My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:

 Comments Off on My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:
Jan 212021
 
President Donald Trump

by Elizabeth Morris

I will continue to refer to our elected Commander-in-Chief as President Donald J. Trump. I will refer to the person currently sitting in the office as Joe Biden, and his running mate as Kamala Harris – with no titles – because neither currently holds elected office.

That is, obviously, a very mild form of Civil Disobedience. But under the current vindictive and threatening environment – it is the safest act I can perform. But even a mild stand such as this, in the current environment, can bring a person trouble – as any suggestion the election was stolen is grounds for punishment.

That said, recognizing that Donald J. Trump is our elected President also means I will not obey executive orders signed by Joe Biden, who has no elected authority to institute executive orders. The executive orders signed by our elected president Donald Trump continue to be the legal authority.

Constitutionally, Congress had no choice but to certify the state’s election results. Nevertheless, that does not make Joe Biden the elected president. If President Trump in fact received the votes necessary to win the individual states – then he is, in fact, the elected president. Based on the sworn, eye-witness testimony of hundreds of poll workers and poll watchers from November 3rd on – testimony the main stream media purposefully ignored and did not allow the general public to see – there is more than enough evidence that “irregularities,” if not outright fraud, took place.

This is the evidence that several states and federal legislators were acting upon when they protested the election. These legislators are now being vilified for acting upon the evidence they were shown. They are being punished for believing and standing up for their constituents – some of whom showed documented evidence.

NO, Joe Biden – there can be no unity with this. Not ever.

Unfortunately, the state legislatures did NOT understand the Constitutional power and authority they had over the electoral votes. Neither did President Trump’s legal team fully understand. The courts were not the venue for the battle. The state legislatures were. In fact – the state legislatures have full constitutional authority – NOT the governors. The state legislatures did NOT have to have permission from the governor to hold a special session with regard to electoral votes.

Please read the opinion of constitutional authority and Senior Advisor to the Convention of States, Rob Natelson1, on the issue:

Natelson also wrote this article:

AND – here is another article Natelson wrote on the subject, in question and answer format:

Q&A for state legislators and citizens: The Constitution and how to settle the election

By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 18, 2020|Categories: Constitution, Elections, Electoral College

Irregularities in the presidential election returns of six states have sparked the question “What next?” The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Should their state legislatures intervene? Confusing the issue are media and other claims that are dead wrong.

This column corrects the mistakes and clarifies duties and options.

Why the mistakes? Many in the media are strongly motivated to secure the election of Joe Biden—or, more accurately, the defeat of Donald Trump. They have been uncurious about alleged election irregularities or how the Constitution and federal law address presidential election deadlocks.

Even most experts are unfamiliar with this subject. On average, law school constitutional law courses spend 2/3 of their time on two percent of the Constitution (the 1st Amendment and two sections of the 14th) and largely ignore the presidential election process. Most law professors are unaware of the Constitution’s presidential election rules or the history behind them.

Now some questions and answers:

Q.Why are state legislatures involved?

A. You don’t learn this in school, but the Founders put the state legislatures near the heart of the political system. So much so that during the public debates over ratification of the Constitution, one of the most popular pro-Constitution writers (Tench Coxe) affirmed (pdf) that once the Constitution was ratified, ultimate sovereignty would lodge in a combination of state legislatures and state conventions.

Q. How is that relevant to presidential elections?

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to determine how electors are appointed. This power was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in Chiafolo v. Washington (pdf). The Court held that state legislatures not only control choice of electors but can even direct them how to vote.

Q. Are there roles for Congress in the presidential election system?

A. Yes. One is that the Constitution’s Same Day Clause or Presidential Vote Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 4) authorizes Congress to select a uniform national day for voting by presidential electors and a (necessarily uniform) national time for voting for president electors. Congress has responded with legislation whose current version was enacted in 1948: December 14 for voting by electors (3 U.S. Code §7) and November 3 for voting for electors (id., §1).

Q. But this year many people voted by mail and the balloting continued over weeks . . .

A. Yes, and that was a violation of both the Same Day Clause and federal law. Some of the election irregularities were those the Same Day Clause was adopted to prevent.

Q. So, where does the state legislature come in?

A. Federal law, 3 U.S.C., § 2, recognizes state legislatures’ continuing power to choose electors after November 3 if the election on that date fails. It reads:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Q. Is that relevant to all states this year?

A. No—only to the six states with contested elections. Investigations over the next few weeks may show that preliminary results in some of these states are accurate. Then the law will apply only to states (if any) where the results remain helplessly muddled.

Q. How do lawmakers learn if claims of irregularities are true?

A. They should see how the lawsuits challenging the election unfold in their states over the next few days and weeks. I also recommend that legislative committees hold hearings of their own.

Q. To overturn an election, do you have to show fraud?

A. No. Any irregularities altering the results may be sufficient. These include (1) election officials treating different votes in different ways, in violation of the 14th amendment (Bush v. Gore, pdf), (2) changing election procedures during or after the election—or before the election in a way that confuses voters, and (3) even innocent mistakes, including software or machine errors.

Q. I read an article saying that fraud is sufficient to upend an election, and that there is no need to show it changed the result. Is this correct?

A. No. A court is unlikely to set an election aside if the results would have been the same anyway.

Q. If a state legislature finds that the results are hopelessly muddled, what should it do?

A. The principal options are (1) call a special election limited to presidential electors only or (2) choose the electors itself. Some may gripe about a quick election repeat, but successive elections are common in some other democratic countries.

Q. Is it true that only the governor may call the legislature into special session?

A. It is true in some states. Of course, this is no problem if the governor is cooperative. Some state constitutions allow a petition signed by a certain number of lawmakers to call a special session.

Q. My state’s law says only the people, not the legislature, can choose electors. State law further requires a 60-day notice period before a special election. Doesn’t this prevent our state lawmakers from acting even if federal law would seem to authorize them to do so?

A. No. If the legislature can come into session it may—either with gubernatorial cooperation or by a veto-proof majority—change the laws as necessary and allow the people to vote.

Q. What if the governor is not cooperative and there is no veto-proof majority?

A. Then the legislature may call itself into session and choose the electors itself.

Q. Huh?

A. This is one of those things not taught in law school. Here’s the background:

The Constitution delegates power to federal departments and officials. But it also assigns responsibilities to persons and entities outside the federal government. These persons and entities include state governors, presidential electors, convention delegates, voters, jurors—and state legislatures. The courts refer to the exercise of these responsibilities as “federal functions.” (See my forthcoming article on the subject in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.)

When the Constitution assigns responsibility to the “state legislature,” it may mean either the state’s entire legislative apparatus, including the governor, or the representative assembly standing alone, without the governor.

Q. Go on . . . .

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections. In this case, the delegation is to the entire legislative process including the governor. Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n. (pdf). But when state legislatures act in the constitutional amendment process or elect functionaries themselves, they act alone, without gubernatorial involvement.

Q. For example?

A. Before the 17th amendment, the state legislatures elected U.S. Senators, and the governor had no say in the matter. Choice of presidential electors is almost certainly subject to the same rule. Federal law seems to recognize this when it provides, “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed . . . in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” Surely Congress did not expect the legislature to go through the entire law-making process in a constricted period of time. It contemplated the legislature choosing the electors itself or setting up an expedited process.

Q. Okay, but if the state constitution says only the governor can call a special session, how can the legislature call itself into session?

A. When a state legislature exercises a “federal function,” its power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, and it is not bound by state rules. The judiciary has said this repeatedly. The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Leser v. Garnett (pdf), written by the celebrated justice, Louis Brandeis.

Q. Of the six contested states, all but Nevada have Republican-controlled legislatures. I’ve heard it suggested that they not choose electors at all. That way, neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 electors (a majority of the whole number of 538), forcing a run-off election in the House of Representatives. Although the Democrats will have a slim majority in the new House, the GOP will hold a majority of state delegations. Since presidential voting in the House is by state, it will elect Trump.

A. The suggestion is unwise. First, state lawmakers would, justifiably, take at least as much political heat for simply punting as for calling a new election or choosing the electors.

Second, the 12th amendment says that only if no presidential candidate receives “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” does the election go to the House. If none of the five contested states with Republican legislatures appoints electors, then there will be only 465 “Electors appointed.” If, as is almost certain, Nevada goes for Biden, then that would give him 233 votes—a majority of 465. No House run-off.

If fewer than five Republican legislatures abstain, then Biden will win the remaining states, and with them the Presidency.

Q. So what should state lawmakers do in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

A. Ignore the media gaslighting and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. Monitor the state election challenges closely. If no clear winner appears in, say, two more weeks, then either call a snap election using old-fashioned paper ballots in fixed polling locations or, if the governor does not cooperate, call themselves into session and choose the state’s presidential electors. In the latter case, lawmakers can blame it all on the uncooperative governor. Remember that the process has to be complete before the electors meet on December 14.

This column first appeared in the Epoch Times.

Tags: Election 2020, Elections, Electoral College, state legislature

  1. Rob Natelson: In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals (See: https://i2i.org/author/rob/) He co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). He was a law professor for 25 years and taught constitutional law and related courses. He is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

———————

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004.  Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy.

Ms. Morris graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019.  Her Master Thesis is titled: “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

7 Acts of Peaceful Civil Disobedience you can do.

 Comments Off on 7 Acts of Peaceful Civil Disobedience you can do.
Jan 042021
 

Civil Disobedience is an act of peaceful defiance to the government in order to gain concessions. Civil disobedience is not a disregard for law or a disrespect of law-officers. It is a nonviolent “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands” and is usually done collectively, although not always. Gandhi referred to it as “satyagrahi,” which meant “truth-focused, non-violent non-cooperation.”

Civil Disobedience draws attention to the difference between constitutional ‘rule of law’ and illegitimate power grabs. It is a last resort after properly organized petitions, legal voting, respectful lobbying of officials and other steps have failed. Although it is non-violent and careful not to infringe on the life, liberty or property of others, one must be prepared for possible jail time or other punishment when practicing Civil Disobedience.

With respect to Civil Disobedience, St. Paul urged the Church of Christ living in Rome to “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship,” and “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:1b-2a). He goes on to explain how we are to use our bodies and skills for God’s glory – reflecting his love, service, humility and mercy. But also, to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9b). In hating evil, he warns, do “not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath . . . Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12: 19 & 21).  In the face of profound and intractable disagreement, Christians are to stand as ambassador’s in chains. While Romans 13 instructs Christians to submit to state authorities, Ephesians 6:10-17 instructs Christians to

10…be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:10-17

The balance is in prayerful, peaceful, Civil Disobedience.

Many of the “protests’ that took place around the nation in 2020, including Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland, as well as in Baltimore in 2015 and Ferguson and St. Louis in 2014, were not examples of Civil Disobedience. They were riots, often ending in criminal vandalism, arson, and theft.

Many of their methods maliciously disregarded the lives, liberties and property of others in their community. They destroyed the shops of struggling, low income neighbors; injured or murdered innocent bystanders and law-enforcement officers, and robbed people of their liberty by preventing them from trans-versing the roadways on their way to work, school; daycare to pick up children; hospitals for medical care, and more.

Despite rhetoric otherwise, those types actions did not bring wide sympathy or popular support to the cause they were touting. While many who were repelled by the violence (as well as increasingly nonsensical policies involving pediatric gender transitions, abortion of full-term children, and other social extremism) did not speak out due to intimidation by the ‘cancel culture’ rooted within the anarchy, their true feelings were evidenced by the push-back at election time – with an increasing number of citizens fleeing the Democratic Party as it seemed to support the lawlessness.

It is now time for citizens to stand up for truth and justice through the use of genuine civil disobedience – while doing nothing that would harm the life, liberty or property of your neighbors.

PASSIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Passive Resistance is the determination not to cooperate with government overreach, in particular where there is no rule of law involved. Go on with life as you normally would. Simply refuse to do as expected or listen to new directives.

This can be as simple as refusing to take down political yard signs – (or putting them back up if you have already taken them down). Refuse to concede that a lawful election has been completed. Continue supporting your candidate with a lawn sign.

Refuse to stop working or going to church when ordered. Continue using proper antiseptics in cleaning, social distance if possible, and wear masks if you feel necessary, but knowing that varied doctors and scientists are not in agreement as to the benefit of various public health directives, refuse to allow the government to sabotage your life, liberty and property any longer.

Refuse to accept a vaccine that uses the cells of innocent children. Determine you will not condone government claims that protection of citizens requires the murder of defenseless babies – nor be an accomplice to it.

Refuse to use any pronoun other than the common pronouns of the 20th Century, and apply them as you feel most appropriate. This is not about hurting the feelings of those who want to choose their own pronouns. The reality is that far left activists do not get to dictate grammar. Many doctors believe it actually does a teenager more harm than good to play along with what might be just temporary confusion or rebellion. Politely, calmly, but resolutely, disobey the language authoritarians.

  • English subject pronouns include I, you, he, she, it we, and they. English object pronouns include me, you, him, her, it, us and them. Possessive variants include my, mine, your, yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs. Toss a “self” on the end of the possessives if you want to be reflexive or intensive. And that is it.

PROACTIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Active Civil Disobedience involves setting aside a portion of time for rebellion, knowing it could bring unpleasant repercussions.

Participate in Peaceful marches – While it began as a peaceful and licensed protest – not an act of Civil Disobedience – DC officials have taken steps to make the day there unpleasant. Thus, marchers will be showing up in defiance of public officials. The March to Save America Rally begins at 7am on Wednesday, January 6 at the Ellipse in Washington DC. Find out more at https://trumpmarch.com/

Participate in Peaceful Sit-ins – on Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State. If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse. If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

  • 1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
  • 2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
  • 3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

Read more at https://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/2020/12/25/day-of-civil-disobedience-tuesday-january-5th/

Participate by Peacefully chaining oneself to structures – Without damaging the structure in any way, including with permanent paint – and without infringing on the free movement of other citizens.

These are just some examples. There are many ways citizens can peacefully resist illegitimate authorities.

Why we have the Electoral College

 Comments Off on Why we have the Electoral College
Dec 272020
 

In most states, business owners who own a Public Service Commission license are required to serve citizens in every corner of their counties.  This, obviously, is because certain areas of the counties – due to distance or other factors – might not be as profitable to support, but need service nonetheless.  So the State mandates service to meet the needs of even the far flung.

That is essentially what the forefathers did when designing the process for electing the president. Although the 13 States had suffered together under British monarchy, they had never been united. They were each governed independent of one another, with their own laws and customs.  While most of the colonists wanted to come out from under the British tyranny and knew they needed some type of unity for defense against England and other foreign nations, none wanted to lose their unique identities and culture to a federal system. They did not want to subject themselves to a new tyranny.

Some of the 13 states were quite large and populated; others were not. So it was natural for the smaller and less dense states to be afraid they would be overpowered within a united Congress. Thus a lot of the negotiation within the Continental Congress and later on in the writing of the Constitution concerned preservation of the voice and sovereignty of the individual states. 

The government they devised was extremely unique to the world at that time. Each state would maintain their sovereign independence with equal voice and representation in the federal government. This system bore resemblance to some historical republican senates (‘republican’ being a descriptive adjective, not a noun), but there were differences.  Importantly, the new government would be a democratic republic. (in this sentence, the word ‘democratic’ is the adjective).

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, repeatedly emphasized that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.”  Meaning, the federal government was designed to give all the states equal representation.

It was up to the states to ensure that all their citizens had an equal voice in who represented their state in the federal government.

The Electoral College was an essential part of this. It was designed to ensure that each state has a voice in the election of the president. In this design, small states and rural citizens are just as franchised in the process of electing the president as are the large states and cities. It works to unify the country and ensure a government that is representative of all regions and interests – meeting the needs of even the far flung.

Later on, amendments were added to further ensure the equality of citizen voices and votes within the states. Remember – this system of government was extremely unique to the world at that time and was essentially an experiment in design. It needed some amendments along the way.

That said, the goal had always been that residents of very small, rural cities in low population states – often, the bread basket or fuel resource of the rest of the nation – would not be mere subjects to – or ‘serfs’ of – the residents of large cities or the wealthy. 

[This is also why some members of the Continental Congress lobbied for anti-slavery laws, and some northern state legislatures [early-on] passed anti-slavery laws and lobbied for similar laws in the federal Congress]

Without the electoral college today, there would be no point in small states with low population to bother voting.  Candidates would focus on Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and other large, populated cities and would not be concerned with most other areas. An ultra-conservative candidate would not have much chance of winning the large American cities – thus diversity of voices in candidates would be reduced.

The Electoral College FORCES presidential candidates to form large coalitions that represent states and Americans across the nation – rather than just particular regions or urban areas.

DAY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, Tuesday, January 5th

 Comments Off on DAY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, Tuesday, January 5th
Dec 252020
 

On Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State.

If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse.

If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

  • 1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
  • 2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
  • 3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

…[There are several ideas about how debt relief could be handled, but all focus on saving the economy, saving homes, and saving small businesses in our communities – along with a refusal to allow Congress to spend our money on their irrelevant pet projects and pay-offs.]

During this Sit-in,

  • – Homemade signs and banners are encouraged
  • – Violence is forbidden
  • – Vandalism is forbidden
  • – Littering is forbidden

We are NOT Anarchists. We are better than that. We genuinely care about our communities.

Citizens are welcome to arrive and leave throughout the day as needed but ensure a steady presence of citizens remains throughout the day.

VETO the stimulus bill

 Comments Off on VETO the stimulus bill
Dec 242020
 

President Trump,

Please VETO the stimulus bill, and instead – – use that money to forgive all – or most – federal loans to US CITIZENS – benefiting RURAL and MIDDLE CLASS rather than the swamp and their cronies.

While forgiving all federal loans is contrary to conservative and fiscal wisdom – Congress intends to spend that money anyway – and MORE within the first few weeks of a Biden presidency.

WE NEED to throw a wrench. Forgiving all federal loans will benefit ALL Americans in the long run by unburdening many in the middle class – THUS stimulating the economy. It will also take money out of Congress’s thieving hands and put Pelosi, Biden and the swamp back in their place. PLEASE DO THIS. Call it a time for Jubilee.

Fellow citizens,

Congress is going to spend that money whether we like it or not. We have tried for years to stop their corrupt spending. We haven’t even slowed them down. What we are talking about here is essentially taking the money AWAY from Congress. You can consider it robbing CONGRESS before they rob us – or consider it simply emptying their purse. Either way, taking money away from Congress benefits EVERYONE.

Further…forgiveness of federal loans benefits everyone because it involves small business loans, agriculture loans, and home mortgages. Even if a community member does not have a federal loan, money is being put back into the community rather than sent to Pakistan for gender studies. This is what stimulating our economy is all about. Small businesses are saved, farms are saved, and homes are saved. More money is available to spend and reinvest. More people can be hired. The economy gets a shot in the arm. An additional benefit is that those on the left who appear to want all that destroyed are set back.

Lastly, the current stimulus bill is NOT about helping people at all. It is just an excuse to fund pork and foreign quid-pro-quo. We can’t stop them from this criminal overspend because the GOP is going along with them – again.

The only thing we can hope for is a way to

  • 1. take away their excuse for pork bill – as well as
  • 2. take away part of their expected budget, and
  • 3. do it fast, before Congress overrides the veto.

If you have a different suggestion that could do all those things – say it.

Why did Public Policy become so quickly insane? Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

 Comments Off on Why did Public Policy become so quickly insane? Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory
Nov 282020
 

While neither eighteenth century’s Adam Smith nor nineteenth century’s Karl Marx invented capitalism or socialism, neither capitalism nor socialism were clearly expressed prior to their attempts to express and build on these observed trends in varied societies. Feudalism had been the primary economic system for centuries, and  capitalism and socialism grew “only after feudalism’s demise”  (Blomberg 2012). 

Twentieth century Liberal Philosopher John Rawls now identifies five types of social order: “laissez‐faire capitalism [individual, natural liberty], welfare‐state capitalism, state socialism with a centrally controlled economy, property‐owning democracy, and liberal (or democratic) socialism” (Pogge & Kosch, 2007, p. 133).  We will discuss the relationship between Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory.

Key Ideas of Socialism

Socialists claim their key ideals include “principles of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and community or solidarity” (Pablo Gilabert 2019).  Despite the necessity of individual determination for each these noble objectives, socialists call for strong government legislation to control and enforce the exercise of them.  According to Mises, “… a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody,” is required by socialism (Mises, 2006).

Key Ideas of Marxism

Marxism originated in the mid-1800’s.  Introduced by German Philosopher Karl Marx, it is a political theory involving “dialectical materialism,” a resultant “labor theory of value,” and “transition from past to future” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 803).  Marx viewed capitalism’s law and order as just a facade hiding a struggle between two main classes: “Capitalists, who own the productive resources, and the workers or proletariat, who must work in order to survive” (Olman 2004). Marx endeavored to analyze the relationship between them. His analysis involved three theories: “the theory of alienation, the labor theory of value, and the materialist conception of history” (2004).  According to Marxism, the ruling class can control the “ideological outlook” of the working classes through production of materials that the working-class desire. “As long as the workers agree with the ideology that they are subject to, they will acquiesce to their place in the structure of society” (Formby 2015).

The result, according to Marx, of a “natural progression” that societies undergo as they and their economic systems are born, progress and either die off or reach a new level, is Marxism. Socialism is the “unrealized potential inherent” within the wealth and organization of Capitalism itself, which allows for “a more just and democratic society in which everyone can develop his/her distinctively human qualities” (Olman 2004).  Capitalism matures to Socialism, which in turn progresses to Communism/Marxism, which Marx described as a utopia that will no longer need politics or religion. (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 826). 

Marx drew his ideas from “German philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism” (Olman 2004).  One of those was Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and social reformer. He had taught in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s that there needed to be a separation of “law as it is from law as it ought to be” (Hart, 1958). Calling this “Legal Positivism,” he pushed the detachment of statements of fact from statements of value and therefore, a detachment of law from morality and God’s Word.  Instead of basing law on Scripture or a moral goal to be attained, he wanted law to be viewed only in terms of how it was written. The decision as to how it should be written should be based on his “fundamental axiom” that law should reflect whatever brings “the greatest happiness” to the greatest number of people (Daniels 2012). Popular opinion would be the definition of right and wrong. His ideas formed a basis for welfarism  (Hart, 1958).

While socialism and communism deny the reality of a morality defined by God, many adherents recognize the difficulty of selling these social theories to the general public.  Marxism comes out of naturalism and leads to an emphasis on “economic and political solutions,” including behavior modification of the population and redistribution of wealth (Fischer, 2013).  Knowing that behavior modification is not something most people would embrace, Utopian socialists advocated use of “universal ideas of truth and justice” to appeal to the “moral sensibilities” of men. They asserted this is the only way to bring about necessary change to society (Wolff 2017).  However, Marx disagreed and distanced himself from utopian thought. He asserted that the way to bring about his vision of “human emancipation” was to study and explain the “historical and social forces” that he believed had shaped the world to this point. Appeal to ‘morality’ was, in his mind, regressive (2017).

With morality unnecessary, justice, as Bentham suggested, was solely the decision of men.  Marx either considered communism to be justice, or that the entire concept of justice does not apply because “communism would transcend justice” (Wolff 2017).  He described communism as “a society in which each person should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need” (2017). While some believe this is a theory of justice, it is also possible that Marx is explaining how and why communism transcends justice. If ‘justice’ is nothing more than a method of resolving disputes, then “a society without disputes would have no need or place for justice” (2017). Hume had argued that if society had complete acceptance of all human beings and enough abundance for everyone to have “whatever they wanted without invading another’s share,” then there would be no need for rules of justice. There would be no conflict.  Marx had claimed that communism would bring abundance to everyone.

Whether or not world-wide brotherly love and abundantly available material possessions is even possible, the concept put forward was that “communism transcends justice” (Wolff 2017).  The sin nature of men, including greed, lust, laziness and selfishness, is ignored because if there is no God, there is no sin-nature. Everything is controllable on a physical level (Fischer, 2013). And therein lies the reason for behavior modification and redistribution of wealth.

Key Ideas of Critical Theory

Originating in Germany in 1931, Critical Theory was a child of its time and birth. Like most other modernists, postmodernists and naturalists, Critical Theorists inherently believe evolution includes a hierarchy of humans. With that, they imagine that if allowed opportunity, society’s best and brightest intellectuals and progressives – by their standards – can “rationally solve all problems” and should govern everyone else (Fischer, 2013). 

According to these “German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition,” a ‘critical’ theory is set apart from ‘traditional’ theory to the extent it is a “liberating … influence,” pursuing human “emancipation from slavery,” and functions to “create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). There is a growing number of elite intellectuals who believe critical theory provides descriptive and “normative” grounds for “social inquiry” and is valid science for decreasing domination and increasing freedom” in any form they deem to deconstruct (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]). 

By their definition, Critical Theory considers “social facts as problematic situations from the point of view of variously situated agents” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]).  The philosophical approach of Critical Theory “extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history.”  Because they view this as a “normative task,” they believe it “cannot be accomplished apart from the interplay between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research” (2019 [2005]).  Because Critical Theory should bring “explanation and revolution” to all “dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies” and “circumstances that enslave human beings,” social inquiry should combine philosophy and the social sciences. Intellectual feel to the sciences needs to be suppressed (2019 [2005]). 

So, whereas traditional theory would verify empirically whether a stated fact has occurred or not, Critical Theory considers knowledge to be a fetish that infers “truth and falsehood presupposes an objective structure of the world” (Corradetti 2020)and is “rather functional to ideology critique and social emancipation”  (2020). Social criticism, therefore, is true knowledge and the vehicle for social action that transforms reality  (2020). In other words, by irrefutable judgement of these scattered theorists, any social standard considered normal and beyond question for the entirety of human history is now a “problematic situation” if any one person views it as such.

Critical Theory addresses all methods in which power is used through words or customs (Fischer, 2013).  Using “Bounded and Satisficing Rationality,” a person can reach a “satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one” (English 2016), and “design strategic tools” for making decisions, setting standards and creating environments in which the tools become “ecologically rational” (Gigerenzer 2011).

With this in mind, “…any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a ‘critical theory,’ including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]).  Fischer notes Queer Theory and criticism of current prison systems are also included  (Fischer, 2013). 

Opening the door to allow for every type of human complaint enlarges the size and power of the political movement.  However, the more voices in the tent, the more disagreement over policy and criticism of fellow “Critical Theorists.” Dr. William Scheuerman notes some concern that “contemporary critical theory is succumbing to legalist or juridical preoccupations that distort the nature of social reality” (Scheuerman 2016), and Dr. Amy Allen’s primary concern is the Frankfurt School’s critical theory “remains wedded to problematically Eurocentric and/or foundationalist strategies for grounding normativity” (Allen 2015, xii).  She wants to “decolonize Frankfurt School critical theory” and open it up “to the aims and concerns of post- and decolonial thought” (2015, xii).

            Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, reviewing Dr. Allen’s work, notes her distaste for “robust claims to progress as ahistorical fact,” made by projects that claim to be critical, and “backward-looking conceptions of progress that understand history as a learning process that has led up to ‘us’ (p. 98)”  (Vazquez-Arroyo 2018, S227). He comments, “…a different warning goes unheeded. Paraphrasing her formulation, any theory that purports to be critical should be extremely wary of thought forms whose sediments and de-differentiations, along with neo-nativist gestures and inane ideas of decolonization, undermine genuine critique” (2018, S227).

According to Dr. Rasmussen, “the great challenge to critical theory that has to deal with the rise of religion, on the one hand, and globalization, on the other, will be whether or not it can keep a critical perspective alive or whether in the future we will look back at critical theory as just another theory of modernity” (2012).

Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

All three, Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory, profess to be a pathway to Utopia – a society where all laws, government, and social conditions are ideal.  Fischer explains that Marxism and socialism are both a derivative of a naturalistic worldview and assume there is only a physical universe, not a spiritual one, and at the same time, free will is an illusion.  They believe that our choices are constrained by and are a product of our physical environment.  Therefore, social and economic justice are entirely achievable, as they are entirely physical constructs and “can and should be manipulated” (2018).

            Critical theory views the universe the same way, as noted by Gigerenzer, who said that ‘unbounded rationality’ is the illusion there is “an ‘omniscient being,’ omnipotent – knows everything – can compute all the consequences…a Laplacian demon, or maybe – God” (Gigerenzer 2011).

All three disciplines view people groups as monolithic.  They expect individuals of similar backgrounds to maintain the same views – ignoring individual thought and experience because such things make calculation and projections much more difficult.  Anyone who had not reached the same conclusions they had were either lying or deluded.   

Dr. Satnam Virdee recalled how in the early twentieth century, England’s Marxist Social Democratic Federation (SDF) “repeatedly emphasized how working-class racism was ‘part of the imperialist rationale to stress the inherent backwardness of African peoples.” and  (Virdee 2017).  Socialists denied that classism, rather than racism, could be the real problem because they had already decided that racism was the issue.  At the same time, in Germany, socialists stressed class was the issue, while the Nazi’s stressed race.  German socialists touted that “abolition of class exploitation” would liberate everyone, “including the racially oppressed” (2017). Virdee surmised that “socialist political practice” will have to become more ‘intersectional’ if solidarity between the “ethnically diverse proletariat in the imperialist core” is to be achieved (2017).  Further, economic tenets would need to change, as attempts to practice Marxist socialism have “had to reintroduce elements of private ownership in the means of production in order to overcome or prevent manifest bankruptcy” (Hoppe 1988 [2010]).

Impact of Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

The reason the United States has been “by and large, richer than Western Europe, and West Germany much richer than East Germany” is a direct result of less socialism”  (Hoppe 1988 [2010], 11).  The difference between Switzerland and Austria, as well as England in the nineteenth century and England today, is also a reflection of socialism (1988 [2010], 11). It appears socialism has had little success in anything other than stirring up rage within propaganda instilled college students.

In late fifties, many in the United States began to see the separation of law and morals as intellectually misleading and superficial, blinding men “to the true nature of law and its roots in social life.” Others asserted that the separation was corrupting society, bringing disrespect to the law, and giving way to “state tyranny or absolutism” (Hart, 1958). The term “Legal Positivism,” took on a negative context. One of them “was the sin” of Bentham insistence on the separation of “law as it is and law as it ought to be” (1958).

In the sixties, the New Left, a political movement that consisted of anti-war groups, libertarians, democrats, and Marxists, picked up the utopian idea of camouflaging socialism and Marxism in “morality-speak” and campaigned together on issues involving class, race, gender, ideology and culture.  In doing this, they brought “revision and diversification” to Marxism (Alexander 2018). In the 21st century, ‘Prefigurative politics’ is a new buzz word purported to represent “ethos of unity between means and ends,” as the New Left draws from its ‘60’s’ past with anarchist rioting as a means to bring about “revolutionary social transformation” (Gordon 2018). That is an aspect that has had a large impact on American politicians, if not necessarily the general public. In fact, Alexander reports that his Marxist passion waned after realizing the people he was attempting to liberate had no desire to be liberated.  Alexander related:

We formed a sociology collective and did our part during street demonstrations, the rousing performances that unfolded inside tear gas clouds. But holding back from the window breaking and systematic “trashing,” we felt increasingly alienated from the hardened members of the revolutionary vanguard. Ground down by its own internal dynamics and hounded by the triumph of backlash politics and Richard Nixon, the new left had come to resemble the old. It became increasingly polluted by Stalinism and sectarianism, by desperate militancy and acts of revolutionary terrorism. Watching this transformation with horror and fear, I looked for a different way to do radical politics, helping to lead more traditional organizing projects. Our sociology collective traveled to Los Angeles to stand beside workers striking the Goodyear Tire plant. We confronted their conservative trade union leadership and produced a wall poster that provided an alternative intellectual framework for their struggle.

We did not find any converts, and the first doubts about the appropriateness of radical criticism began to form in my mind. …For three months we canvassed this working-class community of General Motors employees, seeking to organize them against the Vietnam war, demonstrating the connection between such imperialist violence and capitalism, whose exploitation we believed such workers would be naturally against. But, if only an hour’s drive from Berkeley, Fremont was actually a universe away. The manifest satisfaction of Freemont residents with the American way of life mystified but also deeply impressed me. Was commodification as alienating as the good books had said? Had capitalist culture really brainwashed these workers in a hegemonic way? (Alexander 2018)

The Progressivism in America today is a post-modern version of Marxism.  Marxism pitted the rich against the poor. Progressivism pits white males – ostensibly rich white males – against everyone else (Fischer, 2013). In a debate between Trotsky and U.S. socialist C.L.R. James, James recognized the “revolutionary potential of African Americans.”  He believed that because of the history of slavery and then Jim Crow, “African Americans were not ‘deceived by democracy,’” and would never support capitalism (Virdee 2017).  He was correct concerning some who have black heritage, but not all. In fact, the Marxist socialists are not united in every aspect of their projects.  New communists often push the left to pay “increasing attention to feminism, anti-racism and sexual politics” and believe failure to do so nullifies their radicalism and effectiveness. To others, engaging with “non-class forms of politics” is what causes loss to their “radicalism and efficacy” (Dean 2015).  Neither camp has yet to come to terms with the possibility that free peoples, when given a choice, reject socialism, let alone communism.

Biblical principles of statesmanship and government

Neither pure capitalism nor socialism were economic systems at the time of Jesus Christ  (Blomberg 2012).  Nevertheless, historians who study the Biblical economy and patterns of social interaction generally agree that Biblical communities, which measured wealth by the amount of land and number of animals a man owned, operated within the theory of “limited good.” Most people believed wealth was measured and finite, and only a small portion was accessible to persons such as themselves (2012).

While persons of whom the Bible was written may have had some belief similar to that of Marx, Karl Marx and others of his circle had no belief in them. Nineteenth century philosopher Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach claimed that human beings had invented God in their own image and argued that worshipping God “diverted human beings from enjoying their own human powers.”  Feuerbach believed this happened to men by innocent “intellectual error.” They merely needed to have truth explained to them for them to pull out of it. Marx appreciated the book but criticized Feuerbach for failing to understand the reason so many fall prey to religion. If one doesn’t understand the genesis of it, one can’t understand the solution. Marx’s view was that “religion is a response to alienation in material life,” and therefore, “cannot be removed” until the person is set financially and materially free.  Once that happens, “religion will wither away” (Wolff 2017). In the introduction of his work, ‘Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx remarked that religion is the ‘opiate of the people.’ It is in this section that he also discusses the question of “how revolution might be achieved in Germany,” and describes the “role of the proletariat” in making that happen (2017).

Naturalists, socialists, and Marxists do not believe a metaphysical component exists in the world. God and any form of spirituality are myths created to comfort distressed and oppressed “masses” of people. Therefore, they believe all change must come through the physical tools and institutions available to men.  It is up to government to guide, teach, sustain and protect people (Fisher 2018).

However, it was witnessed and documented that Jesus rose from the dead. Unexplainable miracles have occurred throughout history and continue to this day, giving direct evidence of a spiritual component to the world. God is personal, intelligent, and the timeless creator. While it is true that injustice exists in the world, Jesus urged his followers to give to the poor, but did not demand government take money from citizens to give to the poor.  Helping one’s neighbor is an individual responsibility. “Each of you should give whatever you have decided. You shouldn’t be sorry you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

America’s founding fathers did not want federal government to have the power to demand more money from the public than necessary because they had been abused in that way by the British government (Vaughan 1997).  Governments are constituted of men, and men are inherently sinful and selfish. Many seek pleasure and power at the expense of others and even at times take perverse pleasure in it. Tyrants and despots exist.

This is also why justice cannot be arbitrary.  There needs to be uncompromising, enduring justice. Bentham assumed people would naturally seek ‘good’ and pleasure over pain, but neither Marx nor Bentham appeared to accept the genuine nature of man and man’s need for intervention from the Holy Spirit (Daniels 2012).  Men cannot depend on a government structure. Men can only depend on God.  Without Jesus, society devolves. “The social ethic of the secular is so narrow…they give up on trying to defend principal”…“But Christians can’t give up” (2012).

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C. “The Sixties and Me: From Cultural Revolution to Cultural Theory.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 63, no. 234 (Sep-Dec 2018): 99-110. D.

Allen, Amy. The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia Uniiversity, 2015.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Capitalism nor Socialism: A Biblical Theology of Economics.” Journal of Markets and Morality 15, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 207-225.

Bohman, James, Jeffrey Flynn, and Robin Celikates. Critical Theory. Winter 2019. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019 [2005].

Corradetti, Claudio. “The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. 2020. https://iep.utm.edu/frankfur/ (accessed 11 23, 2020).

Daniels, Scott. Presentation: Modern Secular Political Philosophy. Online Presentation, Helms School of Government, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2012.

Dean, Jonathan. “Radicalism restored? Communism and the end of left melancholia.” Contemporary Political Theory, Aug 2015: 234-255.

English, Angi. “Understanding Bounded Rationality and Satisficing.” Bounded Rationality. Platform by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security . June 3, 2016. https://medium.com/homeland-security/understanding-bounded-rationality-and-satisficing-175e787955d6 (accessed 11 26, 2020).

Fisher, Kahlib. Presentation: Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory . Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2018.

Formby, Dan. “[Essay] Why Marxism and Critical Theory Still Matter.” Journal of Critical and Creative Writing, 2015.

Gigerenzer, Gerd. Bounded Rationality. Online presentation, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin: National Science Foundation, 2011.

Gordon, Uri. “Prefigurative Politics between Ethical Practice and Absent Promise.” Political Studies 66, no. 2 (2018): 521-537.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988 [2010].

Mises, Ludwig von. Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. 3rd. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.

Olman, Bertell. “What is Marxism? A Bird’s-Eye View.” Dialectical Marxism. 2004. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php.

Pablo Gilabert, Martin O’Neill. “Socialism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019, Fall, 2019 ed.

Pogge, Thomas, and Michelle Kosch. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rasmussen, David M. “Critical Theory.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy (Penn State University Press) 26, no. 2 (2012): 291-298.

Scheuerman, William E. “Recent Frankfurt Critical Theory: Down on Law?” Constellations 24, no. 1 (2016): 113-125.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Vazquez-Arroyo, Antonio Y. “Review: The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory.” Contemporary Political Theory (Rutgers University), 2018: S224–S227.

Virdee, Satnam. “The second sight of racialised outsiders in the imperialist core.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 11 (2017): 2396-2410.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Karl Marx.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017, Winter 2017 ed.

May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.

 Comments Off on May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.
Jun 082020
 
ALL Lives Matter

For the past week – I haven’t known what to say. My mind has felt blank.

I grew up in the Twin Cities.  As a young adult, I lived in the neighborhoods where all this is happening.  I shopped at the first Target that burned. 

Most of my family is still in the Twin Cities. Extended family of four different heritages and array of skin tones.

But it isn’t just that.  It’s the insanity of everything that is happening – and there is so much to say that I don’t even know where to begin. 

There is so much to say – that I am at a loss for what to say, if that makes any sense. 

The huge number of lies – the huge number of people believing them.  The disregard for genuine truth, rule of law…

Honest debate – genuine arguments – don’t matter in the midst of this. Truth is irrelevant, because too many people no longer care about documented history, the Constitution, let alone God.  They want what they want – and they won’t let anyone or anything stand in the way. Rage and hate is the rule right now.

– they won’t even agree on the truth of two distinct genders, for heaven sake… 

It isn’t just one single group this is coming from. It is several factions of diverse background working together – all under the umbrella of ‘progressive.” In some cases, the only thing they have in common is a disdain for Jesus Christ, Capitalism, and/or historical America. After the Progressives attain the power they seek, they will get busy destroying each other, much like Hitler destroyed those that had helped him early on.

There is a claim that some right-wing group that no one has ever heard of was instigating some of the riots. I don’t believe it. People who honestly believe in God and rule of law DON’T do that, plain and simple. But I also don’t believe it because no one had ever heard of the blamed group before. I believe it was made up – much like the many other things the extreme left has made up over the last eight years or so.

The demand coming from the Minneapolis city council that they dismantle the police force and replace it with… ?  They won’t say what they are replacing it with – but don’t doubt they have already decided. Look at the instigator – former Congressman, now state Attorney General Ellison’s son – who is on the Minneapolis City Council. Look at the number of Muslims now in upper seats of leadership in the Twin Cities. This is now the power voting block in Minnesota.

Of course they have thought deeply about what to replace the police force with. They intend to implement a form of sharia law – only they will start out with just calling it some type of Community ‘something’.  They won’t use the word sharia – at least not right away. 

But even if it is a peaceful ‘force’ to start with – do not be naive enough to believe any ‘force’ can or will remain perfectly objective and fair for any extended period of time. And if the new ‘force’ isn’t operating 100% within Constitutional Rule of Law, what then? Many of those currently demanding the dismantling of the Minneapolis police force have already made it clear their dislike of ‘white’ Americans.

They’ve played the more foolish Americans so well, the Progressives have even succeeded at getting ‘white’ Americans to profess their disdain for white Americans, and major corporations to grovel at their feet.

This truly is a terrifying, terrible time for America.  We are truly on the edge.

If the Progressives can’t win the November election by legal means – they will attempt to do it illegally – and if that doesn’t work, the true fascists that they are, they intend to do it through violence.  That much is clear.

This makes it no different than when Hitler’s brown-shirts were intimidating the opposition in the early 1930’s.    

The Progressives are evil incarnate – it is everything we have always been warned about.  

I am glad my father, who was born in Breslau in 1929, passed away four years ago – so he didn’t have to live through it twice. 

God be with us all.

Dear Lord God – please intervene and save us and our nation. We ask this in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.

American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says

 Comments Off on American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says
Feb 262020
 
Heal our land - 2 Chronicles

Without a religious awakening, the American system of government will not last much longer, according to a renowned political scientist who is not a Christian.

In an interview with Canadian podcaster and pro-life activist Jonathan Van Maren, Charles Murray, a political scientist and author of Coming Apart — an analysis of the widening economic and social disparities in the United States in the last half-century — said he believed that U.S. constitutional government is “dead as a doornail.”

Absent large-scale spiritual renewal, the U.S. might only exist for a few more decades, he said.

Murray holds the F. A. Hayek Emeritus Chair in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C.

The political scientist believes that even those who call themselves conservative now believe things that the American Founders would find scandalous. At present, what is happening in the U.S. is undergoing a preview of what a “post-America” may be, he said.

“You cannot have a free society, a society that allows lots of individual autonomy without some outside force that leads people to control the self,” Murray explained.

The U.S. today is just another powerful, rich nation and the “American way of life” is now “meaningless,”…

READ MORE – https://www.christianpost.com/news/american-constitutional-government-will-die-unless-great-spiritual-awakening-occurs-scholar-says.html

To Save America

 Comments Off on To Save America
Jan 242020
 
To save the America we grew up with and loved

January 24, 2020, by Sharon Ward

America is clearly and deeply divided. The question is, will we ever be united again? Former newsman, Walter Shapiro, wrote in a Dec 27, 2018, Roll Call article, “What America, and not just the Democrats, need most of all in 2020 is a presidential candidate who can begin to heal the nation’s deep wounds.” He opines that a good president will not only give “an inspirational appeal to our better angels as citizens,” but as well have, “that half-forgotten virtue called competence — the ability to understand how government works and to know how to use the levers of power to recover from the wreckage of the Trump years.”

He started out sounding nice but ended with digging the knife again into the wound. Ridiculing again the President chosen and loved by half the nation, Shapiro demonstrates he has no desire to understand half the population. Those of his mind have no idea how – and perhaps no genuine desire to – heal this land.

Several, but not all, of the 2020 presidential contenders have talked about healing the nation.  An August 2019 article reported that former Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak was “running for president to heal this nation’s soul.” A November 8, 2019 headline announced that Senator Cory Booker “wants to heal nation,” and a July 12, 2019 New Yorker headline touted “Andrew Yang’s Robot Apocalypse Can Heal a Divided Nation.”

Dr James J. Zogby, in a November 12, 2019 article, asked, “Will 2020 elections heal or deepen the divide?”  Zogby then claims, “There can be no doubt that, by any measure, Donald Trump has been the most outrageous president in our history…It isn’t just the policies Trump has pursued. It is how he has exacerbated the polarization of our society and coarsened our political discourse.”

What is not fully acknowledged by many on the left is that our society was deeply polarized years before Trump came down the escalator. He is merely supporting and responding to those who elected him – as almost all politicians do.  As far as exacerbation is concerned, half of America believes the far-left – which has falsely alleged that President Trump and his supporters are racist, greedy, fascists – is responsible for almost all of the exacerbation and violence that has occurred.

Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that it is not conservatives who are courting fascism. While many progressives have said they consider Christians to be dislikable, controlling people, they, themselves, embrace strict societal controls designed to prevent Christians from living their faith. This is interesting because four centuries ago in what is now the State of Massachusetts, Puritans, who founded the New England governments, were devoted to Jesus Christ but governed in a very strict, controlling manner.  According to historian Perry Miller, Puritans “disliked individualism” and believed government should not only “interfere and direct and lead as much as it could, in all aspects of life,” but also “discipline and coerce” when necessary.  Liberals in the extremely progressive State of Massachusetts today might not all believe in God, but they, along with other east coast liberals, continue to believe government has a duty to control the masses. Many young liberals, in fact, strongly believe government should prevent free speech, free assembly, and free expressions of Christian religion.  

Democrats seem to underestimate how strongly conservatives feel about this – as well as underestimate how strongly conservatives felt about many of President Obama’s policies.  As long as the Obama administration was enacting policies that liberal America embraced  – they closed their eyes and pretended the rest of America didn’t matter.  President Trump, on the other hand, said they do matter.

Zogby admits that President Trump “speaks directly to” conservatives, but then wrongly claims President Trump “has convinced them that he alone understands them and will fight for them.” President Trump didn’t “convince” conservatives of this.  Liberals have. One only has to listen to a liberal for minutes to hear the condescending and derogatory remarks.  Democrats and their 2020 candidates consistently renounce conservatives as either idiots or racist, sexist, evil white people. If they aren’t doing it overtly, they do it subtly.  Zogby himself frames liberals as good and conservatives as bad, describing Democrats as reaching out to “young voters, ‘minorities,’” and “educated professional women,” while Republicans reach out to “the wealthy, of course, and white, ‘born again,’ non-college educated, and rural voters.”  He applauds Democrats as having “condemned inequality, promoted diversity and tolerance, and proposed a range of social programs designed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” then scorns Republicans – alleging they chant a “mantra” for “smaller government, lower taxes,” and “social issues (from abortion to anti-gay rights) to appeal to their voters.”  So much for healing.

The Democrat’s apparent ‘Alinsky’ assumption is that if they ridicule people enough, those people will change. News Flash. Ridicule is only making conservatives angrier and less likely to ‘submit.’  When Obama made his derisive ‘God and guns’ comment and Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “Deplorable,” conservatives embraced the terms proudly.  Zogby asserts that conservatives have latched onto President Trump as their “last, best hope” and feel attacks on him are a threat to their well-being. This is partially true. President Trump is currently the best, but not last, hope, and attacks on him, while indeed recognized as threats to well-being, will not stop conservatives. Even if successful at unseating the President – the divide will remain, and conservatives will find another brave soul to fight for them. To think otherwise is delusional.

While Zogby advises 2020 contenders to “appeal to their base, while also speaking directly…to the left-behind working class – of all races…recognizing the hurt, acknowledging the frustration, and sharing the anger of the right,” he does not understand that is impossible. His words may appeal to Leftist elites, but conservatives recognize them as inherently and insufferably paternalistic. Sure – share the anger. Then go ahead and do what you were going to do anyway. Democrats, including those who claim to want to heal the country through “unity and civility,” always assume that those they see as inferior will be satisfied with any token they might give.  After years of maligning conservatives, there is no reason to believe the 2020 Democrats will suddenly care now. 

Zogby admits that “Winning and transforming American politics means adopting a ‘both/and’ instead of an ‘either/or’ approach to politics” and “Ignoring or just trying to get more votes than the ‘other side,’ will only perpetuate the divide.” He also concedes that “lame calls for unity and civility fall flat when people are hurting, frustrated, and mad.” However, his advice to unify the nation “around an agenda that speaks to all Americans across the divide” is naïve, at best. Our nation is not split on minor points of policy, easily compromised.  It is split on primary, fundamental beliefs – core to everyone’s identity.  

Liberals think conservatives are deplorable?  Conservatives think liberals are insane.  Attacking God and guns wasn’t bad enough – liberals have gone on to rob Americans not only of who they have been as a society for centuries – but of the very essence of who they are as human beings.   

For example, when a Democrat reads that many Americans will never – ever – be comfortable with or accepting of biological men in women’s restrooms, does their stomach turn or lips curl into a sneer?  If so, accept that outside of a war that unites Americans in defense of their lives, there is no longer an agenda that will speak to both sides.  The left is quick to condemn any man who might have made the slightest perceived offence to a woman – yet is comfortable ignoring the deep perception of privacy and safety many women need in a bathroom – especially those who have been sexually assaulted in the past.

Several issues cannot be compromised. Too many Democrats have said they want to make children who are just days away from birth disposable.  The large number who staunchly embrace this agenda will need a transformative experience with God before America will ever be united – because conservatives will not cease condemning the cold-blooded murder of infants.   

The left has been attempting to subvert everything Americans have known about life and culture.  Democrats demand the right to teach a leftist illusion to the children who have been allowed to live – including that they can be another gender. Children are then confused into believing that not only can they change gender; they can choose from dozens of ‘genders.’  But because nothing is what it seems, they had better not make the mistake of assuming what a person looks like is what that person really is, and heaven forbid they call them by the wrong pronouns – which have multiplied exponentially along with the genders.  Liberals have then shamed and even punished children who, confused by all this, state the obvious.  

Liberals have told children that God isn’t important and probably doesn’t even exist. They told young girls that it is okay to kill their babies if they want. Then they started infusing this far-left agenda into children’s schoolwork, cartoons, movies and toys.  

Claiming that sexually explicit “Pride parades” are family fun and story hour at the library educational, liberals called conservatives uptight and homophobic, and suggested more drugs be legalized so everyone could just get high and relax.  President Obama broke the camel’s back when he mandated schools open up bathrooms, locker rooms, and even motel rooms on field trips so children the left had allowed to survive but strived to confuse could more effectively stress and confuse other children. In just ten years, Obama had forced so many changes to our society that many citizens over the age of 40 felt they had lost their own culture. This was no longer “your parent’s America.”  Many who were losing their children to the leftist distortions could see this wasn’t going to stop. It was only going to keep getting worse.

All of that – along with the economically destructive policies of the Obama administration – made people grieve for the America they grew up in.  This is why the phrase, “Make America Great Again,” spoke to so many.

Unfortunately, Democrats successfully convinced young people that the phrase was all about ‘race.’

It was not about ‘race.’  It also had less to do with the economy than many out-of-touch elites supposed.  While everyone wants better cash-flow and those who recognize the President’s economic achievements are very grateful for it, the provoked anger during the Obama administration wasn’t about jobs as much as it is about social issues.

The liberals had gone after the children.

Hands off our children. 

This is not a village. You do not get to raise our child.

Conservatives have been pushed too far. As men, women, mothers, fathers and grandparents, they will not allow the far left to destroy their families any longer.

Liberals are enraged at President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies – yet still don’t get that half of America loves President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies.  They want to make it about anything but that.

There can never be a uniting of these two, diametrically opposed worldviews. The divide is irreconcilable. Accept it.  No President can heal this nation. Leftists have been clear they intend to extend the craziness further, and conservative have been clear they intend to stop them. Both have been increasingly disgusted by the policies of each other’s successive administrations over the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, don’t worry.  It does not need to come to blows and one side does not need to push the other out of the country. We do not need to have a civil war.  While we cannot heal the divide, there is a way for this nation to survive.

We must genuinely honor the 10th amendment – just as the Founding Father’s originally envisioned.  Unlike genders, we really do have many different states to choose from – 51 if Northern California has its way.  

The original colonies were, by their measure, jarringly distinct from each other.  Each had its own manner of government and was highly protective of its territory. They had separate histories, specific religions, distinguishable cultures and unique commerce issues. They were often in competition or conflict with one another. Nevertheless, while they wanted to retain their individuality, they desired to form a collective central government for purposes of defense, oversea commerce, national infrastructure, and a small number of other issues best handled in unity. Our nation was created, constitution written – and over the years, civil rights added – under the premise that each state be able to maintain its own policies.

Today, if a state decides to be socialist, so be it – with the understanding that the federal government has no power and the other States are under no obligation to bail it out when it fails.  The federal government must finally limit itself to those powers vested by the Constitution and perform only those tasks it was created for. Each State must be free to determine its own internal policies as allowed under the federal constitution – including how long a new resident must wait before receiving state benefits.  The president must return to a more limited role as Chief executive.  It is only in this way – the way originally established by our founding fathers – that this nation can survive under two disparate world views.