Category: E. Jeffrey Ludwig

The Left's False Vision of Economics and Morality


Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.

Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.



Source link

Morality, Not Civility, Is the Basis of the Social Order


I would like to propose a hypothesis: “If a society loses its belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality, it will go down the drain faster than you can flush a wad of toilet paper.”  We shall test this hypothesis in a laboratory.

We shall have two teams of rats in cages.  In each cage, there will be four rats and two pieces of cheese.  In cage A, the rats will be allowed to fight over the cheese. In cage B, the rats are allowed to fight over the cheese but are required to say “please” before grabbing the cheese.  If our hypothesis is correct, the rats in cage A will kill each other for the cheese faster than the rats in cage B.

America is now more like cage B.  There is a minimal form of civility attempting to pass as morality.  Thus, we remain intact somewhat longer than other societies.  But the civility we mistakenly call morality is still such a futile exercise and devoid of spiritual power and enlightenment that mutual destruction is assured even if delayed.

This belief that common courtesy is the equivalent of morality is supplemented by a belief that the law – our written statutes and legal system – defines social order when civility fails, such as when there are rape-murders or, in civil cases, when construction companies are paid but do not do the job they were contracted to do.  The adjudications that arise in these and a myriad of other criminal and civil conflicts restore the fairness or equilibrium that is otherwise lacking.  Egregious harm to others, while sometimes called “evil,” is evil not in some religious or dogmatic sense, but in that it is far from a norm of civility that has replaced Judeo-Christian morality.

Although “evil” appears as an absolute term, it is now used in a relative sense. It is only relatively absolute.  From a logical point of view, of course “relatively absolute” makes no more sense than saying “truthful lie,” but in our fluid and bereft consciousness, this seems to be where we are.

Unlike our present hybrid or false morality (secular from beginning to end), true morality insists that right and wrong are God-given, that the ethical rules of life precede all life, that those rules are known only through supernatural revelation, and that the social order exists not so we all can get along with each other.  Rather, society exists and must cohere so that we may become more worthy of the God who created us, and, through following His rules, we may glorify His eternal and Holy Name.  These rules must be intelligible and enforced.  Holy Scripture states, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these [the means of sustenance and personal growth] will be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33).

The above view of morality and law is considered by various pundits to be relegated to the backwater of history and thus is sometimes called “a traditional view of morality.”  Likewise, our legal system is now treated in most law schools as having its own integrity and not founded on any principles (eternal in nature) outside that law.  This was not always the case.  The foundation of our law can be understood more readily if we consider the work of the founder of modern English Law philosophy, William Blackstone.  He understood that the law originated in an order of the universe, including a moral as well as physical order, that preceded the creation of law, and on which law was based.  For Blackstone, there were six types of law, but for our purposes, here are three of the six:

1. Law as a rule of human action. ‘… the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.


2. Law of nature. ‘These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.’


3. Revealed law. ‘The doctrines … delivered [by an immediate and direct revelation] we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures[.] … Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.’

Reflecting on the above, we see that we are creatures “endowed” with free will and reason.  Neither of these incredible gifts originated in ourselves.  They are not biological in origin, nor are they a result of evolution.  Rather, they inhere in the creation of humanity by a Creator who created us in His image.  Further, the laws of good and evil are immutable, meaning they are not sociological constructs subject to variability according to time and place.  Thus, when the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche envisages a “transvaluation of values,” where – under his “God is dead” scenario – what is good may be considered bad and what is bad may be considered good based on the valuations of an evolved übermensch (“superman”), he is expressing a highly intellectual wish, not a reality.  The universe, being immutable, cannot by using free will reverse good and evil.  In the same way, the flight of planes can take place, whereby the planes do not fall back to Earth, but their flight in no way changes the law of gravity, nor does it disprove the law of gravity.  Eventually, airplanes must return to earth.

Blackstone’s “revealed law” poses the greatest obstacle to our law professors and to humanity in the English-speaking world, including America.  That view, which elevates the moral law of the Old and New Testaments to the highest level, a level not to suffer contradiction, is untenable for non-Christian religionists, but most especially for the modern breed of left-wing cultural Marxists and secular humanists.  Homosexuality, adultery, abortion (infanticide), lewdness, fornication, incest, and debauchery are just as wrong today as they were 3,500 years ago.  The modern atheists want the Hustler-Playboy philosophy of human sexuality but are in such conflict with eternal moral values that they are surprised and appalled when those values produce a long list of public figures who have mistreated women.   

Thus, we are facing a corrupt reductio.  Post-Judeo-Christian morality is replaced by civility, and the eternal, immutable moral law is replaced by our very mutable legal system.  The legality of the legal system is defined by that system itself, and even conservative jurists refer to themselves as original textualists and not as natural law advocates.  Without the immutable, Scripture-based moral law, how long will it be before anarchy overtakes us?

Jeffrey Ludwig is a regular contributor to AmericanThinker and other conservative websites.  His recent interview on The Hagmann Report can be viewed here.

I would like to propose a hypothesis: “If a society loses its belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality, it will go down the drain faster than you can flush a wad of toilet paper.”  We shall test this hypothesis in a laboratory.

We shall have two teams of rats in cages.  In each cage, there will be four rats and two pieces of cheese.  In cage A, the rats will be allowed to fight over the cheese. In cage B, the rats are allowed to fight over the cheese but are required to say “please” before grabbing the cheese.  If our hypothesis is correct, the rats in cage A will kill each other for the cheese faster than the rats in cage B.

America is now more like cage B.  There is a minimal form of civility attempting to pass as morality.  Thus, we remain intact somewhat longer than other societies.  But the civility we mistakenly call morality is still such a futile exercise and devoid of spiritual power and enlightenment that mutual destruction is assured even if delayed.

This belief that common courtesy is the equivalent of morality is supplemented by a belief that the law – our written statutes and legal system – defines social order when civility fails, such as when there are rape-murders or, in civil cases, when construction companies are paid but do not do the job they were contracted to do.  The adjudications that arise in these and a myriad of other criminal and civil conflicts restore the fairness or equilibrium that is otherwise lacking.  Egregious harm to others, while sometimes called “evil,” is evil not in some religious or dogmatic sense, but in that it is far from a norm of civility that has replaced Judeo-Christian morality.

Although “evil” appears as an absolute term, it is now used in a relative sense. It is only relatively absolute.  From a logical point of view, of course “relatively absolute” makes no more sense than saying “truthful lie,” but in our fluid and bereft consciousness, this seems to be where we are.

Unlike our present hybrid or false morality (secular from beginning to end), true morality insists that right and wrong are God-given, that the ethical rules of life precede all life, that those rules are known only through supernatural revelation, and that the social order exists not so we all can get along with each other.  Rather, society exists and must cohere so that we may become more worthy of the God who created us, and, through following His rules, we may glorify His eternal and Holy Name.  These rules must be intelligible and enforced.  Holy Scripture states, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these [the means of sustenance and personal growth] will be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33).

The above view of morality and law is considered by various pundits to be relegated to the backwater of history and thus is sometimes called “a traditional view of morality.”  Likewise, our legal system is now treated in most law schools as having its own integrity and not founded on any principles (eternal in nature) outside that law.  This was not always the case.  The foundation of our law can be understood more readily if we consider the work of the founder of modern English Law philosophy, William Blackstone.  He understood that the law originated in an order of the universe, including a moral as well as physical order, that preceded the creation of law, and on which law was based.  For Blackstone, there were six types of law, but for our purposes, here are three of the six:

1. Law as a rule of human action. ‘… the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.


2. Law of nature. ‘These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.’


3. Revealed law. ‘The doctrines … delivered [by an immediate and direct revelation] we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures[.] … Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.’

Reflecting on the above, we see that we are creatures “endowed” with free will and reason.  Neither of these incredible gifts originated in ourselves.  They are not biological in origin, nor are they a result of evolution.  Rather, they inhere in the creation of humanity by a Creator who created us in His image.  Further, the laws of good and evil are immutable, meaning they are not sociological constructs subject to variability according to time and place.  Thus, when the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche envisages a “transvaluation of values,” where – under his “God is dead” scenario – what is good may be considered bad and what is bad may be considered good based on the valuations of an evolved übermensch (“superman”), he is expressing a highly intellectual wish, not a reality.  The universe, being immutable, cannot by using free will reverse good and evil.  In the same way, the flight of planes can take place, whereby the planes do not fall back to Earth, but their flight in no way changes the law of gravity, nor does it disprove the law of gravity.  Eventually, airplanes must return to earth.

Blackstone’s “revealed law” poses the greatest obstacle to our law professors and to humanity in the English-speaking world, including America.  That view, which elevates the moral law of the Old and New Testaments to the highest level, a level not to suffer contradiction, is untenable for non-Christian religionists, but most especially for the modern breed of left-wing cultural Marxists and secular humanists.  Homosexuality, adultery, abortion (infanticide), lewdness, fornication, incest, and debauchery are just as wrong today as they were 3,500 years ago.  The modern atheists want the Hustler-Playboy philosophy of human sexuality but are in such conflict with eternal moral values that they are surprised and appalled when those values produce a long list of public figures who have mistreated women.   

Thus, we are facing a corrupt reductio.  Post-Judeo-Christian morality is replaced by civility, and the eternal, immutable moral law is replaced by our very mutable legal system.  The legality of the legal system is defined by that system itself, and even conservative jurists refer to themselves as original textualists and not as natural law advocates.  Without the immutable, Scripture-based moral law, how long will it be before anarchy overtakes us?

Jeffrey Ludwig is a regular contributor to AmericanThinker and other conservative websites.  His recent interview on The Hagmann Report can be viewed here.



Source link

Who Are the Real Fascists in American Politics?


President Donald J. Trump is routinely referred to as a fascist by the left. Much of that rhetoric originates from within the Democrat Party. We hear little to no outrage by either Democrats or Republicans at the use of this inflammatory language. In fact, the cliched phrase “the silence is deafening” finds a real application in this climate of extreme disparagement. Think of it: Trump’s desire to have extreme vetting of immigrants from certain war-torn Islamic countries is portrayed repeatedly as racist, Islamaphobic, and fascist. These countries are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. They are countries where members of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, El Shabab, the Houthis, Hamas, Fatah, Hizb’allah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other maniacal Allah-centered groups are now considered moderates simply because they are not-ISIS. Extreme vetting to protect the citizens of the USA is met with extreme disparagement. The disparagers want to defame the very individual who wants to do the job he was elected to do, namely, protect the citizenry from enemies foreign and domestic.

The term fascism is defined by one source as coming from the Latin fascio, meaning bundle. The people are bundled into “one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.” The prototype of fascism can be found in the program of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party, called “Nazi” for short. The very name of the Nazi party reveals that it was a party of the left, as it has the word “socialist” in it. The street battles between the Nazis and the communists were battles between two factions of the left.

Among communists there is a stronger strain of internationalism or globalism than among socialists because the idea of a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie extends beyond national boundaries. However, both socialists and communists either reject or radically modify the liberal democratic ideals of personal autonomy, free (capitalistic) markets, elective government where laws, not person or class, are determinative of conduct, and natural rights are enshrined as crucial concepts for social order and productivity. For the left, equality based on an omniscient government is the highest value.

The German National Socialist program was a twenty-five-point written program that remained essentially the same from 1920 until the surrender of Germany to the Allies in 1945. If we look at a few of the points from that program, we will see that calling Trump’s populism and America-first philosophy “Hitlerian” is a vicious mischaracterization. The first item on Hitler’s program was that all Germanic people should be governed by Germany. This was part of the people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft) whereby Germany would be racially homogeneous.

There is nothing in Trump’s immigration policies that project race as a basis for entrance to the USA, nor attacking the pluralism of communities in the USA. His emphasis has been in increasing protection for U.S. citizens from Islamic enemies that see non-Sharia societies as communities to be dominated. Also, he wants to attract people with more skills, including English skills, who will not be draining the budgets of all levels of government with welfare costs. The surge in immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was not supported with vast welfare programs that came out of the pockets of citizens already enjoying the economic blessings of living in the USA. It is obvious that if immigrants can dwell in their enclaves and collect various benefits, there is less incentive to engage with the indigenous culture and integrate with existing mores of the workplace and neighborhood.

Point Number 13 of the Nazi Program states the following: “We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries.” I am including reference to this point lest any reader think that I am merely playing with words or exaggerating the left-wing, totalitarian thrust of National Socialism. Thus, the Nazis wanted government ownership of all industry. Is there anyone on the face of the earth who thinks that Trump wants that? Rather, if anyone would opt for nationalization, it would be Democrats who insist on more and more regulations of industry, and more and more forms and accountability to government by individual citizens. As regulation keeps growing and becomes excessive, it morphs into control. Even if there is, technically-speaking, private ownership, the freedom that ownership normally implies is negated by the tight controls imposed and the accountability to governmental offices. For example, technology now exists which would enable the regulation in private homes and businesses of heat and air-conditioning from a remote location.

The anti-Trump screamers and professional disparagers at MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are the ones most closely aligned with the socialist/communist ideal of public ownership and control. Under the guise of environmental concerns, stopping discrimination against “protected classes,” paying a fair share, getting funds for dubious public programs, buying peace by attempting to bribe barbarous enemies like Iran and North Korea through various “deals,” and enlarging public support of the supposed indigent to the point where 48% of Americans do not pay any tax at all, the tentacles of government growth keep expanding. The true National Socialists in our midst based solely on Point No. 13 of the National Socialist Program are the left wing of the American political class and their apparatchiks in the media.    

Then, looking at Point No. 24 in Hitler’s Program, we see the same point that is being made by the drum beating Trump haters. That point states, “We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race… the good of the state before the good of the individual.” For the National Socialists, the good of the state is supreme and all Christian creeds are subordinate to the highest values which Hitler’s party claimed to uphold as being the values of the entire community of blood Germans.

Thus, the Democrats have no problem booing even the word “God” at their convention. Christian beliefs in a God-given and God-driven morality is demoted to being a mere creed and thus subordinate to the all-knowing “moral sense” of the state. The creed-bearers must be suppressed and/or silenced. Prayer is to be abolished from the public square because it is a mere creed. In the schools, it is thus okay. for a teacher to tell Johnny not to hit Jack, but it is mere creedalism to say that Jesus Christ said “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The taking of a life through abortion is deemed to be a mere creed unable to see the good of all which requires millions of infant bodies to feed the insatiable Moloch. The love and beauty of homosexual marriage is unappreciated and depreciated by the contemptuous creed-bearers; and confiscatory taxation is justified even though we fought our War for Independence to stop it, remembering that insignificant creedal command, “You shall not steal.” Yes, the Hitlerites are throwing stones at President Trump, but in doing so, they call our attention to their own adherence to the National Socialist Program which millions died to defeat.

President Donald J. Trump is routinely referred to as a fascist by the left. Much of that rhetoric originates from within the Democrat Party. We hear little to no outrage by either Democrats or Republicans at the use of this inflammatory language. In fact, the cliched phrase “the silence is deafening” finds a real application in this climate of extreme disparagement. Think of it: Trump’s desire to have extreme vetting of immigrants from certain war-torn Islamic countries is portrayed repeatedly as racist, Islamaphobic, and fascist. These countries are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. They are countries where members of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, El Shabab, the Houthis, Hamas, Fatah, Hizb’allah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other maniacal Allah-centered groups are now considered moderates simply because they are not-ISIS. Extreme vetting to protect the citizens of the USA is met with extreme disparagement. The disparagers want to defame the very individual who wants to do the job he was elected to do, namely, protect the citizenry from enemies foreign and domestic.

The term fascism is defined by one source as coming from the Latin fascio, meaning bundle. The people are bundled into “one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.” The prototype of fascism can be found in the program of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party, called “Nazi” for short. The very name of the Nazi party reveals that it was a party of the left, as it has the word “socialist” in it. The street battles between the Nazis and the communists were battles between two factions of the left.

Among communists there is a stronger strain of internationalism or globalism than among socialists because the idea of a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie extends beyond national boundaries. However, both socialists and communists either reject or radically modify the liberal democratic ideals of personal autonomy, free (capitalistic) markets, elective government where laws, not person or class, are determinative of conduct, and natural rights are enshrined as crucial concepts for social order and productivity. For the left, equality based on an omniscient government is the highest value.

The German National Socialist program was a twenty-five-point written program that remained essentially the same from 1920 until the surrender of Germany to the Allies in 1945. If we look at a few of the points from that program, we will see that calling Trump’s populism and America-first philosophy “Hitlerian” is a vicious mischaracterization. The first item on Hitler’s program was that all Germanic people should be governed by Germany. This was part of the people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft) whereby Germany would be racially homogeneous.

There is nothing in Trump’s immigration policies that project race as a basis for entrance to the USA, nor attacking the pluralism of communities in the USA. His emphasis has been in increasing protection for U.S. citizens from Islamic enemies that see non-Sharia societies as communities to be dominated. Also, he wants to attract people with more skills, including English skills, who will not be draining the budgets of all levels of government with welfare costs. The surge in immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was not supported with vast welfare programs that came out of the pockets of citizens already enjoying the economic blessings of living in the USA. It is obvious that if immigrants can dwell in their enclaves and collect various benefits, there is less incentive to engage with the indigenous culture and integrate with existing mores of the workplace and neighborhood.

Point Number 13 of the Nazi Program states the following: “We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries.” I am including reference to this point lest any reader think that I am merely playing with words or exaggerating the left-wing, totalitarian thrust of National Socialism. Thus, the Nazis wanted government ownership of all industry. Is there anyone on the face of the earth who thinks that Trump wants that? Rather, if anyone would opt for nationalization, it would be Democrats who insist on more and more regulations of industry, and more and more forms and accountability to government by individual citizens. As regulation keeps growing and becomes excessive, it morphs into control. Even if there is, technically-speaking, private ownership, the freedom that ownership normally implies is negated by the tight controls imposed and the accountability to governmental offices. For example, technology now exists which would enable the regulation in private homes and businesses of heat and air-conditioning from a remote location.

The anti-Trump screamers and professional disparagers at MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are the ones most closely aligned with the socialist/communist ideal of public ownership and control. Under the guise of environmental concerns, stopping discrimination against “protected classes,” paying a fair share, getting funds for dubious public programs, buying peace by attempting to bribe barbarous enemies like Iran and North Korea through various “deals,” and enlarging public support of the supposed indigent to the point where 48% of Americans do not pay any tax at all, the tentacles of government growth keep expanding. The true National Socialists in our midst based solely on Point No. 13 of the National Socialist Program are the left wing of the American political class and their apparatchiks in the media.    

Then, looking at Point No. 24 in Hitler’s Program, we see the same point that is being made by the drum beating Trump haters. That point states, “We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race… the good of the state before the good of the individual.” For the National Socialists, the good of the state is supreme and all Christian creeds are subordinate to the highest values which Hitler’s party claimed to uphold as being the values of the entire community of blood Germans.

Thus, the Democrats have no problem booing even the word “God” at their convention. Christian beliefs in a God-given and God-driven morality is demoted to being a mere creed and thus subordinate to the all-knowing “moral sense” of the state. The creed-bearers must be suppressed and/or silenced. Prayer is to be abolished from the public square because it is a mere creed. In the schools, it is thus okay. for a teacher to tell Johnny not to hit Jack, but it is mere creedalism to say that Jesus Christ said “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The taking of a life through abortion is deemed to be a mere creed unable to see the good of all which requires millions of infant bodies to feed the insatiable Moloch. The love and beauty of homosexual marriage is unappreciated and depreciated by the contemptuous creed-bearers; and confiscatory taxation is justified even though we fought our War for Independence to stop it, remembering that insignificant creedal command, “You shall not steal.” Yes, the Hitlerites are throwing stones at President Trump, but in doing so, they call our attention to their own adherence to the National Socialist Program which millions died to defeat.



Source link

Roger Goodell and Our Faltering Patriotism


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if NFL players were told to commit to standing during the national anthem, he answered: “We did not ask for that.” However, he did not follow up by telling the press what the NFL did ask for. Civility? Patriotism? Respect for the fan base? Loving one’s neighbor as oneself? Loving the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength? Goodell, it seems, thrives on pap and evasiveness. Perhaps he is emblematic of a mindset in American public life, in politics as well as big business, namely the making of vapid circumlocutions. Could it be that Americans are becoming exceedingly tired of the public vapidity of our politicians and other public figures? Could that be an element in the election of and appreciation for “The Donald?”

Previously, the Associated Press reported that 11 owners and more than a dozen players convened, and one of the topics of conversation was enhancing the players’ platforms for speaking out on social issues. Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said the session was “constructive.” On another player-related topic, Goodell also was asked about the prevalence of the degenerative brain disease CTE in NFL players. The issue of brain damage now forms the basis of a lawsuit against the league by the family of Aaron Hernandez, a former pro player convicted for murder who ultimately committed suicide in prison. He replied, “I think there’s been a great deal of focus on this issue of brain trauma,” [but] “we’ll let the lawyers handle that and deal with it.”  However, he was not asked if there were any discernible connection between degenerative brain disease and refusal to stand for the singing of the National Anthem.

Peter King, writing for Sports Illustrated, believes the League is trying to negotiate for and put in place a kind of community engagement project for players. These projects might try to “highlight and sponsor work on civil rights causes in NFL communities. They would be promoting better police-community relations, or working on reduced sentencing and work-release employment programs.” In short, the NFL is considering implementing some social justice programs to placate its players who are insisting that there is considerable, intractable injustice towards the black community by the police and by the racist mindset of the justice system. Like former President Barack Obama, many of the players may believe that racism is almost part of white DNA. Since the racist DNA has not been mapped by the Human Genome Project, it may be a little difficult to prove this assumption, so the next best thing is to politicize the idea as if it were true, and then extort tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from the NFL to promote that falsehood.

In the progressive world, these anti-social players are actually johnny-come-latelies to the progressive anti-American program. Disrespect for the flag and for the nation was and is standard fare. For example, in the New York Public High Schools where this writer taught for 21 years, the National Anthem was only played or sung at graduation (almost no one knew the words). In the 1990s, I taught at one high school where the only song of allegiance played or sung was “Lift Up Your Heart and Sing” (referred to as the Black National Anthem). In another school that was more racially diverse, the students were asked to rise and say the Pledge each morning (after 9/11 — prior to that date the Pledge had not been recited since 1966, the height of the Vietnam War protests). Ninth graders would almost all rise to say the Pledge. About half the tenth graders would stand; then, two or three in each homeroom of 11th graders; and finally, 0–1 of the seniors. Not one patriotic song like “God Bless America,” “America The Beautiful,” or “My Country Tis of Thee” was ever sung at any assembly at any time in over 20 years! Again, the National Anthem was only sung (listened to) at the graduation ceremonies.

Roger Goodell is only the most recent of gutless wonders in a long line of cave-ins to the progressive, anti-American agenda. He is a classic empty suit. He’s another pretty face. He’s as vapid as a bottle of formaldehyde. When I was younger, before the anti-American face of the Democrat Party fully revealed itself (undoubtedly it was apparent to those with eyes to see), the Goodell type was already appearing on the public’s screen — vapid, self-seeking, but attractive by reason of good looks and seeming amiability (however, it is an amiability masking intense self-absorption). Moving through the years, the “Goodell types” became identified in my mind not only with vapidity but with the American thralldom with mediocrity that is the essence of our mores. We have some high achievers with incredible drive. We have creative souls who break new ground in every field of endeavor, and there are some learned ones with a high bar for moral and intellectual achievement. However, the mass culture becomes increasingly mediocre with every passing year and decade. The mediocrity is intensifying. A depressing sameness and couldn’t-care-less quality is moving like glacial moraine throughout the culture.

The mediocre disguised as political correctness and so-called “social justice” keeps making headway against common sense and a true valuation of the moral and just. “Goodelism” might be a good name for the acceleration and spreading of the mediocre. A Goodellian might be called a “loser,” but the essence of mediocrity is that it is too tasteless and moribund to either win or lose. It’s an empty suit even when it’s full.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if NFL players were told to commit to standing during the national anthem, he answered: “We did not ask for that.” However, he did not follow up by telling the press what the NFL did ask for. Civility? Patriotism? Respect for the fan base? Loving one’s neighbor as oneself? Loving the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength? Goodell, it seems, thrives on pap and evasiveness. Perhaps he is emblematic of a mindset in American public life, in politics as well as big business, namely the making of vapid circumlocutions. Could it be that Americans are becoming exceedingly tired of the public vapidity of our politicians and other public figures? Could that be an element in the election of and appreciation for “The Donald?”

Previously, the Associated Press reported that 11 owners and more than a dozen players convened, and one of the topics of conversation was enhancing the players’ platforms for speaking out on social issues. Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said the session was “constructive.” On another player-related topic, Goodell also was asked about the prevalence of the degenerative brain disease CTE in NFL players. The issue of brain damage now forms the basis of a lawsuit against the league by the family of Aaron Hernandez, a former pro player convicted for murder who ultimately committed suicide in prison. He replied, “I think there’s been a great deal of focus on this issue of brain trauma,” [but] “we’ll let the lawyers handle that and deal with it.”  However, he was not asked if there were any discernible connection between degenerative brain disease and refusal to stand for the singing of the National Anthem.

Peter King, writing for Sports Illustrated, believes the League is trying to negotiate for and put in place a kind of community engagement project for players. These projects might try to “highlight and sponsor work on civil rights causes in NFL communities. They would be promoting better police-community relations, or working on reduced sentencing and work-release employment programs.” In short, the NFL is considering implementing some social justice programs to placate its players who are insisting that there is considerable, intractable injustice towards the black community by the police and by the racist mindset of the justice system. Like former President Barack Obama, many of the players may believe that racism is almost part of white DNA. Since the racist DNA has not been mapped by the Human Genome Project, it may be a little difficult to prove this assumption, so the next best thing is to politicize the idea as if it were true, and then extort tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from the NFL to promote that falsehood.

In the progressive world, these anti-social players are actually johnny-come-latelies to the progressive anti-American program. Disrespect for the flag and for the nation was and is standard fare. For example, in the New York Public High Schools where this writer taught for 21 years, the National Anthem was only played or sung at graduation (almost no one knew the words). In the 1990s, I taught at one high school where the only song of allegiance played or sung was “Lift Up Your Heart and Sing” (referred to as the Black National Anthem). In another school that was more racially diverse, the students were asked to rise and say the Pledge each morning (after 9/11 — prior to that date the Pledge had not been recited since 1966, the height of the Vietnam War protests). Ninth graders would almost all rise to say the Pledge. About half the tenth graders would stand; then, two or three in each homeroom of 11th graders; and finally, 0–1 of the seniors. Not one patriotic song like “God Bless America,” “America The Beautiful,” or “My Country Tis of Thee” was ever sung at any assembly at any time in over 20 years! Again, the National Anthem was only sung (listened to) at the graduation ceremonies.

Roger Goodell is only the most recent of gutless wonders in a long line of cave-ins to the progressive, anti-American agenda. He is a classic empty suit. He’s another pretty face. He’s as vapid as a bottle of formaldehyde. When I was younger, before the anti-American face of the Democrat Party fully revealed itself (undoubtedly it was apparent to those with eyes to see), the Goodell type was already appearing on the public’s screen — vapid, self-seeking, but attractive by reason of good looks and seeming amiability (however, it is an amiability masking intense self-absorption). Moving through the years, the “Goodell types” became identified in my mind not only with vapidity but with the American thralldom with mediocrity that is the essence of our mores. We have some high achievers with incredible drive. We have creative souls who break new ground in every field of endeavor, and there are some learned ones with a high bar for moral and intellectual achievement. However, the mass culture becomes increasingly mediocre with every passing year and decade. The mediocrity is intensifying. A depressing sameness and couldn’t-care-less quality is moving like glacial moraine throughout the culture.

The mediocre disguised as political correctness and so-called “social justice” keeps making headway against common sense and a true valuation of the moral and just. “Goodelism” might be a good name for the acceleration and spreading of the mediocre. A Goodellian might be called a “loser,” but the essence of mediocrity is that it is too tasteless and moribund to either win or lose. It’s an empty suit even when it’s full.



Source link

Trump Seeks a Pre-1945 Nationalism


Globalism threatens the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Donald Trump’s agenda is anti-globalist at the core. It is also nationalistic to the core, and senses in our history a national destiny. It is not manifest destiny as announced in the 1840s, nor is it the progressive/Marxist ideal of classlessness and world cooperation that has manifested aggressively since 1945. Rather, it grasps at the role of Providence — God’s will — as we move through time and space as a giver of hope (land of opportunity), producer of wealth, and respecter of personal autonomy within a lawful context.

Trump’s personal eccentricities and belligerent insecurities sometimes get in the way of this vision. But his nationalist agenda is less threatened by his personal shortcomings than by vested economic interests and ideological partisans that have a life and death stake in the globalist agenda. Globalism was set in motion at the end of World War II, and gathered momentum by the successes of the institutions created. With the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, it seemed at that time we were on a path of greater world cooperation, thus creating the likelihood of greater world peace. Then came the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing a shoring up of our defense against our communist enemies. This was followed by the initial steps towards the European Union by the signing of the Treaty of Paris founding the European Coal and Steel Community.

However, the goal of world cooperation was not the only item on the agenda. Globalism was also being promoted as part of a leftist platform that sees in capitalism an inherent tendency toward exploitation and imperialism. Thus, the globalist agenda is not merely a desire for world cooperation, but is being moved forward by individuals who oppose American sovereignty and our way of life. And there are still other individuals and corporate leaders who believe that they will benefit themselves and their shareholders by exploiting contacts in various governments throughout the world to their own advantage as national identities give way to world markets and, ultimately, to a one-world government.

Step by step, during the 72 years following WWII, multilateral engagement in regional bodies and international rules of trade were put into place. We moved gradually, some might say stealthily, from world cooperation to a globalist agenda, gradual loss of sovereignty, and deeper challenges to our legal system in favor of international legal standards. We entered into climate accords, restrained our own energy production by disallowing offshore drilling and important opportunities in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. Step by step, momentum grew from cooperation to a globalist manipulation of the world economy, accomplished often through executive and bureaucratic fiat. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, various pan-African organizations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement spread tentacles of control throughout the world on a scale that meant encroachment on our national goals and identity. American companies with production and customer service operations overseas became commonplace, and overseas conglomerates were increasingly investing in American industries and sometimes building plants here. American jobs were sacrificed in the name of overall world efficiencies and wealth production for the planet. This was justified in university economics departments by David Ricardo’s comparative advantage principle.

Phenomenal advances in communications via Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype, etc. created a taste for one worldism that complements the political agenda that has developed in Washington D.C. and other world capitals.

Yet, it would be naïve to think that the acceleration of the globalist agenda was driven mainly by market forces. The Marxist ideology that is consciously internationalist has been in play in the USA since the 19th century, and gained momentum during the post-WWII decades. The left bought into the idea that under capitalism, nationalism led to excessive competition among nation-states which in turn led to imperialism which in turn led to wars to protect their bourgeois empires. By incessantly promoting the link between free markets, nationalism, and war, the Marxist/globalist agenda promoted itself not only in terms of the class struggle to bring about a classless, noncompetitive society but also as promoting peace in a war torn, selfish, capitalistic world. The left, as apostles first of justice and then, supposedly, of world peace, claimed a messianic role for itself.

However, despite strong historical evidence that noncapitalistic, nonrepublican models of government and economic organization not only do not work but are tied to chaos, crime, mass incarcerations, and corruption, for increasing numbers – especially those who self-define as Democrats — nationalism has become outdated and counterintuitive. The sense of the USA as having a providential role in mankind’s history is unacceptable because they have bought into the post-WWII left-propelled momentum away from the Puritan vision of America as a “city on a hill” with a Divine mission.

Yet, obviously, since he was elected, Trump represents that nationalist ideal that is not dead, but is a meaningful ideal of what America was once, and should be again. It is a recovery movement, a hope of cultural health restored after 70-plus years of globalist/leftist drift. Trump’s anti-globalism is a dynamic of liberation from the bureaucratic mindset that is part and parcel of internationalist expertise (the administrative state with vast office buildings turning out rules, regulations, and millions of sheets of paper is the child of a vision originally put forward by Woodrow Wilson). He is the first to demand protection from the Islamist threat to our national identity and security. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord. He has rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest foray into globalist economic deals. He is on the brink of downgrading the P5+1 deal (it was actually a treaty which was treated as a “deal”) we entered into with Iran. He is intent on inviting corporations to expand their U.S. operations by cutting the corporate income tax. And, instead of pacifying America’s enemies (called “strategic patience” by the Democrat pacifiers), he is rejecting their violent, anti-American agenda. He knows that our economy and national spirit cannot grow if we cower in a corner of our own making.

One last point: There are those who believe that making deals is inherently internationalist. If you are in deal-making mode, you will automatically be engaged in new markets with foreign players. Is Trump then denying this reality? Actually, he has addressed this numerous times.  First, bilateral or trilateral deals with one or two other countries should be made more often rather than the gargantuan multilateral deals that have become the basis of our international trade agreements. Second, multilateral deals need to have built-in more fairness to the export of U.S. products to other countries. There are mechanisms in those deals for resolving trade disputes that arise under the agreements, but he is claiming that the formulation of those agreements is skewed in favor of the international community.  

True nationalism then is a reality that inherently isolates Trump, but it is worth fighting for. Nationalism as projected by President Trump and his supporters is actually a pre-1945, not a 1950s, ideal. In the 1950s it still seemed that we were in the nationalist mode, but in reality, the juggernaut threatening American nationalism had already been set in motion.

Globalism threatens the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Donald Trump’s agenda is anti-globalist at the core. It is also nationalistic to the core, and senses in our history a national destiny. It is not manifest destiny as announced in the 1840s, nor is it the progressive/Marxist ideal of classlessness and world cooperation that has manifested aggressively since 1945. Rather, it grasps at the role of Providence — God’s will — as we move through time and space as a giver of hope (land of opportunity), producer of wealth, and respecter of personal autonomy within a lawful context.

Trump’s personal eccentricities and belligerent insecurities sometimes get in the way of this vision. But his nationalist agenda is less threatened by his personal shortcomings than by vested economic interests and ideological partisans that have a life and death stake in the globalist agenda. Globalism was set in motion at the end of World War II, and gathered momentum by the successes of the institutions created. With the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, it seemed at that time we were on a path of greater world cooperation, thus creating the likelihood of greater world peace. Then came the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing a shoring up of our defense against our communist enemies. This was followed by the initial steps towards the European Union by the signing of the Treaty of Paris founding the European Coal and Steel Community.

However, the goal of world cooperation was not the only item on the agenda. Globalism was also being promoted as part of a leftist platform that sees in capitalism an inherent tendency toward exploitation and imperialism. Thus, the globalist agenda is not merely a desire for world cooperation, but is being moved forward by individuals who oppose American sovereignty and our way of life. And there are still other individuals and corporate leaders who believe that they will benefit themselves and their shareholders by exploiting contacts in various governments throughout the world to their own advantage as national identities give way to world markets and, ultimately, to a one-world government.

Step by step, during the 72 years following WWII, multilateral engagement in regional bodies and international rules of trade were put into place. We moved gradually, some might say stealthily, from world cooperation to a globalist agenda, gradual loss of sovereignty, and deeper challenges to our legal system in favor of international legal standards. We entered into climate accords, restrained our own energy production by disallowing offshore drilling and important opportunities in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. Step by step, momentum grew from cooperation to a globalist manipulation of the world economy, accomplished often through executive and bureaucratic fiat. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, various pan-African organizations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement spread tentacles of control throughout the world on a scale that meant encroachment on our national goals and identity. American companies with production and customer service operations overseas became commonplace, and overseas conglomerates were increasingly investing in American industries and sometimes building plants here. American jobs were sacrificed in the name of overall world efficiencies and wealth production for the planet. This was justified in university economics departments by David Ricardo’s comparative advantage principle.

Phenomenal advances in communications via Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype, etc. created a taste for one worldism that complements the political agenda that has developed in Washington D.C. and other world capitals.

Yet, it would be naïve to think that the acceleration of the globalist agenda was driven mainly by market forces. The Marxist ideology that is consciously internationalist has been in play in the USA since the 19th century, and gained momentum during the post-WWII decades. The left bought into the idea that under capitalism, nationalism led to excessive competition among nation-states which in turn led to imperialism which in turn led to wars to protect their bourgeois empires. By incessantly promoting the link between free markets, nationalism, and war, the Marxist/globalist agenda promoted itself not only in terms of the class struggle to bring about a classless, noncompetitive society but also as promoting peace in a war torn, selfish, capitalistic world. The left, as apostles first of justice and then, supposedly, of world peace, claimed a messianic role for itself.

However, despite strong historical evidence that noncapitalistic, nonrepublican models of government and economic organization not only do not work but are tied to chaos, crime, mass incarcerations, and corruption, for increasing numbers – especially those who self-define as Democrats — nationalism has become outdated and counterintuitive. The sense of the USA as having a providential role in mankind’s history is unacceptable because they have bought into the post-WWII left-propelled momentum away from the Puritan vision of America as a “city on a hill” with a Divine mission.

Yet, obviously, since he was elected, Trump represents that nationalist ideal that is not dead, but is a meaningful ideal of what America was once, and should be again. It is a recovery movement, a hope of cultural health restored after 70-plus years of globalist/leftist drift. Trump’s anti-globalism is a dynamic of liberation from the bureaucratic mindset that is part and parcel of internationalist expertise (the administrative state with vast office buildings turning out rules, regulations, and millions of sheets of paper is the child of a vision originally put forward by Woodrow Wilson). He is the first to demand protection from the Islamist threat to our national identity and security. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord. He has rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest foray into globalist economic deals. He is on the brink of downgrading the P5+1 deal (it was actually a treaty which was treated as a “deal”) we entered into with Iran. He is intent on inviting corporations to expand their U.S. operations by cutting the corporate income tax. And, instead of pacifying America’s enemies (called “strategic patience” by the Democrat pacifiers), he is rejecting their violent, anti-American agenda. He knows that our economy and national spirit cannot grow if we cower in a corner of our own making.

One last point: There are those who believe that making deals is inherently internationalist. If you are in deal-making mode, you will automatically be engaged in new markets with foreign players. Is Trump then denying this reality? Actually, he has addressed this numerous times.  First, bilateral or trilateral deals with one or two other countries should be made more often rather than the gargantuan multilateral deals that have become the basis of our international trade agreements. Second, multilateral deals need to have built-in more fairness to the export of U.S. products to other countries. There are mechanisms in those deals for resolving trade disputes that arise under the agreements, but he is claiming that the formulation of those agreements is skewed in favor of the international community.  

True nationalism then is a reality that inherently isolates Trump, but it is worth fighting for. Nationalism as projected by President Trump and his supporters is actually a pre-1945, not a 1950s, ideal. In the 1950s it still seemed that we were in the nationalist mode, but in reality, the juggernaut threatening American nationalism had already been set in motion.



Source link

Vietnam, the Flag, and Me



There are still a lot of old leftists who are proud of the anti-Vietnam War position they held in the nineteen-sixties and early seventies.



Source link

The Sexual Revolution Corrupts Our Public Schools


As we reflect on law and policy, it is often useful to see how changes play out in the practical, nitty-gritty of everyday life. For example, we can consider how progressives have, over time, separated love, sex, and marriage.  Divorce has skyrocketed during the post-WWII years, out-of-wedlock children have come into existence by the millions, sexually transmitted disease has become rampant, cohabitation is becoming more and more popular with each passing year, the porno industry has captured the time, money, and imaginations of tens of millions of men on the Internet, and there is a gossip feeding frenzy regarding the immoral habits of celebrities.  Pedophilia is being publicly defended as a legitimate activity, and being HIV positive is something, according to signs on NYC subways, that can be handled by partnering with one’s doctor and various city agencies. 

The “new morality” is manifesting in many ways in our public high schools.  Judeo-Christian values and traditional norms promoting integration of love, sex, marriage, modesty, and self-restraint are disappearing with the happy support of school administrations.  Schools may not lead students in prayer, but are allowed to lead students into paths of sexual expression.

When this writer was teaching in the New York City public high schools, the sexual revolution expressed itself through sex education classes where the teachers instructed students on how to unroll and stretch a condom onto bananas and/or cucumbers. This was and is standard fare in “health ed” classes throughout NYC public high schools.  However, in one high school where I taught, a unique a health center was created.  There, students could have a 15-20 minute conversation with a “counselor,” and then be referred for an abortion without a parent’s consent (in New York State, parental consent is not required).  When I had the audacity to rebuke one of the counsellors about her mission, she defended herself by stating that the students referred by her came from dysfunctional homes, and that the babies being aborted were being saved from entering those same environments.

While covering a class for an absent health education teacher, a sex ed textbook lay open on the desk.  It stated that some people still prefer to wait until marriage to have sexual intimacy, and that these people should be tolerated.  This was to show the magnanimity in the progressive mindset. The unity of love, sex, and marriage is no longer treated as a goal, but as a sub-species of intimacy merely to be tolerated.  

A different chapter in the book had a comment about the male sex organ, and stated that many believe that there was a relation between size of said organ and pleasure in the sex act. However, the reader was cautioned that this was an urban legend, and that studies had shown that there was in fact no such connection.  It was a relief to know that our teens were being disabused of this misconception.

On one occasion, a directive was issued that all history teachers would on a certain date pick up a lot of condoms and distribute them to the students in their classes to whomever requested them.  Since I did not believe that part of my educational duties was to promote teenage fornication, and since condoms were readily available in corner grocery stores or pharmacies, I began thinking of creative ways to evade completing this assignment.  One of the “ways” was prayer.  The prayer was answered, and on the day before distribution, the assigned project was taken away from the history teachers, and given to a special condom office in the school.

As early as the late nineties, a new student club was formed, The Gay and Straight Alliance. The group’s sponsor, a young lady history teacher, knew about my Christian beliefs, and taunted me by swirling around the history department office and mockingly repeating, “I don’t have a soul. I don’t have a soul.” Notices announcing the club’s meetings were regularly put on walls throughout the school.  It was clear that this club was not just to be a safe haven for same-sex attracted students but was to be a place for recruiting straight students into the homosexual lifestyle.  The teen years with its many identity stresses is a fertile field for recruitment.  The principal received a note from me asking him to imagine hallways with boys holding hands, hugging, and kissing.  The exhortation was that he do all in his power to sabotage the club.  However, there was no reply from the principal’s office, and my letter was quietly placed in my personnel file. 

At one of the faculty meetings, the topic of student sexual harassment came up. The head of the Guidance Department was asked if boys hanging around the doors of the girls’ bathrooms was being considered “sexual harassment.”  The principal leaped to his feet, and answered the question even before the Assistant Principal could get the words out of his mouth. “Absolutely not!” he replied.  Here, lack of male respect for the female students was seen as perfectly innocent and normal.

Another custom at one of the high schools was Senior Cross Dressing Day.  Under this rubric, senior males voluntarily dressed as females with dresses, bras, high heels, wigs, lipstick, nail polish or fake nails, and pranced around the school and attended classes in drag.  Many of the males doing this were actually making fun of transvestites, but the school authorities saw this as innocent fun.  However, when one teacher activist questioned this student activity to the administration, the parents, and teachers at a committee formed to form policies for student life, the reaction was overwhelmingly that they were just kids having fun.  When the same teacher suggested that this could be traumatic if viewed by younger, 9th grade students, and that all the major religions have scripture specifically rejecting men wearing women’s clothing, his presentation was scoffed at as taking the entire matter too seriously.

At the same high school in New York City, there was a regular Mr. and Ms. High School Contest.  Photos of six or seven male students flexing their muscles and dressed only with jock straps was hung on the wall in the student cafeteria.  Alongside the photo was another of girl contestants posing in skimpy bikinis.  Additionally, in the same school, as is common in many high schools in New York City, there was one-day-a-year entitled Pajama Day.  On that day, students of any year – freshmen through seniors – were invited to wear nightwear to school.  Virtually all types of nightwear were present in the hallways and classrooms, from pajamas and bedroom shoes, to more revealing shorts and nighties.  This too was considered part of the upbeat progressive, liberated model.

All of the above events flew directly in the face of the school’s dress code. But clearly the dress code was just there for window dressing.  It was for prudes who still have an idea that schools are operating in loco parentis and are not just loco.  Parents are not asked to give permission for their teenage children to participate in any of these events.  Rather, the events themselves are expressions that the sexual revolution and sexual liberation is part and parcel of life without restrictive Judeo-Christian morality.  These are but a few examples of how the disintegrating morality of society is expressing itself in our public education.

As we reflect on law and policy, it is often useful to see how changes play out in the practical, nitty-gritty of everyday life. For example, we can consider how progressives have, over time, separated love, sex, and marriage.  Divorce has skyrocketed during the post-WWII years, out-of-wedlock children have come into existence by the millions, sexually transmitted disease has become rampant, cohabitation is becoming more and more popular with each passing year, the porno industry has captured the time, money, and imaginations of tens of millions of men on the Internet, and there is a gossip feeding frenzy regarding the immoral habits of celebrities.  Pedophilia is being publicly defended as a legitimate activity, and being HIV positive is something, according to signs on NYC subways, that can be handled by partnering with one’s doctor and various city agencies. 

The “new morality” is manifesting in many ways in our public high schools.  Judeo-Christian values and traditional norms promoting integration of love, sex, marriage, modesty, and self-restraint are disappearing with the happy support of school administrations.  Schools may not lead students in prayer, but are allowed to lead students into paths of sexual expression.

When this writer was teaching in the New York City public high schools, the sexual revolution expressed itself through sex education classes where the teachers instructed students on how to unroll and stretch a condom onto bananas and/or cucumbers. This was and is standard fare in “health ed” classes throughout NYC public high schools.  However, in one high school where I taught, a unique a health center was created.  There, students could have a 15-20 minute conversation with a “counselor,” and then be referred for an abortion without a parent’s consent (in New York State, parental consent is not required).  When I had the audacity to rebuke one of the counsellors about her mission, she defended herself by stating that the students referred by her came from dysfunctional homes, and that the babies being aborted were being saved from entering those same environments.

While covering a class for an absent health education teacher, a sex ed textbook lay open on the desk.  It stated that some people still prefer to wait until marriage to have sexual intimacy, and that these people should be tolerated.  This was to show the magnanimity in the progressive mindset. The unity of love, sex, and marriage is no longer treated as a goal, but as a sub-species of intimacy merely to be tolerated.  

A different chapter in the book had a comment about the male sex organ, and stated that many believe that there was a relation between size of said organ and pleasure in the sex act. However, the reader was cautioned that this was an urban legend, and that studies had shown that there was in fact no such connection.  It was a relief to know that our teens were being disabused of this misconception.

On one occasion, a directive was issued that all history teachers would on a certain date pick up a lot of condoms and distribute them to the students in their classes to whomever requested them.  Since I did not believe that part of my educational duties was to promote teenage fornication, and since condoms were readily available in corner grocery stores or pharmacies, I began thinking of creative ways to evade completing this assignment.  One of the “ways” was prayer.  The prayer was answered, and on the day before distribution, the assigned project was taken away from the history teachers, and given to a special condom office in the school.

As early as the late nineties, a new student club was formed, The Gay and Straight Alliance. The group’s sponsor, a young lady history teacher, knew about my Christian beliefs, and taunted me by swirling around the history department office and mockingly repeating, “I don’t have a soul. I don’t have a soul.” Notices announcing the club’s meetings were regularly put on walls throughout the school.  It was clear that this club was not just to be a safe haven for same-sex attracted students but was to be a place for recruiting straight students into the homosexual lifestyle.  The teen years with its many identity stresses is a fertile field for recruitment.  The principal received a note from me asking him to imagine hallways with boys holding hands, hugging, and kissing.  The exhortation was that he do all in his power to sabotage the club.  However, there was no reply from the principal’s office, and my letter was quietly placed in my personnel file. 

At one of the faculty meetings, the topic of student sexual harassment came up. The head of the Guidance Department was asked if boys hanging around the doors of the girls’ bathrooms was being considered “sexual harassment.”  The principal leaped to his feet, and answered the question even before the Assistant Principal could get the words out of his mouth. “Absolutely not!” he replied.  Here, lack of male respect for the female students was seen as perfectly innocent and normal.

Another custom at one of the high schools was Senior Cross Dressing Day.  Under this rubric, senior males voluntarily dressed as females with dresses, bras, high heels, wigs, lipstick, nail polish or fake nails, and pranced around the school and attended classes in drag.  Many of the males doing this were actually making fun of transvestites, but the school authorities saw this as innocent fun.  However, when one teacher activist questioned this student activity to the administration, the parents, and teachers at a committee formed to form policies for student life, the reaction was overwhelmingly that they were just kids having fun.  When the same teacher suggested that this could be traumatic if viewed by younger, 9th grade students, and that all the major religions have scripture specifically rejecting men wearing women’s clothing, his presentation was scoffed at as taking the entire matter too seriously.

At the same high school in New York City, there was a regular Mr. and Ms. High School Contest.  Photos of six or seven male students flexing their muscles and dressed only with jock straps was hung on the wall in the student cafeteria.  Alongside the photo was another of girl contestants posing in skimpy bikinis.  Additionally, in the same school, as is common in many high schools in New York City, there was one-day-a-year entitled Pajama Day.  On that day, students of any year – freshmen through seniors – were invited to wear nightwear to school.  Virtually all types of nightwear were present in the hallways and classrooms, from pajamas and bedroom shoes, to more revealing shorts and nighties.  This too was considered part of the upbeat progressive, liberated model.

All of the above events flew directly in the face of the school’s dress code. But clearly the dress code was just there for window dressing.  It was for prudes who still have an idea that schools are operating in loco parentis and are not just loco.  Parents are not asked to give permission for their teenage children to participate in any of these events.  Rather, the events themselves are expressions that the sexual revolution and sexual liberation is part and parcel of life without restrictive Judeo-Christian morality.  These are but a few examples of how the disintegrating morality of society is expressing itself in our public education.



Source link

How to Restore Our Constitutional Foundation


By the end of World War II, the beautiful foundational ideas and ideals of our constitutional republic had already been significantly undermined by the Democratic Party. The two pillars of our constitutional republic, federalism and checks and balances among our three branches of government, were being disrupted and distorted. The distortions expressed by so-called progressivism had begun the transformation of our political and economic system, especially under Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Party, and intensified under the policies and programs of the New Deal. Socialist, fascist, syndicalist, and even communist concepts were finding their way into problem-solving models used by many of our leaders. The Democrats implemented radical modifications of our constitutional system.

Checks and balances has become distorted almost beyond recognition. Since the end of World War II, we have had numerous wars and bombings of other countries without declarations of war by the U.S. Congress. We have the federal judiciary overriding state legislatures and referenda to establish homosexual marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges as the law of the land, to legitimize abortion in Roe v. Wade, and to permit the expansion of eminent domain in Kelo v. New London as total end runs around checks on the judiciary. Can you imagine it? Bible reading and prayer — the bedrocks of our country — were eliminated from our public schools by the Supreme Court in the early 1960s, a complete overriding of the First and Tenth Amendments. But no checks or balances to counter the judiciary were implemented. Additionally, the commerce clause has been extended to an extreme point to allow almost any transactions to be considered “interstate” and thus open to federal regulation and control.

The Democrats eroded and eviscerated our beautiful Constitution beginning with the Progressive Era and the New Deal, and accelerating and intensifying those developments in the years since 1945. But the reader may be asking where does the Republican Party and leadership fit into this picture? We have enjoyed many tenures by Republican Presidents during the past 100 years since Wilson, and Republicans have been elected to Congress. Even as the juggernaut of leftwing activism seemed to gather momentum with our defeat and withdrawal from Vietnam and the resignation of Richard Nixon, Republicans seemed to temporarily bounce back with the election of the Republican “morning in America” star, President Ronald Reagan.

Yet the Republican Party leadership after World War I seemed to lose momentum. Warren G. Harding’s inaugural address in 1921 did not mention the Constitution even one time although there are compelling lines about service and application of the Golden Rule. Calvin Coolidge, in a beautifully worded, thoughtful, and moral inauguration speech of 1925 mentions that Constitution a few times, especially in connection with property rights, but does not mention either federalism or checks and balances. Herbert Hoover in his inaugural speech in 1929 mentions the Constitution once in terms of “enforcement of the laws,” but is at least forceful in his insistence that “not Government ownership or operation is the course rightly to be pursued in our relation to business.”

Contrast these with the inaugural addresses of Andrew Jackson, who, although a Democrat (before the creation of the Republican Party), was nonetheless more of a Constitutional conservative than even those three Republican presidents. In his first Inaugural Address in 1829, Jackson goes to great lengths to assure the citizenry that he will act within the confines of his executive role as defined in the Constitution. Thus, he indicates tremendous and explicit respect for the checks and balances pillar of our Constitution. Then, in his 1833 Inaugural Address, Jackson discourses extensively on states’ rights thus communicating his respect for the federalist pillar of our republic. We can see that approximately 100 years later, the Republicans who are far more committed to those Constitutional pillars than the Democrats nevertheless speak about their expectations and duties without reference to these foundational Constitutional principles.

Even in the 1980s, under Reagan, the income tax for the highest levels was slashed dramatically, and even the Democrats were on board with that, but federal government spending continued to increase. According to the Mises Institute, “The result [was] unprecedented government debt. Reagan… tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.” The increase in budget debt is a serious sign of the increase in influence of the federal government at the expense of state government. In other words, a dilution of the federalist pillar of Constitutionalism.

In the 1980s, the savings and loans banks went under and were bailed out. Libyan training camps for terrorists were bombed, but our troops were totally withdrawn from Lebanon despite the loss of 241 American lives after a bombing of our Beirut barracks. This was hardly fulfillment of the presidential Oath of Office to preserve and defend the citizenry of the U.S. If we were not there to defend America, then why were we there? When the Executive Branch shows weakness or incompetence that too is a dilution of checks and balances and federalism. Further, the Republican nomination in 1988 of the brilliant and accomplished vice-president, George H.W. Bush, a globalist from his head to the soles of his feet, hardly suggests an America First let alone a pro-Constitutional agenda.

Over the years, the Republicans have accomplished various legislative, military, and policy goals that might be considered conservative. Yet, these were not ideologically driven, as was the Democratic Party agenda. The Republicans have failed to be sufficiently firm and outspoken about the pillars of our Constitution. The Democrats, moving forward covertly as well as openly with an updated cultural Marxism, have believed for these 100 years that they are on the right side of history. However, the Republicans, justified by the foundations executed by our Founders and thus located in the past, are inherently more passive. The past one can see is over; it is established and therefore momentum is not needed. Whereas the Democrats want to remake history based on an authoritarian statist model which they believe is an inevitable reconstruction of the social, political and economic order. Republicans are in a negative, reactive mode and merely seem to be carping that history does not have to be reconstructed. Looking forward inspires and breeds action; looking backward dilutes motivation and breeds passivity.

In order for the Republicans to escape the accusation that they are actually complicit with the Democrats on this march to the authoritarian state or totalitarianism, they must restore the founding principles as an ideology. The pillars of our Constitution must be re-presented to the voting public, and pounded home as though they are new, vibrant ideas for the future. The Republicans must propose and promote checks and balances as well as federalism. These two pillars of our Constitution will appear new and vibrant to generations of Americans who are historically illiterate. If the Republicans are not to be complicit in the Democrat Party’s authoritarian statist drift, they must not only embrace the Trump America First agenda, but additionally and aggressively promote the ideological pillars of Constitutional liberty, checks and balances and federalism, not merely assume them to be a self-evident reality.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught history, literature, and philosophy at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and other colleges and secondary schools. His latest interview on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report can be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXl3H1jjZrU 

By the end of World War II, the beautiful foundational ideas and ideals of our constitutional republic had already been significantly undermined by the Democratic Party. The two pillars of our constitutional republic, federalism and checks and balances among our three branches of government, were being disrupted and distorted. The distortions expressed by so-called progressivism had begun the transformation of our political and economic system, especially under Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Party, and intensified under the policies and programs of the New Deal. Socialist, fascist, syndicalist, and even communist concepts were finding their way into problem-solving models used by many of our leaders. The Democrats implemented radical modifications of our constitutional system.

Checks and balances has become distorted almost beyond recognition. Since the end of World War II, we have had numerous wars and bombings of other countries without declarations of war by the U.S. Congress. We have the federal judiciary overriding state legislatures and referenda to establish homosexual marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges as the law of the land, to legitimize abortion in Roe v. Wade, and to permit the expansion of eminent domain in Kelo v. New London as total end runs around checks on the judiciary. Can you imagine it? Bible reading and prayer — the bedrocks of our country — were eliminated from our public schools by the Supreme Court in the early 1960s, a complete overriding of the First and Tenth Amendments. But no checks or balances to counter the judiciary were implemented. Additionally, the commerce clause has been extended to an extreme point to allow almost any transactions to be considered “interstate” and thus open to federal regulation and control.

The Democrats eroded and eviscerated our beautiful Constitution beginning with the Progressive Era and the New Deal, and accelerating and intensifying those developments in the years since 1945. But the reader may be asking where does the Republican Party and leadership fit into this picture? We have enjoyed many tenures by Republican Presidents during the past 100 years since Wilson, and Republicans have been elected to Congress. Even as the juggernaut of leftwing activism seemed to gather momentum with our defeat and withdrawal from Vietnam and the resignation of Richard Nixon, Republicans seemed to temporarily bounce back with the election of the Republican “morning in America” star, President Ronald Reagan.

Yet the Republican Party leadership after World War I seemed to lose momentum. Warren G. Harding’s inaugural address in 1921 did not mention the Constitution even one time although there are compelling lines about service and application of the Golden Rule. Calvin Coolidge, in a beautifully worded, thoughtful, and moral inauguration speech of 1925 mentions that Constitution a few times, especially in connection with property rights, but does not mention either federalism or checks and balances. Herbert Hoover in his inaugural speech in 1929 mentions the Constitution once in terms of “enforcement of the laws,” but is at least forceful in his insistence that “not Government ownership or operation is the course rightly to be pursued in our relation to business.”

Contrast these with the inaugural addresses of Andrew Jackson, who, although a Democrat (before the creation of the Republican Party), was nonetheless more of a Constitutional conservative than even those three Republican presidents. In his first Inaugural Address in 1829, Jackson goes to great lengths to assure the citizenry that he will act within the confines of his executive role as defined in the Constitution. Thus, he indicates tremendous and explicit respect for the checks and balances pillar of our Constitution. Then, in his 1833 Inaugural Address, Jackson discourses extensively on states’ rights thus communicating his respect for the federalist pillar of our republic. We can see that approximately 100 years later, the Republicans who are far more committed to those Constitutional pillars than the Democrats nevertheless speak about their expectations and duties without reference to these foundational Constitutional principles.

Even in the 1980s, under Reagan, the income tax for the highest levels was slashed dramatically, and even the Democrats were on board with that, but federal government spending continued to increase. According to the Mises Institute, “The result [was] unprecedented government debt. Reagan… tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.” The increase in budget debt is a serious sign of the increase in influence of the federal government at the expense of state government. In other words, a dilution of the federalist pillar of Constitutionalism.

In the 1980s, the savings and loans banks went under and were bailed out. Libyan training camps for terrorists were bombed, but our troops were totally withdrawn from Lebanon despite the loss of 241 American lives after a bombing of our Beirut barracks. This was hardly fulfillment of the presidential Oath of Office to preserve and defend the citizenry of the U.S. If we were not there to defend America, then why were we there? When the Executive Branch shows weakness or incompetence that too is a dilution of checks and balances and federalism. Further, the Republican nomination in 1988 of the brilliant and accomplished vice-president, George H.W. Bush, a globalist from his head to the soles of his feet, hardly suggests an America First let alone a pro-Constitutional agenda.

Over the years, the Republicans have accomplished various legislative, military, and policy goals that might be considered conservative. Yet, these were not ideologically driven, as was the Democratic Party agenda. The Republicans have failed to be sufficiently firm and outspoken about the pillars of our Constitution. The Democrats, moving forward covertly as well as openly with an updated cultural Marxism, have believed for these 100 years that they are on the right side of history. However, the Republicans, justified by the foundations executed by our Founders and thus located in the past, are inherently more passive. The past one can see is over; it is established and therefore momentum is not needed. Whereas the Democrats want to remake history based on an authoritarian statist model which they believe is an inevitable reconstruction of the social, political and economic order. Republicans are in a negative, reactive mode and merely seem to be carping that history does not have to be reconstructed. Looking forward inspires and breeds action; looking backward dilutes motivation and breeds passivity.

In order for the Republicans to escape the accusation that they are actually complicit with the Democrats on this march to the authoritarian state or totalitarianism, they must restore the founding principles as an ideology. The pillars of our Constitution must be re-presented to the voting public, and pounded home as though they are new, vibrant ideas for the future. The Republicans must propose and promote checks and balances as well as federalism. These two pillars of our Constitution will appear new and vibrant to generations of Americans who are historically illiterate. If the Republicans are not to be complicit in the Democrat Party’s authoritarian statist drift, they must not only embrace the Trump America First agenda, but additionally and aggressively promote the ideological pillars of Constitutional liberty, checks and balances and federalism, not merely assume them to be a self-evident reality.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught history, literature, and philosophy at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and other colleges and secondary schools. His latest interview on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report can be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXl3H1jjZrU 



Source link

Why the Democrats Oppose Economic Freedom


The seeds of the modern bureaucratic or administrative state go back to the Progressive Era of American history in the early 20th century. But progressive regulation morphed into the hyper-control of our present federal government during the New Deal. Modern students, whose history education has been directed by teachers who “accept” the reality of a federal leviathan, are often unaware of the fact that before 1916 there was no income tax in the United States, and that federal revenues were primarily through import duties. The income tax was justified by the need to support the ever-expanding regulatory environment being promoted by Democrats, with a small amount of crossover by Republicans.

Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats were far more drawn to the big government idea and ideal than their Republican confreres. Under Wilson, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was replaced with the more powerful antitrust tool, the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Federal Reserve came into being under Wilson. Further, the 16th Amendment allowing a federal income tax was enacted in 1916, although the move to establish that institution had begun before Wilson took office, having been passed by Congress in 1909. More importantly, under Wilson, the U.S. became involved in World War I, and in the prosecution of that war, various federal governmental controls over industry were enacted in order to promote the war effort, not the least of which was the War Industries Board under Bernard Baruch.

So the progressive emphasis was to curb the greed and concomitant excesses of the business community that were manifesting in an America which, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, moved from being a prosperous agriculture-based society to being an industrialized manufacturing and mining mega-power on the world stage. Competition was to be promoted. The Federal Reserve was created as a backup and institution of last resort when cyclical banking downturns took place, and, as we became more involved in international markets, military buildup became necessary as we needed to protect far-flung property and trading interests throughout the world.

By the time of the New Deal, the regulatory ideal of progressivism began to give way to government planning which involved federal control or even ownership of business, and federal engagement with previously private markets on an unprecedented scale. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration set up the “alphabet agencies” which performed functions that were controlling or active in unprecedented ways. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) actually produced electricity and functioned alongside private electric companies. The premise was that the TVA (clearly a socialist venture) was delivering electric power to many citizens who were not getting it because they were living in a market that was not profitable for private companies to establish generating plants. So, according to TVA justifiers, the federal government was supplementing the private sector, i.e., meeting a need that the private sector was not meeting, but not going into competition with the private sector in those markets it was already serving.

The federal government also became an employer of vast numbers of people through its public works projects, undertaken by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), National Youth Administration (NYA), and many others too numerous to list. And the feds became lenders of choice to many, especially in the agricultural sector. With vast government apparatchiks in the regulatory agencies and these vast employment programs, the federal government was no longer locked into the progressive ideal of protecting workers, but increasingly became the employer of vast numbers of people, thus going into competition with the private sector as the employer of record. However, unlike the private sector, the employees were not supported by markets, but by the taxpayers, government borrowing (increase of the national debt), and printing of money. Productivity was not the centerpiece for paying those federal bills.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was passed as an effort to keep farm income up by controlling production. By limiting production, the prices of farm products from hogs to corn could remain elevated. Thus, under AAA, the feds authorized themselves to pay farmers for destroying crops or otherwise limiting crop production, even killing 6.4 million pigs. This clearly went beyond regulating market practices to maintain competition as in the progressive era, but intervened to control markets at both the production and price ends of enterprise.

However, the centerpiece of New Deal legislation was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) which set up the National Recovery Administration. This signal piece of legislation called for price and wage fixing by various industries working hand-in-glove with the federal agency administering the program. Companies participating in these associations were authorized to imprint their products with a Blue Eagle indicating their “cooperation.” Here we see the most important shift away from the earlier progressivism. Under progressivism, competition was being promoted – by the Republicans under the Sherman Antitrust Act and by the Democrats under the updated and more powerful Clayton Antitrust Act.

Under the NIRA, what might otherwise be called a “trust,” “cartel,” “monopoly,” or “oligopoly” by the pro-competition progressives were, so to speak, under federal blessing. Price and wage fixing would be considered okay as long as they were aligned with federal economic goals and policies. Thus, the shift in orientation from regulation under progressivism to governmental control under the supervision of a brain trust of demand side, Keynesian economists. Wilson had believed in the importance of experts in our new scientific marketplace, but Roosevelt stepped up our dependence on so-called experts to a degree Wilson could not have imagined, and the New Deal was implemented.

Both the AAA and the NRA were declared unconstitutional. However, the AAA was rewritten with adjustments to meet the Supreme Court’s objections, and a new AAA was passed and upheld. In the famous case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States (1935), the NIRA was deemed to be unconstitutional. The Blue Eagle disappeared from products, and wage and price controls under so-called “voluntary agreement” were disbanded.

But the socialist and communist left had tasted blood. The NIRA whetted the appetite of the “reds” who admired Vladimir Lenin’s and Josef Stalin’s iron man appropriations of the means of production in the USSR for the supposed collective good. In fact, FDR’s rapport with Stalin during WWII is a well-established fact, and that “rapport” should not be surprising in light of the radical expansion of government control during the New Deal. The new expert class of left-wing professors and advocates operating during the Roosevelt years saw that the battle cry “workers of the world, unite” was needed more than ever before as the capitalist colossus marched onwards. Those leftists dominate the Democrat Party to this very day, and their hatred for free markets is poisoning our society.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught history, literature, and philosophy at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and other colleges and secondary schools.  His latest interview on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report can be accessed at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXl3H1jjZrU 

The seeds of the modern bureaucratic or administrative state go back to the Progressive Era of American history in the early 20th century. But progressive regulation morphed into the hyper-control of our present federal government during the New Deal. Modern students, whose history education has been directed by teachers who “accept” the reality of a federal leviathan, are often unaware of the fact that before 1916 there was no income tax in the United States, and that federal revenues were primarily through import duties. The income tax was justified by the need to support the ever-expanding regulatory environment being promoted by Democrats, with a small amount of crossover by Republicans.

Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats were far more drawn to the big government idea and ideal than their Republican confreres. Under Wilson, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was replaced with the more powerful antitrust tool, the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Federal Reserve came into being under Wilson. Further, the 16th Amendment allowing a federal income tax was enacted in 1916, although the move to establish that institution had begun before Wilson took office, having been passed by Congress in 1909. More importantly, under Wilson, the U.S. became involved in World War I, and in the prosecution of that war, various federal governmental controls over industry were enacted in order to promote the war effort, not the least of which was the War Industries Board under Bernard Baruch.

So the progressive emphasis was to curb the greed and concomitant excesses of the business community that were manifesting in an America which, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, moved from being a prosperous agriculture-based society to being an industrialized manufacturing and mining mega-power on the world stage. Competition was to be promoted. The Federal Reserve was created as a backup and institution of last resort when cyclical banking downturns took place, and, as we became more involved in international markets, military buildup became necessary as we needed to protect far-flung property and trading interests throughout the world.

By the time of the New Deal, the regulatory ideal of progressivism began to give way to government planning which involved federal control or even ownership of business, and federal engagement with previously private markets on an unprecedented scale. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration set up the “alphabet agencies” which performed functions that were controlling or active in unprecedented ways. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) actually produced electricity and functioned alongside private electric companies. The premise was that the TVA (clearly a socialist venture) was delivering electric power to many citizens who were not getting it because they were living in a market that was not profitable for private companies to establish generating plants. So, according to TVA justifiers, the federal government was supplementing the private sector, i.e., meeting a need that the private sector was not meeting, but not going into competition with the private sector in those markets it was already serving.

The federal government also became an employer of vast numbers of people through its public works projects, undertaken by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), National Youth Administration (NYA), and many others too numerous to list. And the feds became lenders of choice to many, especially in the agricultural sector. With vast government apparatchiks in the regulatory agencies and these vast employment programs, the federal government was no longer locked into the progressive ideal of protecting workers, but increasingly became the employer of vast numbers of people, thus going into competition with the private sector as the employer of record. However, unlike the private sector, the employees were not supported by markets, but by the taxpayers, government borrowing (increase of the national debt), and printing of money. Productivity was not the centerpiece for paying those federal bills.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was passed as an effort to keep farm income up by controlling production. By limiting production, the prices of farm products from hogs to corn could remain elevated. Thus, under AAA, the feds authorized themselves to pay farmers for destroying crops or otherwise limiting crop production, even killing 6.4 million pigs. This clearly went beyond regulating market practices to maintain competition as in the progressive era, but intervened to control markets at both the production and price ends of enterprise.

However, the centerpiece of New Deal legislation was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) which set up the National Recovery Administration. This signal piece of legislation called for price and wage fixing by various industries working hand-in-glove with the federal agency administering the program. Companies participating in these associations were authorized to imprint their products with a Blue Eagle indicating their “cooperation.” Here we see the most important shift away from the earlier progressivism. Under progressivism, competition was being promoted – by the Republicans under the Sherman Antitrust Act and by the Democrats under the updated and more powerful Clayton Antitrust Act.

Under the NIRA, what might otherwise be called a “trust,” “cartel,” “monopoly,” or “oligopoly” by the pro-competition progressives were, so to speak, under federal blessing. Price and wage fixing would be considered okay as long as they were aligned with federal economic goals and policies. Thus, the shift in orientation from regulation under progressivism to governmental control under the supervision of a brain trust of demand side, Keynesian economists. Wilson had believed in the importance of experts in our new scientific marketplace, but Roosevelt stepped up our dependence on so-called experts to a degree Wilson could not have imagined, and the New Deal was implemented.

Both the AAA and the NRA were declared unconstitutional. However, the AAA was rewritten with adjustments to meet the Supreme Court’s objections, and a new AAA was passed and upheld. In the famous case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States (1935), the NIRA was deemed to be unconstitutional. The Blue Eagle disappeared from products, and wage and price controls under so-called “voluntary agreement” were disbanded.

But the socialist and communist left had tasted blood. The NIRA whetted the appetite of the “reds” who admired Vladimir Lenin’s and Josef Stalin’s iron man appropriations of the means of production in the USSR for the supposed collective good. In fact, FDR’s rapport with Stalin during WWII is a well-established fact, and that “rapport” should not be surprising in light of the radical expansion of government control during the New Deal. The new expert class of left-wing professors and advocates operating during the Roosevelt years saw that the battle cry “workers of the world, unite” was needed more than ever before as the capitalist colossus marched onwards. Those leftists dominate the Democrat Party to this very day, and their hatred for free markets is poisoning our society.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught history, literature, and philosophy at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and other colleges and secondary schools.  His latest interview on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report can be accessed at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXl3H1jjZrU 



Source link

The Wall Is the Centerpiece for Asserting American Sovereignty


Five days after taking office, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13767, which authorized the building of a wall on our Southern border and other measures to increase the number of immigration officers to defend our borders against illegal crossings. This authorization for a physical wall has a cost, estimated by the Department of Homeland Security, of over $20 billion. However, Congress has not yet taken action to fund this project or the envisioned increase in immigration enforcement personnel. To say that Trump’s commitment and authorization to build a wall has ignited extreme controversy would be an understatement. Some pundits are claiming that we are on the brink of civil war, and that polarization is in no small measure because of the wall which was the centerpiece of Trump’s campaign and his legislative initiatives.

This authorization follows earlier legislation passed as a bipartisan measure, the Secure Fence Act, in October 2006. That legislation, depicted by Harry Reid and other Democratic Party leaders, as the brainchild of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, nevertheless received 26 Democrat votes in the Senate with only 17 opposed. Obviously, opposition to the act was more “extreme” than the act itself. The need for restraining the flow across our porous borders was and is an undeniable reality, and commitment to a high cost project covering about 700 miles was properly deemed necessary.

Further, we had a two-tiered fence rather than a wall, augmented with some hi-tech surveillance equipment. Even this commitment was considered by many to be an economic albatross and Republican Sen. Fay Hutchison (R-KA), in 2007 at the urging of the Department of Homeland Security, offered an amendment to the Secure Fence Act giving DHS wider latitude in deciding the extent of fencing versus electronic surveillance would be appropriate. The amendment passed.

This controversy over a wall is not unique in the annals of history. Israel has built a wall longer than 700 km to keep out Palestinian Arabs now living in Judea and Samaria (often called the West Bank). To supporters of Israel, this wall is deemed an essential defense against terrorism. But for the manic opposition, the wall is portrayed in a bogus way as Israeli apartheid. Further, an underground wall to protect Israel from Gazan terrorists coming through tunnels is also being erected. And a third wall to prevent overwhelming Syrian migration is also in the works. Hungary has also erected a razor wire wall to protect itself from being overwhelmed by refugees, and, in 2008, Poland re-erected a wall on beaches shared with Germans in order to prevent German nudists from flooding the more modest Polish beaches. (Walls do not always pertain to matters of life and death.)

Throughout history, many notable walls have been erected. Hadrian’s Wall was constructed by the Roman emperor between the North Sea and the Irish Sea and was about 80 miles long. It protected Britain from the barbarians who lived to the north. The Great Wall of China, built in the 14th century, runs about 4500 miles and is 15-30 feet high.

In addition, there is fencing or a wall between India and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Bangladesh, and India, part of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, part of the China-Hong Kong border, and the Hungary-Serbia border.

However, Trump’s projected wall has generated controversy not only because of practical questions about the effectiveness of the wall, the cost of the wall, the length of the wall, and the relative merits of a wall vs. a fence vs. technological surveillance vs. barriers. Rather, the wall is controversial because it has become symbolic of deep ideological and social rifts between rival politicians, commentators, and so-called activists (i.e., underminers of law and order) and our newly elected President.

This practical and symbolic controversy has its best parallel in history in the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah. That wall had originally been destroyed, along with Solomon’s Temple (“the First Temple”) by the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC. Babylonia in turn was conquered by Persia, and the Persian king Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah permission to return to Jerusalem with a group of men to rebuild the wall.

When Nehemiah arrived, he met incredible opposition by the non-Jewish locals — the Ashdodites, the Ammonites, the Arabs, and the Horonites — led by Tobiah and Sanballat. Not only that but he was even opposed by Jews living in the land who had managed to remain despite the earlier Babylonian invasion. The poorer Judeans living in the area near Jerusalem were suffering debt and economic exploitation by certain wealthier Jews, as well as being beleaguered by a hostile non-Jewish population (groups named above). The building of the wall, and heightened opposition to the wall by the locals only added to their socioeconomic burdens.

They were being crushed from above by their own rulers, and horizontally by local Jew-hating tribes. The poor Jews cried out a list of oppressions to Nehemiah as they complained about his “wall controversy” which only added to their burdens. Even today, about 2600 years later, reading their list of oppressions should tear at the heart of any reader of the book of Nehemiah (chapter 5). Nehemiah listened to their pleas and insisted that the debt burden and tax burden of the Jewish people be reduced or eliminated altogether by their rulers. And Nehemiah prevailed. He was a leader’s leader, and carried the prophetic imprimatur of a holy God to support his mission.

Nehemiah’s enemies did everything they could to prevent the building of the wall. They relentlessly mocked his workers. In today’s climate we see endless mockery of Trump by Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and even, though in a less vitriolic way, Jimmy Fallon. They belittled his work by depicting the work as inadequate and superficial. They were in a constant rage at the work. The opposition to Nehemiah invited him to meet with them and work with them; yet in reality they meant him harm, and Nehemiah wisely saw through their strategies.

The opposition hired prophets of doom who were predicting terrible outcomes for Nehemiah and his rebuilding project. Are not the so-called reporters of the mainstream media — Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, Jim Acosta, Joe Scarborough, Shepard Smith, etc. — and mouthpieces of the Democratic Party establishment modern counterparts of the prophets of doom hired to predict failure and to utter vicious curses upon Trump’s projects, ideas, and ideals?

High level peer pressure was put on Nehemiah. Many of the Jewish nobles in the area were related to the oppositon by intermarriage into the family of Tobiah, one of the leaders of the Ammonite opposition. Thus, even the Jews in the locality were connected with the non-Jewish elite. Today, the deeply entrenched elite, fondly called “the swamp” or “the sewer” by the so-called deplorables and Trumptards, led by John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham in the Senate and Paul Ryan in the House, are examples of those committed to denying Trump his agenda.

Despite the relentless opposition to Nehemiah, we read “So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of the month Elul, in fifty-two days. When all our enemies heard of it, and all the nations surrounding us saw it, they lost their confidence; for they recognized that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.” Yet, the Scripture, filled with holy realism, also states, “Tobiah [leader of the opposition] sent letters to frighten me.” The enemy will never publicly admit that it has been overshadowed, let alone defeated.

May it please God, the readers of this article, and the American electorate, the wall on our Southern border will be built, the opposition will lose confidence, and their never-ending fearmongering will continue to be mocked and spurned.

Five days after taking office, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13767, which authorized the building of a wall on our Southern border and other measures to increase the number of immigration officers to defend our borders against illegal crossings. This authorization for a physical wall has a cost, estimated by the Department of Homeland Security, of over $20 billion. However, Congress has not yet taken action to fund this project or the envisioned increase in immigration enforcement personnel. To say that Trump’s commitment and authorization to build a wall has ignited extreme controversy would be an understatement. Some pundits are claiming that we are on the brink of civil war, and that polarization is in no small measure because of the wall which was the centerpiece of Trump’s campaign and his legislative initiatives.

This authorization follows earlier legislation passed as a bipartisan measure, the Secure Fence Act, in October 2006. That legislation, depicted by Harry Reid and other Democratic Party leaders, as the brainchild of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, nevertheless received 26 Democrat votes in the Senate with only 17 opposed. Obviously, opposition to the act was more “extreme” than the act itself. The need for restraining the flow across our porous borders was and is an undeniable reality, and commitment to a high cost project covering about 700 miles was properly deemed necessary.

Further, we had a two-tiered fence rather than a wall, augmented with some hi-tech surveillance equipment. Even this commitment was considered by many to be an economic albatross and Republican Sen. Fay Hutchison (R-KA), in 2007 at the urging of the Department of Homeland Security, offered an amendment to the Secure Fence Act giving DHS wider latitude in deciding the extent of fencing versus electronic surveillance would be appropriate. The amendment passed.

This controversy over a wall is not unique in the annals of history. Israel has built a wall longer than 700 km to keep out Palestinian Arabs now living in Judea and Samaria (often called the West Bank). To supporters of Israel, this wall is deemed an essential defense against terrorism. But for the manic opposition, the wall is portrayed in a bogus way as Israeli apartheid. Further, an underground wall to protect Israel from Gazan terrorists coming through tunnels is also being erected. And a third wall to prevent overwhelming Syrian migration is also in the works. Hungary has also erected a razor wire wall to protect itself from being overwhelmed by refugees, and, in 2008, Poland re-erected a wall on beaches shared with Germans in order to prevent German nudists from flooding the more modest Polish beaches. (Walls do not always pertain to matters of life and death.)

Throughout history, many notable walls have been erected. Hadrian’s Wall was constructed by the Roman emperor between the North Sea and the Irish Sea and was about 80 miles long. It protected Britain from the barbarians who lived to the north. The Great Wall of China, built in the 14th century, runs about 4500 miles and is 15-30 feet high.

In addition, there is fencing or a wall between India and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Bangladesh, and India, part of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, part of the China-Hong Kong border, and the Hungary-Serbia border.

However, Trump’s projected wall has generated controversy not only because of practical questions about the effectiveness of the wall, the cost of the wall, the length of the wall, and the relative merits of a wall vs. a fence vs. technological surveillance vs. barriers. Rather, the wall is controversial because it has become symbolic of deep ideological and social rifts between rival politicians, commentators, and so-called activists (i.e., underminers of law and order) and our newly elected President.

This practical and symbolic controversy has its best parallel in history in the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah. That wall had originally been destroyed, along with Solomon’s Temple (“the First Temple”) by the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC. Babylonia in turn was conquered by Persia, and the Persian king Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah permission to return to Jerusalem with a group of men to rebuild the wall.

When Nehemiah arrived, he met incredible opposition by the non-Jewish locals — the Ashdodites, the Ammonites, the Arabs, and the Horonites — led by Tobiah and Sanballat. Not only that but he was even opposed by Jews living in the land who had managed to remain despite the earlier Babylonian invasion. The poorer Judeans living in the area near Jerusalem were suffering debt and economic exploitation by certain wealthier Jews, as well as being beleaguered by a hostile non-Jewish population (groups named above). The building of the wall, and heightened opposition to the wall by the locals only added to their socioeconomic burdens.

They were being crushed from above by their own rulers, and horizontally by local Jew-hating tribes. The poor Jews cried out a list of oppressions to Nehemiah as they complained about his “wall controversy” which only added to their burdens. Even today, about 2600 years later, reading their list of oppressions should tear at the heart of any reader of the book of Nehemiah (chapter 5). Nehemiah listened to their pleas and insisted that the debt burden and tax burden of the Jewish people be reduced or eliminated altogether by their rulers. And Nehemiah prevailed. He was a leader’s leader, and carried the prophetic imprimatur of a holy God to support his mission.

Nehemiah’s enemies did everything they could to prevent the building of the wall. They relentlessly mocked his workers. In today’s climate we see endless mockery of Trump by Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and even, though in a less vitriolic way, Jimmy Fallon. They belittled his work by depicting the work as inadequate and superficial. They were in a constant rage at the work. The opposition to Nehemiah invited him to meet with them and work with them; yet in reality they meant him harm, and Nehemiah wisely saw through their strategies.

The opposition hired prophets of doom who were predicting terrible outcomes for Nehemiah and his rebuilding project. Are not the so-called reporters of the mainstream media — Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, Jim Acosta, Joe Scarborough, Shepard Smith, etc. — and mouthpieces of the Democratic Party establishment modern counterparts of the prophets of doom hired to predict failure and to utter vicious curses upon Trump’s projects, ideas, and ideals?

High level peer pressure was put on Nehemiah. Many of the Jewish nobles in the area were related to the oppositon by intermarriage into the family of Tobiah, one of the leaders of the Ammonite opposition. Thus, even the Jews in the locality were connected with the non-Jewish elite. Today, the deeply entrenched elite, fondly called “the swamp” or “the sewer” by the so-called deplorables and Trumptards, led by John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham in the Senate and Paul Ryan in the House, are examples of those committed to denying Trump his agenda.

Despite the relentless opposition to Nehemiah, we read “So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of the month Elul, in fifty-two days. When all our enemies heard of it, and all the nations surrounding us saw it, they lost their confidence; for they recognized that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.” Yet, the Scripture, filled with holy realism, also states, “Tobiah [leader of the opposition] sent letters to frighten me.” The enemy will never publicly admit that it has been overshadowed, let alone defeated.

May it please God, the readers of this article, and the American electorate, the wall on our Southern border will be built, the opposition will lose confidence, and their never-ending fearmongering will continue to be mocked and spurned.



Source link