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.

People Trust Their Lying Ears More Their Brain

Pop Quiz: How much spending is actually Constitutional?

On May 8, Neil Cavuto presented a show on Fox Business that IF YOU DON'T GET IT, DEMAND IT, called America's Trust Deficit. As with many shows that Mr. Cavuto presents, it hits the target. Particularly in the first ten minutes which dealt with American's lack of trust in the government. A lack of trust that the government has earned by wasting TRILLIONS of American taxpayer's dollars on various programs which are not truly authorized within the Constitution, but have been passed and signed into law. These laws were never challenged, they were just accepted and now they are out of control and NOW people are concerned.

So, the question arises, is it the government that cannot be trusted or is it the people who believe everything a politician or some “talking head” tells them, not bothering to stop and think, “Is this truly what our founding Fathers intended to be the role of the federal government in its citizen's lives.”

This was evident within the first ten minutes of Neil's show when the discussion began with the government's failures with its various programs and showed that even a well respected “talking head” like Steve Moore, a Heritage Foundation visiting fellow, seems to have a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government.

Mr. Moore began by bringing up how much Washington has change and federal spending increased in the 25 to 30 years he had been in the District of Corruption. According to Mr. Moore, federal spending has increased from about a trillion dollars per year in spending to about four trillion in the coming year. He then continued to discuss spending for schools.

Mr. Moore drew attention to the fact that the per pupil spending when compared with the 1950 and 1960's when schools were considered much better, the cost has increased ca. three times as much as it did then. He failed to mention however, that in the 1950's and 1960's there was very little federal money given to local schools.

What followed was usual discussion and various opinions on federal spending, which in my opinion is the same old B.S.. The same B.S. that many others and I have heard over the years from both sides of the aisle. HOWEVER, no where in the discussion about federal spending did anyone bring up the fact that a lot of this federal spending is no where authorized in the Constitution.

In fact, Mr. Moore said, “...(the) problem is this...that government has gotten away from the core functions of what its suppose to do,...its suppose to educate our kids, its suppose to build good roads and highways, its suppose to defend us...”.

Now, such a well educated man like Mr. Moore should realize that the founding Fathers DID NOT intend for the federal government to use tax money to educate our kids. To build (post) roads, YES (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7). To provide for the common defense (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) by raising and supporting an Army and a Navy (Article 1 section 8, Clauses 12 & 13) definitely YES.

No matter how hard I search the Constitution and read the Federalist papers, I can not find anything that says that the federal government should educate our children. In fact, even the Department of Education admits that “The responsibility for K–12 education rests with the states under the Constitution.”

So, where did Mr. Moore come up with the idea that the federal government is suppose to educate our children? Was it from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Free education for all children in public schools...” I don't feel so. 

Was it from the Socialist Party Platform of 1908 and bragged about by the Center of American Progress? Again I don't think so.

I feel that Mr. Moore and many Americans have forgotten one very important thing, even though Mr. Moore eluded to it, “schools were considered much better in 1950 and 1960's”.

That important thing is that “the primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).”

This law, basically took the funding of schools at the local level from the states and allowed for the redistribution of wealth from wealthy states to less wealthy states by the federal government. This redistribution of wealth also gave the federal government the opportunity to gain control of the school systems, can anyone say, “Common Core” or "standard testing" which has lead to corruption among those people trust to educate their children and this is just one case, how many more are out there not discovered.

This redistribution of wealth also lead to the increase in the size of government by the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

I must ask again, just where is the use of federal taxes “to educate our kids” authorized by the Constitution?

This same question can be asked of Medicaid, the various welfare programs and unemployment compensation.

Just where are any of these programs authorized by the Constitution. Or were these programs put in place over the years as part of an agenda to slowly but surly change America from what the founding Fathers intended?

Over all, I found the show informative, but found that Neil Cavuto and the others did not fully explore the real reason why so many people do not trust the federal government or our elected officials.

The reason; is that to REALLY place the blame of this lost of trust would offend many of his viewers. The true source of this distrust is THE PEOPLE. The very same people who would rather believe the politicians who promise to bring “home the bacon” then stop and think, “Is this what the Constitution authorized the federal government to do?”

You tell me, is our current educational system better NOW or was it better before the federal government got involved? Is America better off now, either financially or spiritually, then before the federal government got involved in things not authorized in the Constitution.

Semper Fi!

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2

 In “Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So”, I discussed the meaning and the origins of the 1^st Amendment and the 14^th Amendment and explored how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as well as lower courts, have “folded, blended and mingled” the Bill of Rights with the 14^th Amendment by simply interfering that “free (freedom)” of the 1^st Amendment is the same as “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment.

I also demonstrated that if the writers of Bill of Rights, written to safeguard the STATES and the PEOPLE from a tyrannical NATIONAL government, had intended for “free (freedom)” in the 1^st amendment to mean the same as “liberty” as written in the 5^th amendment, would they have not said (wrote), “...nor be deprived of life, freedom, or property, without due process of law...” instead of the ratified amendment, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”? If one accepts that the writers of the 1^st and the 5^th meant two different ideas, then the writers of the 14^th amendment, written to safeguard the PEOPLE (particularly the newly freed slaves) from a tyrannical STATE government, and quoted the 5^th, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...” would have also said, “freedom” instead of “liberty”? Accepting these premises, let's look back at the opening shots of the war on religion and traditions that has lead to the destruction of American values.

McCollum v. Board of Education, a second look

The parents of various religious denominations asked and made arranged with the board of education in Illinois, that their children receive religious instruction for half an hour once or twice a week. This instruction was to be out of class, from unpaid special instructors utilizing classrooms, McCollum, an Atheist, objected and after failing at the state level, was joined by the ACLU, and made its way to the SCOTUS.

Now, a question that should be asked concerning this case is, “Did CONGRESS pass any law concerning the use of these classrooms for religious instruction?” NO, but it was assumed without any proof and has unfortunately become the practice the SCOTUS for many years as it decides to blend the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, with the 1^st amendment and its companion articles of the Bill of Rights, written for the NATION only.

IF for a moment, we accept the assumption of the Court that the 1^st amendment had been brought down against Illinois, then the question needs to be asked, “Did Illinois pass any 'law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...'”? NO and the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that no constitutional question existed under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution.

After hearing the case, Justice Black writing for the majority on the use of the classrooms said, "This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faiths. It falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1."

In the Everson case, Justice Black writing for the majority said, “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they adopt to teach or practice religion.”

What Should the SCOTUS Should Have Said

After taking jurisdiction of the Everson case, when it actually had no real authority to do so, the SCOTUS should have said that Congress gets no authority from the Constitution to spend any tax money in the States for any school purposes (subject for another time...OM). Since the schools are within the inherent police jurisdiction (Power of a government to exercise reasonable control over people and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare.) of the States and those schoolsare entitled to support by the STATE, whether they are public, private, or religious, providing the State Constitution does not prohibit it.

Now, since the 14^th Amendment was written for the STATES and makes no mention of the “freedom of religion” then the 1^st Amendment, written for the NATION, should not have been applicable to Illinois.

Even IF the 1^st Amendment was applicable, Illinois DID NOT levy any taxes for religious purposes, therefore, there was “no law respecting the establishment of religion...”. Using school rooms for other purposes other then education should not be any more objectionable then using those classrooms for the meeting of say a chess club, science club, debate club or any other local organization. Has America fallen so far that the people of a community can not decide on how they can use their OWN buildings for whatever reason they desire?

This would change in 1965 when Congress passed and Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By so doing, the Federal government now had complete control of the public school system and the states, like crack addicts, became dependent on Federal government funds and in many cases redirected funds that should go for schools to other purposes OR they built “luxury” schools.

This Federal control has now allowed that every time a religious symbol is displayed on public, STATE or Local government property, those who are following Antonio Gramsci's plan of changing the traditions/culture of a capitalist society into a socialist society come out from under their rocks, out of their basements and begin the lawsuits.

Unfortunately, as these lawsuits begin the LOCAL governments bow down and like cowards retreating from a battlefield find the easy way out.

Confusion and Mystification Reigns

The SCOTUS has and still confuses and “mystifies” the subject by its used of inaccurate language and improperly applying constitutional authority where none really exists and unfortunately once a decision is handed down, it is assumed by just about everyone that it is Constitutional when in reality should be reminded what Justice Joseph P. Bradley (1870-1892) wrote in an opinion (100 U.S. 339), “We may mystify anything. But if we take a plain view of the words of the Constitution, and give to them a fair and obvious interpretation, we cannot fail in most cases in coming to a clear understanding of its meaning. We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of speculation."

As Senator Rand Paul said, “Just because the Supreme Court says its constitutional does not make it so.”

Editor's Note:
The main sources used for this series were: Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951.
Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1940.