they are getting free money for police, fire, schools and other unconstitutional items and their states, cities can use their local tax money for other things like planting trees or pushing the Sustainable Communities Initiative and further seeking enslaving the people with handouts?

So remember, when we get into discussions on Twitter or elsewhere, I'll ask the hard questions, not to insult you but by chance make you think and hopefully you can teach me something. So don't take it personal, it isn't.

Semper Fi!

[1] United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896)

[2] California v. Central Pacific Railroad, 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways);

     Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges);

     Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry, 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (railroads);

     Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923) (canal);

     Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (hydroelectric power).



“Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)

They May Call Themselves Progressives, I Call Them American Communists

Since Obama began his campaign and after his election news people, conservatives and various “talking heads” have thrown around the terms, labels if you will, Socialists, Communists and of course Progressives.

There have been articles, blog postings, etc. dealing with Progressives and the Progressive agenda and its history. Yet no one has really looked or written about the relationship between Progressivism and Socialism. Yes, I am neglecting Communism because history has shown that though there may be some similarities in goals, the means of achieving them are entirely different.

In fact, recently I posted an article concerning possible Socialist Progressive presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's eleven commandments of progressivism and compared it to the Socialist agenda from 1908 Socialist Party Platform and Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto). But like all speeches by Socialists Progressives, they don't always tell the real story.

Now I will good further in depth and attempt to enlighten those who don't know that when Progressives talk about their agenda, they are REALLY talking about a Socialist Agenda.

In the following I am going to use two main sources, Center for American Progress (CAP), The Progressive Tradition in American Politics, Part 2 and the Socialist Party of America Platform of 1908 as found beginning page 373 of the History of Socialism in America by Morris Hillquit, 1910. 

Other sources will be noted as required.

The format will be Progressive reforms in bold print, followed by the what the 1908 Socialist Party platform had to say on the same subject in italic with Editor's Note in bold as needed. So open your mind and look at what actually is the Socialists agenda that has been put in place by the so-called Progressives.

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek – 1908 Shortening the workday in keeping with the increased productiveness of machinery and securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and a half in each week.

Worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents – 1908 Abolishing official charity and substituting in its place compulsory insurance against unemployment, illness, accident, invalidism, old age and death.

Unemployment insurance – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitation – 1908 Forbidding the employment of children under sixteen years of age and forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of child labor.

The legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not directly address this subject, it does state, The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take such other measures within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class. Also if one researches the forming of the various labor unions though out American history you will find that a majority of those founders were socialist. 

The constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination of formal discrimination for women and minorities – 1908 Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, and we pledge ourselves to engage in an active campaign in that direction.

The graduated income and inheritance tax – 1908 The extension of inheritance taxes, graduated in proportion to the amount of the bequests and to the nearness of kin and a graduated income tax. Editor's note: This is also addressed in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto) of which Engels wrote in the Preface of the 1888 Edition: “Yet, when it [sic The Manifesto of the Communist Party] was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support.”

Protections against contaminated food and medicines – 1908 The enactment of further measures for general education and for the conservation of health. The bureau of education to be made a department. The creation of a department of public health.

Hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, and national parks – 1908 The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain.

National infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, bridges and roads, and the Internet – 1908 The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.

Minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor – 1908 The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover [sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour [sic] work-day and at the prevailing union wages.” (Does this sound at all familiar?...OM)

Public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not address this, I once again draw your attention to the Manifesto, “Free education for all children in public schools.”

National supervision of banks and the creation of a flexible national currency – Editor's note: Again one must draw their attention to the Manifesto, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Can anyone say Federal Reserve?)

Federal insurance of bank deposits – Editor's note: Please see above.

Bans on speculative banking practices – Editor's note: Please see above.

The Progressive reforms that were not directly mentioned in neither the 1908 Socialist Party Platform nor the Manifesto:

Anti-monopoly and anti-competitive regulations of corporations

Direct elections of U.S. senators, although the 1908 platform does mention abolishing the senate.

Direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.

Civil service tests to replace political patronage

Regulation of the securities industry although by stretching the meaning of the Manifesto's, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly this could fall into part of the Socialist agenda.

Refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners.

Considering that sixteen (maybe 17) out of the twenty one or 76% (81%) of the Progressive reforms that the Center for American Progress brags about can be traced directly to the Socialist Party and/or the Manifest of the Communist Party.

I will allow you the reader to draw your own conclusion that when Democrats call themselves Progressives, they are actually American Communists using a name that won't scare the sheeple or actually show their true agenda and the media both conservative gleefully goes along.

Finally consider what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, a former socialist who later supported Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy, said of the 1960 Democratic platform: “That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM

Special thanks to Igor for his assistance and editing.

Let me know what you think.

Semper Fi

In The Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Constitution and Subsidies

As I read and think about the various tweets from my great followers on twitter and believe me when I say that I value each and every one of them I have to wonder if some of my follower have, like a number of “conservative” talking heads and political candidates, have gotten so numb to various government programs that they don’t even stop and consider whether it is within the limits of the responsibilities of the federal government as outlined and SPELLED out within the Constitution.

It is not my intention to bash or degrade any particular GOP candidate or any particular follower on twitter.

I will paraphrase certain things and point out where what I consider errors in reference to Constitution. If I’m in error, I’m sure someone will correct me.

With a vast number of people watching the unfolding events in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, either which could possibly get a boost by winning the caucus.

To this end, Mr. Trump has gotten what many “talking heads” may consider a very important endorsement.

No it was not Sarah Palin, but the so called conservative governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad.

Why did Gov. Branstad endorse Mr. Trump?

Was it because he believes that Trump is the best candidate for America?

I don’t think so!

I feel that Gov. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump mainly because the governor is against Sen. Cruz’s stand on the ethanol subsidy and to some extend subsidies in general after Senator Cruz said:

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”

To which Gov. Branstad replied:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said, according to the paper. "I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." 

Now, I don’t blame Gov. Branstad for doing what he feels is best for his state, IF he didn’t, I would join Iowans in removing him from office. BUT like a number of laws and programs out of District of Corruption, they have been passed, put in place and taken for granted that they are okay. Why hasn’t anyone stopped and even considered their constitutionality?

When I posed this question on twitter, one of my followers said:

“They are acts of Congress not the Constitution. Congress makes law.”

To this I asked two simple questions, and it’s the same questions I have been asking for years on many other subjects:

“Isn’t congress supposed to make and pass laws that is within the authority of the Constitution? And just where is ANY subsidies authorized by the Constitution?”

Just where in the Constitution does it say that:

"Money paid, usually by GOVERNMENT, to keep PRICES below what they would be in a free market, or to keep alive businesses that would otherwise go bust, or to make activities happen that otherwise would not take place. Subsidies can be a form of PROTECTIONISM by making domestic goods and SERVICES artificially competitive against IMPORTS. By distorting markets, they can impose large economic costs."

This is the same question I asked Mr. Trump and Mr. Branstad on twitter? Did I get a reply, NO! In fact, I didn’t get anyone who supports Mr. Trump defending his stand on ethanol subsidies.

On the other side of the coin, I have to offer Ted Cruz, I offer this piece of advice. When talking about the corn subsidy or subsidies in general, just point out the fact that NO where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to, as Mr. Cruz said, 

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.”

In fact, if Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump would have looked at history and see what a little known member of the FIRST congress, James Madison, had to say when confronted with a vote on what would be the first subsidy:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” 

How many  “conservatives” were outraged & complained about the subsidies or bailouts to the auto industry which Mr. Trump supported in 2008? How were outraged and complainted about the subsidies to solar panel manufacturers? How about the tax money spent to study shrimp on treadmills?

ARE you one who complains about the waste of the many government handouts and programs?

Do you favor corn subsidies or any subsidies in general including government funding of schools?

If the answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second, then how can you look in the mirror and say you believe in the Constitution? Or do you, as many others do, just take it for granted that that's the government job.

Maybe it is, but not under our Constitutional Republic, but under a government where the elected officials believe in and follow an 1848 publication by Karl Marx or the 1908 American Socialist's party platform as a guide.

In the Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Hype and the Constitution

As I look out the window, seeing the reflection of the moonlight off the dew like tiny fairy lights I begin to reflect how high America has soared and how far America has fallen.

I reach for my coffee and half listen to the television in the back ground, the normal fair, candidates saying this and that, all of making promises that IF people take a minute and think about, should say, “Wait a minute, that’s sounds good but how is it going to be done in four or maybe eight years. How is it going to be accomplished within the scope and limitations of that forgotten document, the Constitution?”

I’m like every other educated, patriotic American, I am watching the GOP presidential candidates with great interest, however unlike many people, I have yet to support any particular candidate though there are a few, that I can not bring myself to even consider for one reason or another, that is strictly my opinion and will not waste your valuable time.

Looking at the candidates that I am considering, I see a number who have what I would call a cult following, in fact a supporter of one in particular, basically accused me of being a troll, when I asked some very pointed questions and even referenced history.

This person even pointed me to a Twit-longer piece she posted and like everyone should I took the time and courtesy to read it. After reading it I noticed one IMPORTANT item missing, there was absolutely no reference to the Constitution.

With all of the campaign promises made, not one that I’ve heard as even mention that they will do anything according to the Constitution.

That same supporter mentioned that their favorite candidate is a great negotiator and will make America rich again by negotiating “great” deals. I must ask, “Doesn’t this require the legislative branch to approve any deals that regulate commerce with foreign nations?”

Another question that needs to be asked, “How can any POTUS be a great jobs president?” Doesn’t it take congress to pass constitutional laws dealing with taxes, trade etc. or are we to be subject to more of a pen and telephone.

Now, I have also heard a candidate say in the debate back in November say, and I’ll paraphrase, that he wouldn’t be involved in any conflicts in the Middle East, seeing that the money would be better spent on roads and bridges, hospitals and schools. Now again I have ask, just where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to spend tax payer’s money for hospitals and schools. Look hard and if you find it let me know.

Needless to say when all else fails the sure vote getter is support of our military and veterans, and yes being a veteran this hits close home.

Now, the cult follower of one candidate, says, “Our Veterans have been betrayed and discarded by the U.S. government.” YES they have, but it seems that what is forgotten is that it is the people who elected the government who have forgotten the veterans. In fact if I remember correctly, wasn’t it a big issue in the 2014 election? Did anything change?

In fact, there has a long and sorted history of incompetence and waste within Veterans Administration, YET nothing has or will change.

What about the military? Again all funding for the military MUST come out of congress and congress has betrayed the Americans who put them in their positions and passed a trillion plus dollars funding bill, which will remain in effect for two years and thus, short of congress taking action, the military budget is set for two years. Now, just how is the POTUS to improve our military? By cutting funds in one area and moving them to another? Firing people?

Another candidate, one that I am seriously considering is spending a lot of time in Iowa. During his various stops, he is plagued by those who are against any action that may cut or eliminate subsidies for corn used in the production of ethanol.

This candidate stated he is against all subsidies, and I applaud him for that, but he neglected to mention, yep you guessed it, that NO where in the Constitution is the use of tax payer’s money to provide “a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.” There is an exception and that is if the senate authorizes, “a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.”

In fact, one of the first acts after the passage of the Bill of Rights in the first congress was a bill to pay the cod fishermen a bounty, or to basically subsidize a private interest.

James Madison spoke out against this bill, stating that those who wrote the Constitution and those who ratified it did not conceive that it would not be an indefinite Government, but a limited one saying:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

To the good people of Iowa, I have one question, How can you be in favor of the Constitution, yet at the same time accept other tax payer’s money, redistribution of wealth, to raise crops?

To everyone out there, I will not tell you who support, BUT I will ask you that as you listen to rhetoric from the candidates, listen with one eye on the Constitution and as they make their promises, ask yourself, “Where is it authorized in the Constitution?”