A magazine article in 1989 caught my eye about a black child, a Confederate President’s First Lady and the Southern Presidential Family. The story was written by Gulfport, Mississippi freelance writer Mrs. Peggy Robbins and is entitled, “Jim Limber Davis.”

This is my summary of Mrs. Robbin’s wonderful story.

On the morning of February 15, 1864, Mrs. Varina Davis, wife of Southern President Jefferson Davis, had concluded her errands and was driving her carriage down the streets of Richmond, Virginia on her way home. She heard screams from a distance and quickly went to the scene to see what was happening.

Varina saw a young black child being abused by an older man. She demanded that he stop striking the child and when this failed she shocked the man by forcibly taking the child away. She took the child to her carriage and with her to the Confederate White House.

Arriving home Mrs. Davis and maid ‘Ellen’ gave the young boy a bath, attended to his cuts and bruises and feed him. The only thing he would tell them is that his name was Jim Limber. He was happy to be rescued and was given some clothes of the Davis’ son Joe.

The Davis family were visited the following evening by a friend of Varina’s, noted Southern Diarist-Mary Boykin Chesnut, who saw Jim Limber and wrote later that she had seen the boy and that he was eager to show me his cuts and bruises. She also said, “the child is an orphan rescued yesterday from a brutal Negro Guardian.” and “there are things in life that are too sickening, and such cruelty is one of them.”

There were some children who addressed Jim as Jim Limber Davis for fun. This was fine with him because he felt he was indeed a member of the family. The Davis letters to friends are an indication of his acceptance as they were written that he was a member of their gang of children.

The Christmas of 1864, would be memorable for the Davis family and probably the best Christmas Jim Limber would ever have. A Christmas tree was set up in Saint Paul’s Church, decorated and gifts placed beneath it. On Christmas evening orphans were brought to the church and were delighted with the presents they got. Jim was happy to help decorate the tree.

Mrs. Robbin’s wrote, in her story, that Mrs. Jefferson Davis was a very good story teller who was able to make sounds of different animals in the stories about the critters. Jim was always eager to help.

The end of the War Between the States was coming and Richmond was being evacuated. Varina and the children left ahead of Jefferson Davis. The president and his staff left just hours before the occupation of Union troops.

Varina and the children were by the side of Jefferson Davis at his capture near Irwinville, Georgia and again the family was separated. Jefferson Davis was taken to Virginia to spend two years in prison.

Mrs. Davis and her children were taken to Macon, Georgia and later to Port Royal outside of Savannah. At Port Royal their Union escort, Captain Charles T. Hudson, made good at his earlier threats to take Jim Limber away.

As the Union soldiers came to forcibly take young Jim, he put up a great struggle and tried to hold onto his family as they to him. Jim and his family cried uncontrollably as the child was taken. His family would never again see him or know what happened to him. The Davis’ tried in later years to locate Jim but were unsuccessful.

The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia is home to a portrait of Jim Limber Davis in the Eleanor S. Brookenbrough Library. I thank Mrs. Peggy Robbin’s who wrote the Jim Limber Davis story in 1989 and the Southern Partisan Magazine for publishing her story in the second quarter Issue-Volume IX of 1989.

Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Speaker, Writer, author of book “When American Stood for God, Family and Country and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, www.scv.org.

 

WesternFront America

With eyes of the world focused on South Carolina this last week before the primary election on Saturday, January 21^st, we felt now would be a good time to offer some insight into the people of my home state and the “Southern People” as a whole.

Every four years, I offer my little primer as an introduction and a navigation aid to those who suddenly find themselves about to be immersed in southern culture for the first time.

If you are representing the mainstream media, and this is your first visit to my country, prepare for a culture shock.

The southern people are distinctively different from the folks “up north.” The South was settled primarily by Scott-Irish with a smattering of Germans in the Mid-Atlantic area, as well as French Huguenots, and some Spanish along our coast. Our heritage IS very different.

You don’t hear it spoken of much anymore, but there still exists a “Code of the South.” No, it is NOT a myth.

You can sum it up in one word. “HONOR”. We cherish honor above everything else. Without honor, all that remains has no value.

Southerners believe each man and woman has a duty, a responsibility, to seek nobility in life and in purpose. No matter his, or her, station in life, or the social strata he, or she, was born into. There is nobility in fighting the good fight, on your job, on the field of battle, at anything you turn your hand to do.

Southerners believe we were, indeed, created in the image of God. We have a duty to uphold that image as best we can. It is a continuous battle against the trials of life, but to shirk one’s duty, in this respect, is unforgivable. It is dishonorable.

We are a culture apart. We like it that way. We have no intention of changing. To do so would be to dishonor all those who have gone before us as well as their creation of this sanctified, set apart, land. “The South” is to Southerners what the Holy Land is to the Jewish people.

Never question the honor of a Southerner. It is considered a challenge and your challenge WILL be answered.

A Southerner will go to the wall to defend honor. No matter the size of the opponent, no matter the place, or the time. Honor will be defended.

There is an inviolate line, which must never be crossed. Where does that line lie? Everywhere. For instance, you do not disparage our women. That is at the top of the list of inviolate things. Others include: our homes, our friends, our religion, our military abilities, and you surely do not speak disparagingly about our ancestors. To violate any of these will bring the wrath of the South down on your head in an instant.

You may have noticed Southerners do not back down. We refuse to accept defeat.

We are accused, often, of still fighting the War Between the States. That is true. We consider this era of forced quietude only half time between us and the North. We have never laid the war down. To quit, to surrender, is not acceptable in our code of honor. So, we fight on. Understand… we will win. It may take another hundred, or even two hundred, years, but we will prevail. We never forget, and we never quit.

It has been said that Southerners are America’s true “Warrior Class.” Consider the great warriors of America. For the most part, they were/are Southerners.

War comes naturally to Southerners. The Scot-Irish-German blood flowing in our veins and the Southern Code of Chivalry we learn from birth creates the most fearsome warrior on the face of the earth.

The true Southerner is a gentleman, or lady, always. Well, right up ‘til he takes your head off. He will knock you down then offer his hand to lift you back to your feet. If you make the same mistake again, you will find yourself in need of that helping hand to get you off your backside … again.

Southerners are deeply religious people. We unashamedly believe in God. We believe the Bible is His Holy Word. At the same time we know one cannot be perfect, but we believe every Southerner is born into this world with the obligation to strive for perfection. Anything less is totally unacceptable. It has been said this is the Southern interpretation of the European “Noblise Oblige.” Southerners know in the depths of their being they have an obligation to strive for nobility.

The Southern society is not a classless society. We acknowledge our society has an upper, middle, and a lower class. But we believe the obligation to nobility crosses those boundaries and emboldens even the least of us to carry the honor of his name, and his family’s heritage, without stain. Anything less is unacceptable.

Yes, you WILL see the Confederate Battle Flag snapping in the pine-scented southern breeze. Get used to it. It is flown in honor of our heritage – and—as a warning that the people of The South will not suffer tyranny from ANY quarter.

There exists a divide between the Northern People and the Southern People in this nation. The divide is vast and unnavigable. We are two different peoples held together by law. The bayonet enforced the bondage of the Southern peoples. We have not forgotten. Nor will we. We know these bonds are only temporary. We work tirelessly for the day we will once again be ruled only by God and voice of the Southern people.

Tis honor, above all else. It is our code. It is written on our hearts.

So — I hope this little primer on “The South” is helpful to you media types and political apparatchiks. Remember, always: You are visitors in our home and we expect you respect our hospitality and generosity and do not besmirch what you most certainly do not understand.

And finally, if we like you, you will be sent on your way with the now world-famous: “Y’all come back – ya hear?”

J. D. Longstreet
***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

Do you remember the crisp-cool autumn days of high school and college football when….

The Ole Miss Cheerleaders and school Mascot Colonel Reb lifted the spirit of fans who waved Confederate flags and cheered to the band playing Dixie? Today, however, Colonel Reb has been replaced and flag waving discouraged. Some call for sensitivity and understanding toward some people but apparently this respect does not apply toward Southern-American’s who love God and are proud of the old traditions of their native South land of which many books and movies are written about.

And, do you remember the aroma of hot dogs and fries and fairs during those lazy fall days when….

School bands from North and South of the Mason-Dixon Line played Dixie during school sports games? Do you know the history of the Dixie that is a joyful sound of inspiration and pride for many people?

In 1859, Ohio Native Dan Emmett first performed “Dixie” in New York City to an enthusiastic-cheerful crowd.

Two years later, on February 18, 1861, the band played Dixie at the Inauguration of Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Montgomery, Alabama.

And on April 14, 1865, after General Robert E. Lee’s surrender, President Abraham Lincoln said: “Now Let the Band Play Dixie; it belongs neither to the South, nor to the North but to us all.”-—New York Times Sunday Magazine, August 11, 1907.

For 150 years American school bands have played Dixie including the Milton High school “Dixie Eagles” Band who performed Dixie at the invitation and inauguration of the late Lester G. Maddox as Governor of Georgia in January 1967.

Dixie was played in 1976, during America’s Bi-Centennial birthday, at the Old Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia and the late Johnny Cash sang Dixie at the Ford Theater in Washington , D.C. to then President Jimmy Carter and members of the United States Congress.

Dixie has been performed by many great musicians including; Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Lawrence Welk, Louis Armstrong, Dinah Shore, John Phillip Sousa, Osmond Brothers, Boxcar Willie, Jane Froman, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Mitch Miller, Johnny Hartman, Patsy, The Rebelaires and in 1943 the late great Bing Crosby portrayed Dan Emmett in the wonderful Paramount movie “Dixie.”

Roz Bowie, a proud Black Southern Lady, sang Dixie in 1986 at the reburial of a Confederate Soldier in Columbia, South Carolina.

So, what happened to the song Dixie that has lifted the souls of students, teachers, parents and fans? Many of our institutions of learning have stopped playing Dixie even though the song is universally loved.

What happened to “Dixie” that was the official band music of the Confederate and Union Armies? What happened to this song that Northern and Southern children sang from their schools standard song book?

Today, men and women serve overseas to free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan….But school bands are no longer allowed to play “Dixie” and “Under God” is under attack in the pledge of allegiance.

In a cemetery in Mount Vernon Ohio lies Dan Emmett, the Composer of Dixie, whose headstone reads: “Daniel Decatur Emmett 1815 – 1904 whose song ‘ Dixie Land’ inspired the courage and devotion of the Southern people and now thrills the hearts of a reunited nation.”

Three miles North of Emmett’s grave are the graves of Ben and Lew Snowden of a Black musical family. On their tombstone are the words “They taught “Dixie” to Dan Emmett.

Dixie is a song for all people of all races and backgrounds. Let the band play Dixie!

Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Speaker, Writer, Author of book “When America stood for God, Family and Country” looking for a publisher and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

 

WesternFront America

By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

America’s most famous locomotive “The General” is home at the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History in Kennesaw, Georgia.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011, marks the 149th anniversary of the “Great Locomotive Chase” that made “The General” famous. Jefferson Cain, an employee of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, was Engineer of The General. At 4:15 on the morning of April 12, 1862, Cain pushed the throttle of The General and drove the engine out of Atlanta, Georgia for Chattanooga, Tennessee as a cool spring rain fell on the city.

During the spring of 1862, the peaceful town of Big Shanty (now Kennesaw) was paid not so peaceful a visit by Union spies led by James Andrews, who brought with him plans to disrupt Confederate supply lines. Andrews and his men boarded the train at Marietta, Georgia. They had spent the previous night at the Fletcher House now (Kennesaw House). Twenty boarded the train while two were left behind.

The next stop was the Lacy Hotel in Big Shanty for a twenty minute breakfast break. That’s where The General was stolen in full view of “Camp McDonald” a drill camp and home to many Confederate officers and enlisted men. There was no telegraph there, which was one reason Andrews chose the site.

Andrews, A Kentuckian, had made a name for himself by smuggling much needed quinine through Union lines for the benefit of Confederate soldiers and civilians. There were with him three experienced engineers, William Knight, Wilson Brown and John Wilson. When asked where they were from, they replied by saying, “I am from Fleming County, Kentucky.” They also said that they were on their way to join the Confederate Army.

The official plan to steal The General was approved by Union General Ormsby Michael. The plan was to take the locomotive north on the Western and Atlantic Railroad and destroy tracks, bridges and tunnels along the way. General Michael agreed that he would take Huntsville on April 11, 1862, and then would wait on Andrews before moving into Chattanooga, Tennessee.

“Someone…..has stolen my train, ” William Fuller, conductor on the General said in amazement as the train was pulling away from the Big Shanty train depot. Men of the Western and Atlantic railroad almost immediately began the chase with engineer Jefferson Cain, William Fuller, and machine foreman Anthony Murphy close behind.

With no telegraph at Big Shanty, the men ran north along the railroad tracks to Moon Station and procured a platform handcar; then went on until they found “The Yonah.” The next train used was the “William R. Smith.”

The last locomotive used in the chase by William Fuller was the famous “Texas” that was heading South. The Texas is now housed in Atlanta, Georgia’s Cyclorama at Grant Park. With no time to spare, the Texas was run in reverse through the entire chase.

James Andrews and his Raiders were slowed down by southbound trains that had to pass before they could continue. With the telegraph out of service, Fuller was fortunate to catch telegraph operator Edward Henderson. Fuller gave the young Henderson a hand up  on the train, as it was in motion, and gave him a message for General Ledbetter that Henderson sent from Dalton.

Andrews and his men failed to destroy the bridges over Georgia’s Chickamauga Creek, Etowah River and Tunnel Hill. They also failed to slow down the pursuers by setting up the cars of The General on fire and sending them back down the railroad tracks. The end came when they ran out of wood and lost power about 18 miles south of Chattanooga.

It took about two weeks for the Confederates to capture the Union spies. Some of them made it as far as Bridgeport, Alabama. Eventfully, all 20 of Andrews Raiders were captured. James Andrews and six of his men were hung in Atlanta, eight escaped, and others were paroled.

The United States Congress created the Medal of Honor in 1862 and it was awarded to some of the raiders. James Andrews was not eligible because he not a part of the military service.

William Fuller was recognized by the Confederate Government, Georgia Governor Joseph Brown and the Georgia General Assembly for his act of heroism.

See: http://confederateheritagemonth.com

Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Chairman of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee

 

WesternFront America

From EUROPE, no less, comes the word: Failure! It is used to reference multiculturalism.

From England, from France, from Germany — the leaders of all three countries decry multiculturalism as a failure.

I must tell you that when I heard the news reports on this I cracked up with laughter.

I swear, sometimes the sheer idiocy of man is just immeasurable. The endeavor to foist multiculturalism on human beings was one of those totally nonsensical ideas of the bleeding heart lefties that was doomed from the “git-go” It has single-handedly caused deep hatred, suspicion, derision, and it has led to revolutions, and populations at each other’s throats in countries all over the globe where its practice was instituted — including the United States.

Now – can we get back to some common sense for a while? I know that is a commodity much in demand and sorely short in supply, especially on the left side of the political spectrum.

Contrary to what you may have been taught, multiculturalism did NOT make America great. On the contrary! It was that unique American culture forged in the crucible of the so-called “melting pot.” People of various cultures coming to America to actually become AMERICANS created it. They assimilated and poured bits of their unique cultures into that melting pot where it was blended with all the rest before being ladled out into the mold stamped “Made in America.”

It was dumb beyond measure to ever believe that multiple cultures could exist under one flag. Some cultures will simply run rough shod over other cultures. It is the way of the human animal.

From nations, to clans, to tribes, to families, each has its own culture. In order to live together peaceably we all have to sublimate our personal cultures to that of the country we choose to call home. Otherwise, there is no country.

When people of the same culture clump together they form clans, or tribes, and that will doom a nation. As evidence, I offer Afghanistan, and most of the Middle East. Why do you think Africa, one of the richest continents on the globe, (with the earth’s natural resources) is home to some of the most backward countries in the world where civil unrest and poverty rule the masses? THAT is a prime example of multiculturalism at its finest.

So what has suddenly opened the eyes of national leaders in Europe to the failure of multiculturalism? The answer is right in front of our eyes. The culture of those who practice Islam as a religion, as a way of life, with the total refusal to assimilate into the culture of the host nation within which they have chosen to reside does cause a problem and, at some point will kindle an explosion of resentment. At some point, the refusal to identify with the people of the host nation will inevitably create friction that will spark violence leading to the deaths of many of the citizens of the host country. The next step is all out war with an escalating body count

Look. We can parse this any way we want – but the plain truth is — all this talk of the failure of multiculturalism was brought to the fore by the Islamist movement worldwide. The European governments have had their eyes opened to the threat to the peoples of their countries and the governments of their countries by Sharia law.

The governments of England, France, and Germany are far ahead of the government of the US. But they don’t have a pro-Islamist President as does the US.

Oh, one other thing. There is no such thing as multiculturalism under the rule of Islam. There is one way, one culture, one religion … Islam.

Here in the US we cannot expect our current crop of leaders to take the bold stand the leaders of Europe have taken and denounce multiculturalism. Oh, no. See, that would be politically incorrect. No one, it seems, on our side of the pond has the courage to actually state, out loud, the thing that everyone knows – the king has no clothes – Multiculturalism is an abject, abysmal, failure with the overwhelming potential to completely crush a country, and bring collapse and ruin to its government, as well.

It isn’t often that I praise the governments of England, France, and Germany. But this time, they deserve accolades for having the courage to speak the truth and hopefully open the eyes to the rest of the western world to the danger of multiculturalism.

But I don’t expect the same thing here. Not from our current President. If anything, he may apologize for, well, heck, he’ll find SOMETHING for which to apologize! Maybe he’ll apologize for Americans stalling his agenda for the “fundamental change” he promised during his campaign. Whatever.

We applaud the leaders of England, France, and Germany for telling the truth to their people and we recommend it to the US leader, Barack Obama.

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

 

WesternFront America

Still Lessons To Be Learned.

Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Likewise, totalitarian movements such as Nazism and Communism expended considerable resources on efforts designed to sway the youth of their respective countries into embracing ideologies inimical to the self interest of the student.

Viewing himself in the pantheon of historical figures by which entire eras are remembered, Barack Obama also realizes the necessity of claiming the hearts and minds of the young if he is to transcend the chasm between that of mere government administrator or even head of state to that of an adored icon an entire culture or way of life is built upon.

Though the administration distanced itself from the original lesson plan and disavowed any purpose for the President’s broadcast address other than to tell students to stay in school, the fact that such a document was even formulated provides a glimpse into the worldviews of the influential at the highest levels of the bureaucracy and administration. Therefore, even if the misbegotten memorandum is scrubbed from the Internet and its existence denied to the same extent as the Star Wars Christmas special, it must still be scrutinized as part of the documentary history of the United States.

Despite however White House operatives might spin it now, the President and his handlers intended this speech to be more than a simple welcoming of the school year. Each section of the lesson plan revealed even more about the intent of the section that preceded it.

According to the section titled “Before The Speech”, teachers were instructed to have students read books about Barack Obama. For high schoolers, would the President’s operatives in the Department of Education endorse and applaud works of a contrarian perspective such as “Obamanation” by Jerome Corsi and “The Culture Of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin, or is the suggestion merely euphemism for laudatory tomes of a worshipful nature?

Another study question read, “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials?…Why is what they say important?” Just let the tone of that one mull around in your brain for a moment.

From the way that is formulated, what the question is calling for is unquestioning obedience. For if it didn’t, it would also be accompanied with a question sparking the realization that it is also important for elected officials to also listen to citizens.

In the section “During The Speech”, it is suggested in a roundabout way that, instead of looking critically in terms of what the President as a politician is trying to get over on or swindle from the American people, students should readily embrace whatever it is that the President is asking them to do. No where were students asked to question whether or not it is proper for the President to ask anything of them beyond the purview of his delineated constitutional authority.

It is bad enough for agents of the state to guide the student through a mental exercise with the largely predetermined goal of increasing the student’s fidelity to a particular presidential administration. It is even worse when plans are made to determine and catalogue the degree of compliance on the part of students.

In the lesson plan, teachers were instructed to have students record their thoughts on sticky notes and to write down their goals on index cards. Big deal, some might say, as such a format is quite transient and easily discardable.

Don’t be so sure. Often in the workplace, when management wants to gather intelligence on the mere laborers, workers are compelled to scribble our thoughts on post-its that are then collected after a staff meeting.

These are then either tacked on a flipchart for everyone to see or transcribed for later distribution as the minutes of the meeting. Had the original lesson plan been adhered to, what the students jotted down wouldn’t have been something simply graded in terms of how well it was thought out in terms of content or mechanics but something ultimately forgotten about as the educational process moved on, but these might have come back to haunt the students at a later date.

For example, in the section of the lesson plan titled “The Extension Of The Speech” teachers are instructed to collect what the students have written and to post these around the classroom where all can see them. Students are to interview (or in other words interogate) each other in order to create a supportive COMMUNITY.

In other words, educators are to establish subdued reeducation camps where students either denounce their classmates failing to live up to the expectations of the Obama regime or out of fear of peer pressure enunciate aspirations that are in compliance with the prerogatives of the group rather than their own or those of their respective families. In a system of secularized government education, even if I have no goal other than sitting on my rear-end after I come home from work and stuff my face with bonbons hour after hour, who is anyone to criticize me whatsoever?

Two of the greatest threats to the sanctity and authority of the family is a peer group and a government that do not uphold the corpus of Biblical values. As destructive as questionable companions can be as a bad apple can spoil the whole bunch, at least these won’t usually keep extensive files for decades to come used to determine future educational and occupational opportunities.

Had these assorted sticky notes, index cards, and related scribblings been collected as suggested in the original lesson plan they would have likely been forwarded surreptitiously to the Departments of Education and Homeland Security. For starters, they were already to be kept until a later date and redistributed so that teachers might be able to hold students accountable to these so-called “goals”.

But beyond academic criteria such as grammar and the application of facts to a formulated question, should public educators be given the authority to evaluate aspects of the life of the student beyond the classroom? Some might respond that concerns of the ruminations of students being turned over to be catalogued by the government is paranoid. But is it really?

One provision in the lesson plan suggested that students should be encouraged to submit two minute videos to the Department of Education’s “I Am What I Learn” contest “explaining why education is important and how their education will help them achieve their dreams.” And what if the student responds that education — provided one is able to rise above the swill urging intellectual conformity — will assist them in realizing that the vast majority of politicians are frauds and full of it?

Despite the fact that the government acting through educational institutions exercises a degree of power to the extent of altering the course of students’ lives, some are disturbingly blasé about Obama’s desire to wrap his tentacles even tighter around the minds of as many students as possible. This attitude can shockingly be found even among those claiming to be Conservative that really ought to know better.

In his 9/7/09 column titled “The Obama Controversy — What To Think”, Albert Mohler proved just how quickly some Christian leaders are willing to turn on their more discerning brethren in order to appease the sophisticated and curry favor with elites. In his opening paragraph, Mohler questions, “Why would a speech calling for students to remain in school and set personal goals for themselves incite any controversy at all? Is this just another eruption of the culture war?”

For a theological historian or historical theologian, Mohler exhibits a disturbing misunderstanding regarding the past, the so-called “orders of creation”, and the public role of believers in society.

Though an understanding of the Culture War has had to advance beyond belief in the infallibility of the Republican Party, shouldn’t Mohler realize that there are things worth fighting for and that much of the acrimony characterizing American culture today is not the fault of believers or other kinds of conservatives and libertarians wanting to mind their own business and to raise their children in a spirit of individuality and a religious adoration of the family’s own choosing.

The fundamental issue at hand here is just whom has God entrusted children to regarding those matters beyond mere survival. Ought a child’s worldview to be molded primarily by largely law-abiding parents or by a federal government that ultimately does not know the child and can only care about the child in the most detached and abstract manners?

Mohler writes, “At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action by the Obama administration as sinister or socialist. Our civic culture is debased when opposing parties and political alignments read every proposal by the other side as suspect on its face.”

Is Mohler’s enthusiasm for gentility and manners going to do him any good when his children are forcibly hauled off for mandatory national service? Mohler might be willing to swallow the party line that the President intended nothing more for the day than to encourage students to strive for their best (efforts for which these youngsters will actually be penalized for as adults by Obama’s own policies), however, there is indeed evidence that the Obama regime did indeed have other intentions for the occasion.

The day President Obama enunciated his scholastic oration, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would be infiltrating the Girl Scouts. As part of the President’s “My Education, My Future” initiative, Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Chief Executive Officer of the Girl Scouts of America unveiled a new emergency preparedness merit patch.

To earn this honor, scouts must identify and prepare for potential emergencies, learn about local alerts and warning systems, and engage in community service. By themselves, these things are neutral.

However, what should concern the astute American is that the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security goes beyond the publication of a few pamphlets and workbooks. The initiative is to be administered by Citizen Corps, a division of FEMA.

Does anyone honestly believe the program is going to remain limited to memorizing public safety platitudes that are the contemporary equivalent of either “stop, drop, and roll” or “duck and cover”? Eventually, in the name of defending the Motherland and public health, at first girl scouts and eventually all children irrespective of whether or not they belong to these organized youth movements will be compelled to reveal to authorities what their parents prepared for supper, how far they drove the car on the weekend, and even if they have enunciated any reactionary perspectives such as salvation being found only through belief in Christ and marriage only being between a monogamous man and a monogamous woman.

Unsettling as Obama’s power grabs are, even more disturbing is the ease with which some grant Obama a free pass for the most ludicrous of reasons.

Contemporary mainstream Evangelicalism holds that since all people are equal ontologically irrespective of race, all people should be held to the same standard. From that flows the corollary that individuals should be held to the very same criticism.

However, according to Albert Mohler, our response should not so much be based on the objectivity of a specific truth but rather tailored to pander to the preferences of a particular group. Of the President’s remarks on education, Mohler said, “Let’s be honest here. Most middle-class white kids get plenty of these messages, starting at home. But might this message be particularly helpful for a child struggling for a role model or looking for justifications for his studiousness?”

In other words, middle class White parents should be made to feel guilty for actually taking care of their progeny instead of pawning them off on the social welfare system while they go off clubbing in pursuit of the parent of their next bastard child. If minority parents deliberately neglect their children, that is their own fault and White people are not obligated to take this unfortunate reality into account when formulating their own parental decisions. It is just as immoral for church officials to play on racial guilt as those in government.

It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Provided a certain level of physical care is maintained, parents (not government officials, credentialed educators, or even eminent theologians) should be the ones to determine through what form in what manner values and the precious heritage of this great nation should be passed on to their respective offspring.

© Dr. Frederick Meekins

 

WesternFront America

With the melt down of the global economy over the past 2 years, multi-national brokerage firms and trusted financial institutions bore the brunt of accusations of gambling away the financial health and futures of investors, primarily through the sale of toxic mortgages with credit default swaps as the vehicle in doing so.

Yet, it is the mainstreaming of gambling on many levels that has created a culture whereby it has become an acceptable norm for not only corporations but governments in the United States, on both the federal and state levels, to literally invest in the gambling industry, with the recession as the excuse for its necessity.

Yet, for years prior to the current recession, brokerage firms such as Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Fidelity Investments were already investing their clients’ stocks and mutual fund portfolios, in financing offshore casinos.

The question remains as to whether they skirted U.S. federal law, which prohibits offshore online gambling for Americans, as well as to whether they made reliable investments on behalf of their clients, many of whom remain unaware that such financial instruments are involved in such volatile industries. So, Wall Street was already in on the game.

Fast forward to 2010, where many U.S. states are on the precipice of bankruptcy and are desperate for that magic bullet to increase tax revenues without continually cutting services for their already over-taxed residents. And to that end, many state governors and state legislators are clamoring to push through laws in anticipation of overturning the federal law in place, prohibiting sports betting on both professional and amateur sports, otherwise known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (28 U.S.C. §3701) (PASPA).

To wit, the state legislature of New Jersey passed State Resolution No. 19 on January 12, 2010, which authorizes its President of the Senate to “take legal action concerning certain federal legislation prohibiting sports betting.” It would repeal the federal ban on sports betting, in all other U.S. states, with the exception of Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana, already permitted to offer parlay-type sports betting. Nevada, however, exclusively enjoys all types of sports betting, statewide, on any professional or amateur sports games, in any capacity.

Basically, New Jersey, and specifically Senator Raymond Lesniak, who originally launched a lawsuit on his own in March 2009 against the federal government, claims that the 1992 law violates the 10^th and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that “It establishes a selective prohibition on sports betting in the U.S.” The argument is that it violates the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution by regulating a matter that is reserved to the States. And that it violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by being unconstitutionally discriminatory against the Plaintiffs and the people of the State of New Jersey.

Lesniak’s case presently resides in the U.S District Court, District of New Jersey, seeking declaratory relief. But the upshot is that New Jersey believes that it “Would benefit significantly from lifting the federal ban and legalizing sports betting in this state, as increased revenues would be generated and numerous jobs would be created for New Jersey residents as a result of sports betting activities at Atlantic City casinos and New Jersey’s racetracks, further enhancing tourism and economic growth,” according to Resolution No. 19.

Prior to PASPA, the Wire Act was enacted in 1961. It was intended exclusively for prohibiting the placement of bets by telephone to bookmakers for sporting events, and was largely put in place by then U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, in order to discourage organized crime and bookmaking. But gaming and its technology has come light years since 1961, and it would appear that the Wire Act’s shelf life has thus expired.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Congress, House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has promoted a federal resolution to legalize and regulate the internet gambling industry in the U.S. (H.R. 2667). That proposal falls on the heels of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). It proscribes that offshore internet gambling is a violation of federal law.

Furthermore, legislation was passed by the New Jersey legislature in its state Senate to amend the New Jersey State Constitution, allowing legalized sports betting, which the New Jersey voters would ultimately vote on in a referendum as early November 2010.

But this constant back and forth between drafting new law and upholding existing legislation on a federal level to regulate gaming, runs in direct conflict with those states introducing new laws, geared to open up the flood gates for a variety of legalized gaming platforms, including sports betting. In addition, the National Indian Gaming Association, with respect to state Indian gaming contracts, originally authorized by the U.S. federal government, presents other conflicts on both state and federal levels.

Therefore, with the rights of gamblers continually in flux, the question must be asked what about the rights of non-gamblers and the resources that will be expended towards the downside that accompanies a gambling culture, upon which states will necessarily become dependent?

In the state of Nevada alone, with unemployment approaching 23%, for those presently receiving extended unemployment benefits as well as those no longer receiving such benefits, it is the gaming industry specifically that is responsible for such a jobs freefall which accompanies a nearly $1 billion state budget shortfall. Add to that the highest mortgage foreclosure rates in the entire U.S. and there arises a recipe for disaster.

And as gaming drives all other industry including construction, conventions and tourism, primarily in Las Vegas, it would make one wonder what other state officials are thinking when gaming revenues in Las Vegas went down over 20% between 2008 and 2009, and it has yet to come out of its funk.

Las Vegas Strip properties’ construction is at a virtual standstill with over leveraged multi-national conglomerates also reeling from the worldwide mortgage crisis. It appears that it was not only the little guys at the slot machines who gambled with their fortunes over the past few years.

With respect to sports betting on the National Football League’s (NFL) Super Bowl, Las Vegas betting revenues for the past 2 seasons of 2008 and 2009 were down considerably from years past. Nevada casino sports books in 2008 lost $2.6 million on the Super Bowl and in 2010 a total of $82.7 million was wagered with a net gain of only $179,000.00 more for casino sports books than in 2009. In contrast, $94.6 million was wagered in 2006, prior to the recession.

Yet, New Jersey is convinced and presupposes that sports wagering will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue over the course of a 5 year period, for its state alone. And it remains dedicated to also expand casino gambling in spite of its own realized massive decline in profits over the past 2 years.

But the state of New Jersey is hardly alone in its desire to gamble on gambling with many states introducing legislation and campaigning for both intrastate and interstate forms of gambling, both online and throughout casinos and racetrack locales throughout the U.S.

Currently, 48 states enjoy some form of legalized gambling and/or state lotteries, with the exception of Hawaii and Utah which do not presently permit any type of gambling, wagering or lotteries. However, Hawaii is presently weighing legislation for a stand-alone casino in Waikiki.

States in addition to New Jersey proposing sports betting and some type of expansion of casino gambling, including online gaming, with some states already preparing such legislation regarding sports betting in the event that PASPA is overturned includes: Iowa, Delaware, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, , Michigan, Kentucky, Illinois, amongst others.

In the case of Delaware it won the right in 2009 to offer 3-game parlay style sports betting at its 3 racetracks or racinos for NFL games only, as states that previously offered lottery style or legalized sports betting from 1976-1990 were exempt from PASPA. Yet, after its well fought challenge in federal court in 2009 for Delaware to be permitted to bet on all professional sports a la Las Vegas style without restrictions, it was defeated. But Delaware has not yet given up its fight and its case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Iowa is also leading the charge in crafting legislation to allow legalized sports betting. However, Iowa State Senator, Jerry Behn (R-Boone), thinks that gambling is a “Tax on the people who can afford it the least.” Yet, his colleague, State Senator, Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), on betting on professional sports says, “People say I would love to do what they can do in Las Vegas.”

Perhaps those with the same sentiments as those of Senator Kibbie will not be so game, so to speak, when there remains little discretionary income for such sin taxes to generate anticipated windfall profits.

With respect to California’s new plan there comes an additional rub. It plans to introduce an online gaming network. Yet, it potentially could be in violation of Indian Gaming licenses or compact agreements that California entered into in 1999 with Native American tribes in its state. The compacts gave the tribes exclusive rights to any gambling that involved gaming devices including slot machines, roulette tables and video poker machines, etc.

Furthermore, it took 5 years for California to get the tribes to honor the payment of taxes due to the state of California by virtue of the compacts. The tribes withheld tax payments until 2004. However, the state of California still gives such exclusive rights to the Indian tribes through 2030, which remains a binding agreement to date.

Now, the California tribes have threatened to once again withhold paying the government of California its share of taxes due for gaming revenues, should California proceed with its online poker network plans. The state’s position is that the compacts do not include poker and cover only games of chance. Yet, the tribal councils deem gaming devices to include computers used for online gaming, and thus negating California’s plan.

Such a dust-up could resonate through the Native American community, with its 442 tribal casinos operated by 237 tribal governments and Alaska native villages in 28 states. Revenues translate into a nearly $30 billion a year industry for them.

And Congressman Frank’s legislation to regulate internet poker would also be a direct threat to Indian gaming casinos, unless the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 is somehow amended.

Ideally, California wants its poker network to go nationwide, raising revenues by ultimately licensing interstate networks and thereby generating additional profits through the ownership of such various licenses between states. The hope is that it could eventually trump PASPA.

Everything is politics, it would seem. But complicated legislative loopholes aside, basing entire economies – and California’s alone is the six largest in the entire world – on games of chance is quite the risky proposition itself.

And how taxpayers can be expected to trust their state governments to invest in struggling enterprises, already in the red, in order to prop up their cash-strapped states, many nearing junk-bond status due to irresponsible governing, remains the $64,000.00 question.

Time was when Vegas thought gambling was recession proof. And there should be little doubt that Las Vegas now serves as the poster child for that which results when gamblers stop gambling and traveling to destination resorts.

And for public officials to abandon all reason and principles, looking for a quick fix, rather than by relying upon ingenuity for the creation of jobs and revenue outside of the gambling sector, could very well come back to bite them, in the end.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

 

WesternFront America

Lately I have been sick and tired of starting each day reading about the latest American black atrocity or stupidity of the day.   I resent that 14% of our population seem to have captured some 75% of our public discourse.   However it is always easier to find fault with another race or another group of people than it is to really take a hard look at ourselves.

When I was a teenager from time to time when I involved myself in some particularly offensive type of behavior my mother would sigh and say, “Can’t you at least try to act white?”  Now to put this into context I grew up in the deep South in the 1970′s and  my family never used the “N” word and pretty much extended Christian loving kindness to everyone they met regardless of race.  Yet that concept of cultural and behavioral whiteness still existed and still meant something.   When my mother said it I knew exactly what she meant.

Now some 40 years down the road that concept of “acting white”  for better or for worse is a lost ideal and if I used that phrase on my own children they would no doubt depending on their moods either roll their eyes and pretend that I didn’t say it or launch into a 20 minute angry refutation of my racism framed by the latest Marxist truth speak that they picked up at college.

A young woman friend of mine was listening to me rant and rave one day about the decline of our nation and the growing danger of the destruction of the white race when she silenced me with a simple question, “Look how many white men have you dated?”   Well none of course I replied and she said “Exactly, well I have dated dozens of them and let me tell you they weren’t all that great.”   She went on to describe her painful experiences with “white men” that I knew all too well rang true.   Look around she told me and to tell you the truth I knew exactly what she was talking about and it shamed me.

Let me share with you some of her observations about many of the young white men that have passed through her life.  I am sure that you yourself could add dozens of bullet comments to this list:

*   Boy men who are obsessed with toys and video games
*   Men who fail to take their future seriously and who have little or no ambition and so don’t seek out and obtain the skills that will allow them to start and support families.
*   Men whose word means little to them or anybody else
*   Men with no respect for women not even their wives
*   Men who treat their women like whores
*   Men who place their addictions to alcohol, drugs, sex, video games, sports etc ahead of their responsibilities and who are not present to help raise and nurture the families they started
*   Men who don’t defend their loved ones or worse physically abuse them
*   Men who are happy to let their women be both the main bread winners and the main workers in the home
*   Men who don’t take seriously their responsibility to be the leaders of their family
*   Men who don’t lead their families on the path of righteous devotion to God
*   Men who have a habit of cheating on their women
*   Men who are financially irresponsible and whose bad habits destroy their credit rating and leave their families in debt
*   Men who fail to set examples of good character, who curse, lie, cheat and steal
*   Boy men who ape the dress,  speech and behavior of minorities; the degenerate and useless whiggers
*   Men who live with their parents well into their 30s
*   Men who refuse to marry their women and father children out of wedlock

I could probably keep adding to this list all night but you get the picture.   If we want to protect our race and defend the future of our people we must first look to ourselves.   If we want our people to learn to love their race we must first make it lovely with our own example and conduct.

Interestingly my friend over at Shieldline posted a similar post but more on the positive side that he titled, “Back to the Basics“.   Now I don’t want to get into a big debate over the failings of white women or stir through all the root causes for the descent of the white man in the past forty years.  We are all living in a diseased and degraded culture.  We are all lost in this degenerate age.   My point is that we must  strive to improve our behavior and fight the “leveling down” by pushing the bar back up.  Fight back against the darkness and shine as a beacon to your own loved ones by striving to improve your own character and serve those around you to the best of your ability.

Originally posted at Light in the Forest © Jesse James

 

WesternFront America

Preamble
Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide.  We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture.  It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16^th and 17^th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country.  Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible.  And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement.  The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.  In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

(Click here to sign the petition)

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.   We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.  We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.  We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.  In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths.  We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.  It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.   May God help us not to fail in that duty.

Life
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10
Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government.  The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense.  Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views.  The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion.  The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion – a commendable goal.  But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors.  The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth.  Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.”  We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable.  As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized.  For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries.  The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.”  This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues.  At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons.  Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe.  Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20^th century, they have returned from the grave.  The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.  We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children.  Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination.  The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.  And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.  What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear.  We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation.  Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.  We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research.  And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.”  For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church.  However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation.  In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself.   Marriage then, is the first institution of human society – indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation.  In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.  In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society.  Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits – the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live.  Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.  Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country.   Perhaps the most telling – and alarming – indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate.  Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent.  Today it is over 40 percent.  Our society – and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average – is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair.  Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage.  Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.
To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love.  We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce.  We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture.  It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law.  Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture.  It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life.  In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.  We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward.  We stand with them, even when they falter.  We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.  We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness.  We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it.  Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners.  For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts.  Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.”  As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage.  Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital.  They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit.  This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being.  Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies.  The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit.  Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being – the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual – on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.  That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights.  They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.”  It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it?  On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand.  Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.  Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships?  No.  The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage.  Marriage is an objective reality – a covenantal union of husband and wife – that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good.  If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.  First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized.  Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral.  Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends.  Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture.  But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.  How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?  The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant.  Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church.  And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21
The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development.  The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ.  Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror?  Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4).  Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God – a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.
Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience.  Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience.  No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions.  What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law – such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions.  We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business.  After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching.  In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.  In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality.  New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion.  We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded.  Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.¹ Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority.  We believe in law and in the rule of law.  We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.  The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust – and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust – undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.  In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching.  Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”  Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.  There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.  Unjust laws degrade human beings.  Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience.  King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.  We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.  But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

¹Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Click here to sign the petition

 

WesternFront America

When people “wake up,” or are questioning the differences between what they see, and what they have been taught, they frequently ask, “How did this happen?”

People see others being rewarded for failure, or penalized for success.  Politicians lie, and lie egregiously.  People that tell the truth are vilified.  Professors and public school teachers consistently and persistently teach against our nation and heritage, and penalize those who do not “go along.”  Too many of our citizens believe that it is appropriate to confiscate the wealth of another to subsidize their own failed lifestyles.  Our president apologizes for our nation’s defending freedom, and others blame us for terrorist attacks that take the lives of thousands of innocent people.  Our children are not educated-they are indoctrinated.  Our children are over sexualized, by their schools, by their peers, and by the entertainment industry.  They know little of our nation and government, but they know how to put a condom on a banana.  The list could go on and on.  One thing is clear, our nation has changed, and it continues on a frightening course.

To describe what has happened to our nation, and more importantly, our culture, we have to look at the architects of that change.  The fact is that our culture has been targeted for decades, and most Americans are completely unaware of the nature of this attack.  It has been incremental, and has impacted all of our institutions.  To examine all of this, I will be quoting “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World.”

First, we have to look at the term “Cultural Marxism.”

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

Now, the meaning of the term “Western Culture” is not made explicit here.  To elaborate, here is a definition:

Western culture is a body of knowledge derived from reason.

This foundation of reason has made possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature, including human nature.

This understanding is represented in several core ideals and values, which include individualism, happiness, rights, capitalism, science and technology.

Western culture can also be referred to as advanced culture; this is because its ideas and values promote the development and sustainment of advanced civilization.

So, when offered Communism, the workers rejected it.  Western Culture interfered.  The ideas of individuality, self reliance, success, work, owning property, the ability to rise above one’s origins, all give hope to the people, especially when the people can act upon and achieve these hopes.   The ability to earn, and keep what you earn; all lead to resistance to Communism.  After all, why would you give up the ability to earn and be successful to join a de-humanizing collective?

Christianity has another powerful role on resistance to Marxism.  Marxism is “Godless,” by it’s own description, however, I have often postulated that this is an incorrect.  I believe that in a Marxist state, God is replaced by the state as the giver of life and all things material.  Religion, and its reliance on a higher power creates a situation in which loyalty to the state is secondary to the loyalty to God.  This is intolerable to the Marxist.

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Please realize that Mussolini was not a good guy.  The fascists, particularly Hitler, viewed Marxism as a related, but inferior system to fascism.  Mussolini was simply imprisoning another political opponent, one from a related, but competing ideology.

I think it’s easy to see that the long march through the institutions has been largely completed, and the steps to taking political power are well underway.  They have education, law, media, and many other related fields.  Considering that they want to do away with alternative media, ban home schooling, and use law to accomplish both, the intent becomes clear.

Also, what conclusions can we make regarding the sexual revolution?  Is it about “liberating people,” or was it just about getting people away from religion?  After all, most religions teach sexual restraint.  This is taught in the home and at church.  However, if the media, and later the schools, teach the opposite, and literally encourage sexual experimentation, a disconnect with the religious instruction and belief is created.  This worked incredibly well in Communist states.

Here’s another quote that shows that perhaps I’m on the right track…

P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

As time wore on, these men formed what was to be called the Institute for Marxism.  Realizing that people would be alarmed by that name, they instead called it the “Institute for Social Research.”  Colloquially, it was referred to as the “Frankfort School.”  I guess that this is the first example of “CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE?”

With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

Brainwashing, pure and simple.  Denigrate the culture, and make this denigration appear everywhere.  Schools, media, even some churches, all promote Cultural Marxism.  The sad thing is-they don’t even know they’re doing it!  Of course, we know, because they said what they were going to do, and it’s being done!

To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

Studies in prejudice

The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”

This is one of the big lies of the left.  Anyone who believes in freedom is a “fascist.”  Anyone who believes in doing what the Marxists or Fascists actually did, are progressives!   This doesn’t actually present a way of thinking and doing that might be better, it’s about silencing and discrediting dissent.  If you can discredit a person, than you discredit their ideas.  The progressives have to avoid discussing ideas, especially when the ideas are superior to what they are trying to do.

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

I remember having a discussion with a group of people that claimed that I have had some level of success in my life due to “white privilege.”  Now, this claim intends to do a few things:

1. It attempts to negate the influence the actual effort and work.  This is a part of Western Culture.  I actually made a great effort to get educated, and then I worked hard at my career.  However, this is contrary to Marxism, so it must be discredited by claiming that anything I have came about because of my race.  Frankly, I don’t particularly like my efforts being discredited.
2. The ability to succeed gives hope to others.  To keep their victim classes on the “plantation,” the progressives must convince the “victims” that they are kept at a low level due to others having this “privilege.”   Victim classes can only be kept victims if they are thoroughly convinced that they cannot succeed.  What better way to do that than to convince them that successful people are only successful because of “special advantages?”  They also claim that any minorities that achieve success have “sold out.”  Remember Clarence Thomas’s confirmation?
3. Many people are prompted to feel guilt when they are brought to the understanding of their “privilege.”  Don’t laugh!  I’ve literally heard people say this!  After all, if you are feeling guilty about having things because the culture is so totally in your favor, you might not feel very bad about giving up some things to make it all right, like, for example, your freedom?

In the end, I didn’t cave in to the Marxism, so I was accused of being a racist.  In typical progressive fashion, I had to be discredited.  Facts were irrelevant, and what I said had to be discounted.  The smear is the last defense of the progressives.

Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)

Well, it had to bring us to education eventually.  This is what we have been talking about for years now.  Scores are down, graduation rates are down, and illiteracy is up.  But this is acceptable, as most of the children reject God, and embrace Marxist teachings!

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

So, when we are referred to as racists for questioning Obama’s policies, we know why.  When there is no outrage when Van Jones is an avowed Communist, we see through the ignorance.  When an untold number of protesters swarm Washington DC, and the MSM minimizes it, we see the cause.  When our children are indoctrinated, we see the purpose.

They infiltrated the institutions, just as they said they would.  They have since trained/indoctrinated generations of people.  Think for a moment… why are so many in the MSM are ignoring Obama’s lies, his czars, and the ACORN story?  They were indoctrinated!  They went to the universities!  The Cultural Marxists occupied them first! Why are so many public school teachers towing the line?  Same thing!  They went to the universities!  The list is virtually endless.  They have turned education into a leftist indoctrination machine, allowing them to then infiltrate every other institution in our nation.

This ties together with other topics that we have discussed.  For example, the Alinsky Method seems to be nothing more than a playbook for Critical Theory and tolerant repression.  It is a method to achieve the end.  The media’s ignorance and lies serve as well.  All of the indoctrinated institutions seem to act in the same way to work towards the goals, and circles the wagons for defense.

Where does this leave us?  We are in a precarious situation.  Our institutions are in the possession of people that would fundamentally change our republic.  The vast majority of them have no clue that they are working towards Marxist goals.  That is the evil brilliance of cultural Marxism.  The minions work towards the end goal, one of which they unaware.  But, we are aware, and that is a start.

———————————————————

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

————————————————————-

 

WesternFront America