Socialist Infiltration of America

by

Gadfly

We are hearing a lot more about socialism in the current news.  Older generations understand the irony and danger in this development, because they are closer to the history of its nihilism and brutality.  Younger generations are not so concerned because they have been exposed to a different “education.”

For older generations, they know socialism led to the death of millions in its communist and fascist manifestations.  They are sisters of socialism.  Communism is its leftward manifestation and fascism a rightward (still well left of the political center) manifestation.

 

The left loves to demonize white supremacy or white nationalism as a right-wing phenomenon.  Right-wing based on what?  The political center?  The socialist center?

I contend classical liberalism (individual liberty, private property, limited government, free market/free enterprise grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition) is the political center of a Constitutional Republic, with leftward manifestations being lesser adherence whereas greater adherence is rightward leaning.  Socialism is a left of center ideology.  Economic freedom is right of center.

Racial supremacy is contrary to the notion of classical liberalism because the latter’s fundamental view of humanity is one of equality and individual liberty.  Any notion of privilege or supremacy is contrary to this philosophy.  Is it any wonder then that leftist social justice achieves its full potential by coercively applying privilege as in affirmative action measures, redistribution of wealth, proposals for reparations, and so forth?  Recall that the last surviving commandment in Orwell’s socialistic Animal Farm was, “All animals are created equal, some are more equal than others.”

Am I suggesting that the Republican Party, as a right of center political party practices classical liberalism?  For the most part, yes.  Modern conservatism is mostly aligned with classical liberalism.  Unfortunately, once in office, Republicans tend to capitulate on the levels of spending that violate a limited government principle.  This is the hubris of power in modern politics.  The most to blame for this corruption, however, is the general public—Americans who are living in comfort zones and essentially outsourcing self-governance to a small percentage of elected and unelected officials.

Younger generations have not been taught any of socialism’s history.  Rather, the focus has been a new form of patriotism:  a progressive patriotism that looks toward a perfected future—utopia.  It is pure socialism.  Progressives have been successful in taking prayer out of schools and other public venues, facilitating a trend toward atheistic nihilism.  According to Gallup surveys, those affiliating with Judeo-Christian religions have decreased by well over 30% since 1956 (when 99% of those surveyed affiliated with Judeo-Christian religions).  Other surveys show similar declines in church membership, with Catholics showing the sharpest decrease (likely a result of the public narratives on abuse scandals—even though there are mitigating circumstances such as communist and homosexual infiltration as reported by Bella Dodd in here memoir, School of Darkness and Enrique Rueda’s analysis of the homosexual political movement in The Homosexual Network:  Private Lives and Public Policy). These trends allow the state to increasingly fill in as the moral authority.

 

Marx would be proud of socialism’s success in America.  Education has played a critical role.  In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, education is mentioned 68 times.  The Manifesto states: “All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.”  Colorado just approved funding for all-day kindergarten.  Nation-wide, teacher’s unions exercise tremendous power in classroom curricula, manipulating the composition of school boards, and funding political candidates.

Closely related to the role of education by the state is the need to dismantle the family—that is, a traditional family with a mother and father and children.  Marx believed the family was a critical foundation for capitalism.  Current political movements to disrupt the traditional family are critical to achieving socialism.  The fact that many suffer moral injury are of no concern—they are instruments in the overall cause.

In memorializing his experience as a prominent British Communist, Douglas Hyde, in his book I Believed, described communist infiltration efforts when Churchill became an ally to Joseph Stalin:

In that campaign, [sic] experience was gained which not long after came near to bringing about the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party.  In addition, important new contacts were made in trade union and cultural circles in particular which are still being exploited to this day.

The British Labour Party is similar to America’s Democrat Party.  In addition to exploiting teacher’s unions, the Communist Party clearly exploits all unions, to include those to which a significant percentage of government employees belong at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels.  Examples of these unions include the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE),  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), among others.

Randi Weingarten, President of AFT, demonstrated socialist ideology in a recent column, “A Defining Moment for Democracy.”  The message was very anti-Trump and socialist in its themes.  Communism emphasizes “democracy” as a necessary condition for socialism.  This is why today’s public-school education avoids the founder’s rationale for a republic because they knew the dangers of democracy.

Assuming the reader agrees with the argument that socialists (many use the label progressive or modern liberal) have controlled the education process to facilitate socialism, then how do they control the political process?  They use tried and proven methods as clearly described by Douglas Hyde in his more recent book, Dedication and Leadership.  The following is an excerpt from the book’s back cover:

On March 14, 1948, Douglas Hyde handed in his resignation as the news editor of the London Daily Worker and wrote “the end” to twenty years of his life as a member of the Communist Party. A week later, in a written statement, Hyde announced that he had renounced Communism and, with his wife and children, was joining the Catholic Church. 

The long pilgrimage from Communism to Christ carried Douglas Hyde from complete commitment to Marxism, to a questioning uneasiness about Soviet Russia’s glaring contradictions of ideology and action, to a final rejection of the Party.

In Dedication and Leadership, he advances the theory that although the goals and aims of Communism are antithetical to human dignity and the rights of the individual, there is much to be learned from communist methods, cadres and psychological motivation. Hyde describes the Communist mechanics of instilling dedication, the first prerequisite for leadership. Here is the complete rationale of party technique: how to stimulate the willingness to sacrifice; the advisability of making big demands to insure a big response; the inspirational indoctrination; and the subtle conversion methods.

According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), there are 3,141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.  The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) employed its 50/3000 model during the 2018 midterm elections.  That is, CPUSA has active cells in 3,000 counties in 50 states.  John Bachtell, national leader of CPUSA, boasted that they were successful in generating 12 million more votes (45 million versus 33 million) for Democrat candidates.  As in their success in aligning with the British Labour Party in the past century, the Communist Party has blatantly aligned with today’s American Democrat Party.

CPUSA gets a lot of support and collaboration.  The media, Silicon Valley (see, for example, this disturbing Congressional testimony), and Hollywood cabal control the public narrative, to include technology and smear tactics to censor opposing views.  Groups like Media Matters for America and the American Independent Institute.

 

The leading think tank for the progressive movement is the Center for American Progress.  It was founded by former President Clinton’s Chief of Staff, John Podesta.  While the infamous Wikileaks publications during the summer of 2016 featured sinister actions by Podesta, the left’s concern was less about actual content and more about the fact that this information was made public.  In their opinion, only “trusted” leftist sources such as The New York Times or The Washington Post are allowed to “leak” sensitive information.

Another organization, Organizing for Action (OFA), has recently changed its www.ofa.us link to a page called All On the Line.  Its predecessor names were Obama for America (OFA), Organizing for America (OFA), and then Organizing for Action (OFA).  Here is a recent progress report by Katie Hogan, Executive Director of Organizing for Action.  She reports:

62,243 people trained on skills needed to make an impact at no cost to them

7,572,171 online action-takers

145 active chapters from coast to coast

30,924 grassroots events in all 50 states and D.C.

OFA is just warming up, and it can count on healthy funding from the Obama Foundation, which is a magnet for progressive donors.  It is not limited to America.  Socialism is not bound by national borders.  The socialist mantra, “workers unite” has a global thrust.

More specifics on progressive tactics were captured in a recent Patriot Post article.  The tactic involves converting red counties into blue counties.  It involves dark money.  The article provides specific details on how they templated the tactics with a county in Tennessee.

  

The purpose of my book, The 2012 Political Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly, was to sound an alarm about the progressive (socialist) movement in America.  At the time, some wanted to compare Obama to Lincoln.  I disagreed and presented a case that Obama was more aligned with Vladimir Lenin.  The following table from p. 64 of the book is included here with permission.

Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.  That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today).  Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.  Note:  Lenin advanced the Bolshevik Party, also known as the Russian Social Democrat Labour Party.

Not widely published (let alone recognized) is Obama’s Lenin-style and demigod arrogance.  Despite it’s recent history for slanted coverage, On March 26, 2018, CNN reported on Obama’s wish to clone millions in his and Michelle’s images.  Here is the headline: “Obama hopes to create ‘a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas’.”  The article starts off saying: "Former President Barack Obama says he aspires to create 'a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas' who will pick up the baton in what he describes as the 'relay race that is human progress.'"  This is exactly the method Communists employ in achieving "dedication" that Douglas writes about in his memoir, I Believed, and in Dedication and Leadership. The following is the picture that accompanied the article.

        In closing, those of us who firmly believe in a Constitutional Republic--gifted to us by Founders and Framers who pledged their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor--should all be asking to what extent the former Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev was correct when, speaking at the National Press Club in 1957, he declared to America:

. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society” (cited in J. Edgar Hoover’s book, Masters of Deceit, 1958, p. 3).

Today’s talk about socialism is not mere rhetoric and wishful thinking.  It is here.  Either give in to it and prepare for its inevitable slide into brutal tyranny, or fight it.  We can do this peacefully at the ballot box and in respectful conversations.

 

Until Democrats distance themselves from the Marxist utopian ideology that is American progressivism, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for socialism.   

Trump Must Name and Condemn the Evil of Multicultural Ideology

By

Gadfly

The shootings in El Paso and Dayton are most unfortunate and reflect the hubris of America’s current culture.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

 

The title of this essay is a spinoff from a Washington Examiner editorial, “Trump must name and condemn the evil of white nationalism.”  The editorial was prompted by the killing of civilians in El Paso, Texas.  Although well-intended, the editorial merely demonstrates how effective the Marxist left has been at controlling the public narrative.  Eerily, this dynamic is an example of communist Douglas Hyde’s experience as the news editor of London’s The Daily Worker in manipulating other communists and the general public, as described in his memoir, I Believed.  The dynamic also reflects Admiral Ben Moreell’s observations from the 1960s:

Our once free institutions, political, economic, educational and social, are largely in the hands of the proponents of the Welfare State, whose all openly avowed goal is to centralize power in the hands of the political apparatus in Washington. This enhancement of political power at the expense of individual rights, so often disguised as "democracy" or "freedom" or "civil rights," is "socialism," no matter what name tag it bears. Here we should recall the warning of the late Dean Inge:  "History seems to show that the powers of evil have won their greatest triumphs by capturing the organizations which were formed to defeat them, and that when the devil has thus changed the contents of the bottles, he never alters the labels. The fort may have been captured by the enemy, but it still flies the flag of its defenders."[1]

 

White supremacy . . . white nationalism . . . these are the crimes being advanced by the Washington Examiner and other critics based on the El Paso shooting.  According to social media statements, the shooter expressed anti-Mexican sentiments.  If we are to reason (or mimic) like the Examiner, then we are supposed to leap to the conclusion that America is threatened by white nationalism.  And if we are to maximize political capital (abundantly visible on today’s Meet the Press) from the event, then we are to blame guns for the violence and casualties.  How many guns were responsible for the 3,000+ casualties on 9/11?  And despite the unfortunate number of gun-related homicides, they pale when compared to the number of suicides afflicting our country.

The Examiner editorial board stated:

Plenty in the media and in politics blame Trump for the rise of white nationalism. Many of them are the same folks who have always argued that conservatism — whether tax cuts, defense of the unborn, or belief in free enterprise — is just thinly veiled racism, and on these grounds alone they don't deserve to be taken seriously. Even so, a president has to be above the blame game played by his critics. The single best way to prove them wrong would be for Trump to crusade actively against white nationalism.

The apparent “acculturated” thinking by Examiner editors may explain the incongruity of “a president has to be above the blame game” and the imperative to “crusade actively against white nationalism.”  Does this imperative also imply the need for a crusade against “white privilege” and any opposition to reparations and secular humanistic values?  For the supposedly educated members of the Examiner’s editorial board, this thinking puts its readers, if they buy into it, on a very slippery slope.

 

What motivates someone like the El Paso, Dayton, Columbine High School, Aurora theater (among other incidents) shooters?  Can reason be to blame?  What is reasoned about racial supremacy and its connection to murder?  The brutal answer:  absolutely nothing.

 

If reason has any moral basis, then how can one take the life of another person except as a matter of self-defense?  This question becomes more complicated when talking about war.  Even in this case, civil societies have defined moral boundaries as to what is just and unjust during war.  Islamic jihad further complicates this question because hostile actions stem from ideology and not the security interests of a nation-state.

This is the pressing issue for America:  ideology, especially multicultural ideology.  The Marxist left advocates for multiculturalism because it becomes its ammunition against classical liberal political philosophy that originally defined America.  Classical liberalism--with its emphasis on individual liberty, private property, limited government, free market/free enterprise grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition-- served as the organizing principle for American nationalism.  As a melting pot, American nationalism involved assimilation by a diversified population.

Multiculturalism is contradictory to the notion of assimilation and can only advance and survive based on acculturation, which is politically coercive.  Multiculturalism fragments and alienates.  It turns many into strangers in a strange land.[2]  Some become so alienated they find themselves on the dark side of humanity.  They act out on their pain—some through suicide, some through homicide.

 

We don’t hear the Marxist left address this form of alienation; to the contrary, they exploit this alienation in order to agitate and organize against classical liberalism, and we hear a lot about capitalist exploitation—Bernie Sanders and other leftist candidates are very bold and candid in their public statements.

 

Capitalism fuels prosperity.  Prosperity is not possible without capitalism.  The corruption known as greed occurs in any economic system, capitalist or socialist.  Unfortunately, bigoted views can obscure objective analysis—another product of the hubris of America’s modern culture as demonstrated in this pathetic article by Jeff Guo, formerly with The Washington Post.

Capitalist exploitation does not explain the brutal life in inner cities, such as Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit.  These are communities that have been run by Marxist leftist policies for decades.

 

When President Trump pulls the band aid off of this cancer, he’s labeled a racist.  And now, when a conservative editorial board picks up the left’s mantra about white supremacy, we may have crossed the Rubicon as a free and just nation.  This assertion does not deny the existence of white supremacists, or black supremacists, or climate change supremacists, or racists, or idiots, and so forth.  There is a huge difference between mole hills and mountains.  And as an old allusion by Aristotle states, “one swallow does not make a summer.”

For more analysis along these lines, I recommend some past Gadfly articles:

Trump Qualification Concerns

Where to Begin

America’s Dreyfus Affair

S*** Holes and S*** Sandwiches

Acculturation without Context

       

---

[1] This quote is from a speech, “The Right to Be Wrong,” delivered on November 22, 1963—the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated—published in Vital Speeches, Volume XXX, Number 5, December 1963.  Note:  Dean Inge is Dean William Ralph Inge who was an English clergyman and writer. Inge’s quote is from Christian Ethics and Modern Problems, Kessinger Publishing, 2003 (originally published in 1930 by Putnam Sons), p. 142.

[2] Archbishop Charles J. Chaput captured this phenomenon in his book, Strangers in a Strange Land:  Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World, (New York, NY:  Henry Holt and Company, 2017).

Knock It Off

by

Gadfly

            This essay addresses the recent exchanges between President Trump and four Congresswomen, collectively known as the squad. The exchanges sound petulant.  However, before we treat the two parties with moral equivalency and tell both to cease and desist, let me begin with a story.

Training for combat operations in fighter aircraft is dangerous business.  High speed, three-dimension maneuvering, with high g-force loading on the aircraft (and bodies—five Gs makes 10 pounds weigh the equivalent of 50 pounds), and a variety of tactics employed to defeat an enemy pilot characterize the flying.  It involves split-second decision making and extreme physical exertion.

            One of the safety measures during such training operations is the “knock it off” call.  If any pilot (or weapons systems officer in two-crew fighters) sees a situation developing that could easily spiral out of control, then they are to shout out, “knock it off, knock it off, knock it off.”  This basically reboots the training.

            On one of my missions near Stuttgart, West Germany in the early 1980s, I heard over Guard frequency (all aircraft must monitor Guard frequency on UHF—ultra high frequency), “Antar one eight, knock it off, knock it off, knock it off!”  Less than a minute later, I heard the same call, with the tone of voice sounding more urgent.  About five minutes later, Stuttgart Control announced over Guard frequency, “All Antar aircraft, RTB [return to base] immediately.”  I knew something tragic had happened and led my formation back to base.

            Antar was the call sign for members assigned to the 20^th Tactical Air Support Squadron based at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  We were all checked out as forward air controllers, flying the OV-10 Bronco.  Each member then had a number assigned.  For example, Antar 18 (Antar one eight) belonged to a pilot named Chris.  The pilot in a different aircraft, another Antar, was assigned to fly as the Red Baron on this day of flying.  His mission was to fly into the vicinity of the various Antar training missions to measure their vigilance awareness (clearing for other “enemy” aircraft that were closing in on their position).  The procedure was to make two ninety degree turns and then to rock your wings to signal that you noticed his presence.  The Red Baron would then proceed to another Antar training area.

            Antar 18 did not follow the procedure.  Instead, he became aggressive and maneuvered against the Red Baron as though he was an actual enemy aircraft.  Because of the high G-loading, airspeed and altitude were rapidly depleting, becoming dangerously low and slow (approaching stall speed).  This is why the Red Baron was calling knock it off.

            Antar 18 stalled out and, because the aircraft was too low, was unable to safely eject from the aircraft.  Antar 18 had a passenger in the back seat.  Both died in the crash.

            Safety, legal, and flying evaluation boards were convened.  The Red Baron was exonerated by all three boards.  Yet, by an authority at a higher level, the Red Baron had his wings taken away, as if he was just as guilty for the crash as Antar 18.  He believed someone should be punished for the aircraft loss.  Antar 18 and his passenger were already dead.  Could not punish them.  This was assigned guilt through moral equivalency . . . not based on evidence but personal opinion and a tit for tat moral reasoning paradigm.

            The knock it off call that is needed in the case of Trump versus the squad exchange is not for Trump or the squad.  It should be directed at the anti-America faction in America, the cancer that is symbolized by the squad.

            “The squad” is openly socialist in their political orientation, which is extremely contrary to the idea of America.  Whether they are tutors or mere unwitting champions of the ideology, understanding the ideological “formation process” is enlightening and disturbing.

            For those who follow my blog entries, you are familiar with some of the evidence I have provided as it relates to the socialist (communist and fascist) infiltration of American institutions.  We can learn a great deal from those who “drank the Kool-Aid,” such as Whitaker Chambers, Bella Dodd, and Douglas Hyde.  In his book, I Believed, Hyde tells his story about becoming a prominent Communist in Great Britain.  In his book, Dedication and Leadership, Hyde explains how Communists are recruited and developed to be very active in the movement.  Here is a lengthy excerpt from Dedication and Leadership:

 

. . . In Communist hands the subtle method [in non-totalitarian societies] may take on an almost sinister quality, as ideas which would otherwise be unacceptable are skillfully got into the heads of those who attend the classes.

            Such instruction leads those who are indoctrinated in this way to abandon and repudiate practically all their past thinking and, indeed, to abandon the very things which first brought them to Communism.  For example, the man who joined because he was at heart a pacifist comes in time quite naturally and ‘logically’ to accept the need for violence [think Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa], for civil war and insurrection (even though anyone who has experienced civil wars knows that these tend to be much nastier and bloodier even than ordinary ‘imperialist’ wars) and to sit up till midnight studying Lenin on the art of insurrection as a means of establishing a system of society in which war will evermore be impossible.

            The man with a liberal past comes believing that by joining the Communist Party he is somehow putting himself on the side of liberty, freedom, equality.  After attending a few Marxist classes he has come to ‘realise’ that these are but ‘bourgeois concepts’ which must be not only abandoned but also combated, since they are all part of the means by which an inhuman social system is made acceptable, in the guise of being tolerant and democratic, to those who suffer at its hands (pp. 86-87).

Based on this formation process, is it hard to understand the ideological motivation for sanctuary cities and states, open borders, and the claims about inhumane detention centers and concentration camps by members of the squad and other leftists?

There is no moral equivalence between Trump and the squad.  Like Trump, Americans need to protect the idea of America and be bold enough to tell the squad and those they symbolize to “knock it off!!!!!!”  America is our home.  “Home is where the heart is.”

 

When President Trump tells members of the squad to go home, he means they should go to where their heart belongs, which is not America.  The truth may hurt; but it can set us all free from the brutal chains of illusions and delusions.    

A Conflict of Values

by

Gadfly

                Yesterday, I received a report about a member of the U.S. Navy who was discharged for dishonoring our National Anthem.  According to The Florida Times-Union,

On Sept. 19, [2017] Petty Officer 2nd Class Janaye Ervin reportedly refused to salute during “morning colors,” a daily 8 a.m. raising of the flag, a Navy spokesman told The Washington Post. . . .

She gave an interview to International Business Times in which she said she was checking the latest news before starting work for government contractor Leidos at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickham in Hawaii and saw a report on the death of a black man who was shot and killed by a local police officer on a road in Tulsa, Okla.

“That was the last story I saw before the song started playing, and I was really sad and I just didn’t want to stand at that moment,” Ervin said

.

She thought, “I can’t stand for this song knowing that the song isn’t for me, being black. The song doesn’t represent me at all.”

Obviously, Ervin experienced a serious conflict of values.  One can only infer that the values in conflict were patriotism and group identity.  Ervin’s notion of patriotism was to a more perfect union, one that promotes equality and retributive justice based on the ghost of slavery.

 

The institution of slavery is too often demagogued without the historical context.  Slavery was a global institution at the time.  Our nation’s Founders recognized the immorality of this institution, and in the Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal.”  There were no qualifiers.  They were optimistic that, in time, the slavery issue would be resolved.

The other value is group identity.  This is very tribal.  It also reflects a distinction Hayek makes in Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism.  That is, societies reflect a set of behaviors that span a continuum from instinct to reason.  To manage the tension between these ends of the spectrum, customs, norms, and traditions are created.  Thus, to base an analysis of the world from a group identity perspective reflects an “instinct” orientation that is resistant to facts contrary to reason in favor of what one wants to believe.

Ervin’s little episode brought back a memory from 1976.  My wife, two daughters and I were stationed at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas.  I was a first lieutenant serving as a personnel officer in the group that supported the School of Cryptological Sciences (a training unit in support of the United States Security Service, now known as the National Security Agency [NSA]).

The episode involved a conversation during a master’s degree course. About a third of the class were blacks assigned to the Social Actions Office (focused on instilling a nondiscriminatory culture).  Somehow, the discussion evolved to patriotism and the black students became critical of the concept.  I suggested that as members of the armed forces, not being patriotic seemed contrary to what was expected of the profession.  They disagreed.

  

So, I confronted them:  "Do you feel respect for the American flag and the Constitution and way of life it represents?"  They said no.  Then all raised a fist and said “our allegiance is to black power.”

  

I warned them that if I were to report this incident, they might be subject to disciplinary action if not dismissal from the military; but since this was a classroom, I would grant them the anonymity of academic non-attribution.  Further, if they had any pride in not being a hypocrite, they needed to adjust their attitudes or leave the profession of arms.

 

They were respectful and appeared to be listening to what I had to say.  So, I acknowledged that racism remained an issue and this rightfully justified the Social Actions Office they populated.  The key, I believed, was to identify racist comments and acts and then to educate when possible or hold incorrigible violators accountable when necessary.  After all is done and said, tit-for-tat moral reasoning will make us no better than we have ever been.

Ironically, shortly after this episode, I was appointed as an investigating officer for a racial incident at one of the two gates that allowed access to the base.  My preparatory interview with the Wing Commander, Colonel Norma Brown (first female commander of an active duty wing in the United States Air Force and later a major general), was interesting.  After a few moments, she leaned forward and bluntly asked me if I was a chauvinist.  I told her, “Ma’am, I do not know what the word means, so maybe yes or maybe no.”  She then asked if I resented working for a woman.  I said, “No Ma’am, I’m just uncomfortable working for a full bird colonel.”

To make a long story short, the car full of black civilians sought access to the base to meet up with friends at the Noncommissioned Officer’s Club on a Friday night.  None of the civilians in the car had a military identification card that would allow entry.  The gate guard turned them away and then alerted the only other gate guard with a description of the car and occupants.  A few minutes later, the car arrived at the other gate.  Instead of turning the occupants of the car away, a young airman began to intimidate each member in the car, eventually having them exit the vehicle to be frisked.  The frisking was completely unjustified. The supervising noncommissioned officer (NCO) never intervened.

There were issues with this incident that stemmed from a lack of respect for rules (trying to get unauthorized access to a heavily protected facility) and racism, but more so from a violation of other principles, such as discipline, accountability, and so forth.  Upon my recommendations, each black civilian involved received a personal apology from Colonel Brown, three NCOs received letters of reprimand (which kept them from promotion for two years), and the security forces squadron commander received an Article 15 (administrative punishment in lieu of a court martial—which kept this officer from promotion) for allowing an unhealthy and unprofessional culture in the security forces squadron.

There were no winners in the Goodfellow case.  In different ways, all the players involved made decisions based on personal interest that was not congruent with the common good.

As we observe the current jockeying of Democrat presidential candidates, some boldly push for reparations for slavery.  At least one now calls for reparations to members of the LGBT community who were earlier denied equal rights, such as marriage.  Sadly, the motivation for these calls is to generate votes.  “If you vote for me, I’m going to give you something.”  This involves robbing Peter (taxation) to pay Paul (redistribution of wealth).

What values are in play with these candidates?

 

Certainly, no single living black person in America is or has ever been a slave.  Nor has any nonblack living person in America ever owned a slave.  Yet, the notion of reparations implies that nonblacks (we hear a lot about “white privilege”) should pay for the crime of slavery to benefit blacks who have never been a slave.  The value at play here is equality.  Therefore, to achieve equality based on historical behaviors, today’s blacks must be made to be more equal than nonblacks.  Does this sound like tit for tat reasoning?  Absolutely; except today’s Americans—both black and nonblack--get to be used as pawns in order for presidential candidates to achieve political power.

To further argue the absurdity of today’s political left, a new movement is spreading across America, called civic religion.  In a New York Times article, “Preaching Faith in Democracy,” we learn that after the election of Donald Trump, co-founders Eric Liu and Jena Cane, formed a nonprofit organization called Citizen University.  As an example of the training, one of the disciples of the first cohort “asked those in attendance to raise their hands if they thought that liberty was a core American value.  Then she asked them to raise their hands if they thought equality was a core American value.  Then she said: ‘Think of liberty and equality on a continuum.  What’s more important to you?’”

This is the type of dichotomy the left likes to create:  liberty versus equality; socialism versus capitalism.  They make us think we can have either liberty or equality.  One or the other; not both.  In a socialist system, this is true.  This is why individual liberty is taken away to ensure equality for the masses by a ruling elite.

 

This dichotomy also explains why the left pushes socialism as a remedy for the evils of capitalism.  In their narrative, capitalism results in inequality.  Yet, even a socialist system requires capitalism for any production of goods.  The difference is who controls the production.  Greed exists in any system.  In socialist regimes, the ruling elite live like kings and queens.  Politically, capitalism is exploited by those on the entire political spectrum through the phenomenon of crony capitalism.  Socialism cannot solve these problems—but it exacerbates them.  On the other hand, a more comprehensive manifestation of classical liberalism mitigates them, especially within the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

As Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom, socialists use capitalism as the foil in advancing their cause, when in reality, the enemy of socialism is [classical] liberalism—individual liberty, private property, limited government, and free markets/free enterprise.  I contend that respect for a Judeo-Christian tradition was inherent in the classical liberal political philosophy.  Is it any surprise then that the left tends toward atheism in addition to its criticism of individual liberty, private property, and limited government? The left also believes that our economy is best managed through government control, such as minimum wages and the various forms of price control, and through fiscal and monetary policy.

Many Americans aligned with the left do not know for what the left really stands, except as the liberator of the oppressed.  In Dedication and Leadership, Douglas Hyde (former 20-year British communist and news editor of The Daily Worker) asserts that socialism can not gain any momentum without minorities because they are the easiest to agitate as victims of a nonsocialist system.  This is why the left needs minorities and they amplify this notion through identity groups.  The training, which communists call education, is actual propaganda in so far as it inspires the recruits into adopting a different set of values.  They do this by creating a new language.  This is why words like liberal, gay, and so forth have different meanings in today’s leftist-controlled public narrative.  We are now learning that AOC’s green deal was never about the climate—it was a push for socialism.

The great political division we are now experiencing is a wake-up call and an opportunity to really understand what is at stake for America.  Even Jesus was tempted to find his kingdom in this mortal life (Matthew 4:1-11)—as we are tempted to believe in a socialist utopia.  Those who have faith in God and seek the truth, which is liberating (John 8:32-36), can overcome the illusions and delusions of those who preach faith in secular humanism and the perceived benevolence of ruling elite.

We should be respectful and compassionate to the maximum extent possible while taking a stand for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness given to us by our Creator.  Much of the anger and contempt for America comes from the left.  While we are expected to respect the innate human dignity in each person, we are also expected to admonish and rebuke behaviors contrary to the notion that all are created equal and each is endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness.  We protect these inalienable rights through truth (currently obfuscated by fake news), the rule of law (ordered liberty; moral duty in the pursuit of happiness, including the ability to forego special interests for a greater good), and justice (adherence to the principle: “to each his due”).

   

In the process, we need to discuss values:  what they mean and how they apply within our communities.  Yet, none of this will be useful if we do not have a fundamental idea of what America is.  This idea is based on the inspiration of the Declaration of Independence and codified in a system of government--a republic--articulated in our Constitution.

 

This knowledge has not been passed along for at least three generations.  Shame on us for letting this happen.  We can change this.  We have work to be done.  Let’s roll!!