Don’t Say “Don’t Say Gay”

“The recent statements by The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) leadership regarding the Florida legislature’s recent ‘Don’t Sat Gay or Trans bill’ have utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA+ safety represented by this legislation…. While we certainly appreciate Bob Chapek’s apology note, there is still more work to be done. — Open Letter & Petition — Disney Do Better Walkout (, by activists claiming to represent (TWDC) LGBTQIA+ community and their allies

Many of you have read about the uproar over Florida’s newly (March 28, 2022) enacted legislation regarding parental rights and the teaching of sexuality in grades K-3. While we could present a decent case for eliminating government-funded schools as the true solution, we recognize that, with the way education is structured in America, this is not happening anytime soon. For now, we want to point out that the true danger of the topic of LGBT rights is that it serves to move our country toward a Marxist, 2-tier society.

The basis of Marxism is that society is made up of victims and oppressors. Many countries have fallen because of tumult among the lower, or “victimized,” class — only to be taken over by ruthless tyrants. Those seeking power in America desire the same result. But since America doesn’t have a rigid economic class system, the victims must come from somewhere else.

Thus, we hear the cry that those who have unnatural affections (can one truly call it otherwise?) are being oppressed and must be protected. We see the same idea applied to other groups such as women and minorities.

We certainly agree that no one should ever be bullied or harassed, regardless of their station, nature, or life choices. However, these groups aren’t really seeking equality but are actually demanding special status with “rights” that turn out to be entitlements that other citizens do not enjoy. For example, the open letter above, written by LGBT activists in the name of Disney employees, claims that Florida’s new law “challenges basic human rights,” threatens “safety and well-being,” and that TWDC merely “placate[s] the LGBTQIA+ community with subpar representation in the content produced.” But since when is indoctrinating children via public school and media a basic human right?!

If you watch mainstream media about this backlash, you’ll find accusations of Disney being “woke,” as well as pundits pointing out that the left misunderstood the legislation or did not study it enough. However, Americans need to understand that this is not a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. The clash over Florida’s new law is one battle in the war for the nation’s culture. Indeed, “capture the culture” was the battle cry of followers of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, who studied and developed tactics for seizing government power.

Gramsci believed that undermining morality plays a critical role in the endeavor to topple Western democracies, replacing them with communistic governments. And again, while we maintain that all humans have God-given rights that no one can infringe upon regardless of their characteristics or choices, the question of sexuality boils down to morality. The increase of young people “coming out” as gay, trans, etc. can certainly be explained by the issue being brought to the forefront in movies and TV, in the news and in their local schools and even churches.

Since Biblical times, sexual deviation has been seen as an affront to God and a threat to the sacred natural order of families and procreation. Yet today we are supposed to see homosexuals as deserving extra protection. And if we don’t wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality and other perversions, we are accused of infringing upon rights. Yet such immorality has an intrinsic connection to rebellion against God.

We warn that these orchestrated trends will lead, not only to amoral future generations, but also to a defunct Constitution and to the rise of tyranny.

Truly, the problem isn’t with our friends and family who have been convinced in their kindheartedness that we should stand up for the “oppressed” gays, nor with those who unwillingly struggle with such issues. The true danger is Marxism that divides our society into oppressed and oppressors. We should strive to treat everyone with love and kindness but stay firm in the knowledge that morality is a necessary component to the survival of our Republic against the onslaught of would-be tyrants.

We align our stance with that of George Washington, whose words in his Farewell Address we would do well to remember:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

GOP Fails to Protect the Unborn — Mike Lee

Under this bill, neither the unborn nor taxpayers are any more protected from the abortion industry than they were under President Obama and a unified Democratic Congress….

This bill represents a significant opportunity missed — and missed at a time when we can’t be sure how many more we will be given going forward, how many more opportunities like this one we might have. — Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), 9-18-18

On September 18th, the Senate “debated” the House-Senate “compromise” on the FY2019 Defense Appropriations bill (Senate Vote 212).  Earlier the Senate leadership had attached the unrelated Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill to the Defense bill in order to bring the big-government Democrats on board.  Only 7 senators voted against the “compromise,” which was very much like their earlier minibus.

During the ostensible debate, Senator Mike Lee took the podium to put on record why he was voting against the bipartisan measure:

For the second straight year of unified Republican governance — unified pro-life governance — Congress’s annual spending bills will include no new reforms protecting unborn children or getting Federal taxpayers out of the abortion business.

The House version of this Health and Human Services spending bill included multiple reforms. It denied taxpayer funds to the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood. It eliminated title X family planning grants, which cross-subsidize abortion providers. It prohibited Federal funding of research on aborted fetal tissue. It included the Conscience Protection Act protecting pro-life people and groups from funding discrimination.

None of these modest, commonsense spending reforms survived the House-Senate negotiations — none of them. None was made a priority by the people empowered to set the priorities….

But before this bill passes with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority as its base of support — despite it being mostly unread by its supporters — someone ought to speak up for the Americans whom this legislation conspicuously leaves behind….

Some causes are worth fighting for, even in defeat — the God-given equal rights and the dignity of all human beings paramount among them. [Emphasis added.]

Instead of following Senator Lee’s example, Senate appropriators touted bipartisan compromise and insisted, hypocritically, that in the interest of such compromise and getting things done on time, they had eliminated so-called controversial “poison pills” from the legislation.   But attaching the largely unconstitutional and unrelated Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill to the Defense bill was itself such an act.   In fact, in the House, 56 Republicans rejected this compromise to the Left, but only 5 Democrats (see House Roll Call 405).

Here are some examples (excerpts from the debates) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), member Appropriations Committee:  This is a bipartisan agreement…. Today’s bill, I think, reflects the priorities of both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle. We fulfilled the commitments the leaders made in the February budget agreement to keep the extraneous issues off these bills that fund the government.”

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee:  “Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues,  particularly Leaders McConnell and Schumer and Vice Chairman Leahy for  their help in moving this package. The conference report before the Senate accelerates the rebuilding of America’s military and provides our men and women in uniform with the largest pay increase in nearly a decade.

“It also increases NIH’s budget by $2 billion and provides  critical resources to combat the opioid epidemic. And, it contains no poison pill riders.   On the whole, the conference report tracks very closely with the Senate version of this package, which passed by a vote of 85 to 7. I hope it will receive the same level of support today and urge my colleagues to vote yes.”  

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), member Appropriations Committee:  “In conclusion, the outcome of much of this bill shows what we can  accomplish when Democrats and Republicans work together.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), ranking Democrat on Appropriations Committee:  “The two bills in the package before us — the Defense bill and the Labor-HHS-Education bill — are a product of hard work and bipartisan cooperation….

“We are still in conference on a four-bill minibus…. Most of the funding issues have been resolved. We do have some controversial poison pill riders.  We shouldn’t delay this package over unrelated policy matters that have no place on must-pass spending bills. Get the poison pills out and pass the bills.”

Such audacity! With the Health and Human Services bill attached to the Defense bill it is very much germane to decide whether or not to fund abortion providers with taxpayer money.  It’s just a matter of which group GOP senator leaders wanted to cater to — members of their own party or openly radical socialists.   Senator Lee comments:

The best measure of any government or any policy or proposal can be  measured according to its impact on the least among us. Too often today, Washington acts as though “the least among us” refers to our most vulnerable incumbents rather than our most vulnerable constituents. This $1.3 trillion spending bill exemplifies that very confusion and fails that very test….

I understand that fighting on contentious issues comes with a cost. I  understand that it is not easy. But other things come with a cost too.  It is not just this that comes with a cost — so, too, does not fighting on them, especially in the rare moments when we could win. This bill represents a significant opportunity missed — and missed at a time when we can’t be sure how many more we will be given going forward, how many more opportunities like this one we might have. Some causes are worth fighting for, even in defeat — the God-given equal rights and the dignity of all human beings paramount among them. [Emphasis added.]

Senator Lee’s complete remarks
For your interest, we include here the complete text of Senator Lee’s remarks as reported in the Congressional Record (9-18-18) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah):  “Mr. President, I am a Republican because I am a conservative. I am a conservative because I believe the Constitution  and the ideals that it asserts on behalf of the American people are worth protecting, worth defending, even when they are untimely, even when they are unpopular, and especially for the vulnerable, for the marginalized, and for the forgotten among us.

“Equal rights, equal opportunity, equal justice under the law, equal dignity under God — we fail as Americans when we violate these ideals, when we neglect them to whatever degree, when we exclude some number of  our neighbors from their God-given share of our common inheritance,  when we declare in the interest of expedience and in defiance of our  own national creed that some people somehow are less equal than others.

“Such was the cruelty of our Nation through our laws, long-visited on  African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and ethnic minorities,  on women, on the disabled, and on religious minorities, including  religious minorities like my own forebears as members of the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   Happily, this is no longer the case. Happily, all of these groups — who, taken together, comprise the vast majority of all Americans — were at different times in our history affirmatively brought under the  protection of our laws. This work of inclusion, of expanding the circle of legal and constitutional protection, was not a natural, organic,  spontaneous, evolutionary process; it was the product of hard work — the  work of vigilant citizens, activists, and lawmakers who affirmatively,  aggressively, painstakingly advanced the cause of justice at every  opportunity, even against the entrenched forces of the political status quo.   Republicans in this Congress have undertaken such efforts on behalf  of certain priorities — in particular, the tax relief and spending  increases that are poised to yield a budget deficit of nearly $1 trillion this year.

“But no such legislative progress has been achieved advancing the right to life nor the plight of those denied it. For the second straight year of unified Republican governance — unified pro-life governance — Congress’s annual spending bills will include no new reforms protecting unborn children or getting Federal taxpayers out of the abortion business. The House version of this Health and Human Services spending bill included multiple reforms. It denied taxpayer funds to the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood. It eliminated title X family planning grants, which cross-subsidize abortion providers. It prohibited Federal funding of research on aborted fetal tissue. It included the Conscience Protection Act protecting pro-life people and groups from funding discrimination.

“None of these modest, commonsense spending reforms survived the House-Senate negotiations — none of them. None was made a priority by the people empowered to set the priorities. The authors of this bill defend their $1.3 trillion compromise. And of course, this being Washington, I know, as is always the case, that  in this case, it could always be worse. But before this bill passes with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority as its base of support — despite it being mostly unread by its supporters — someone ought to speak up for the Americans whom this legislation conspicuously leaves behind.

“The best measure of any government or any policy or proposal can be  measured according to its impact on the least among us. Too often today, Washington acts as though “the least among us” refers to our most vulnerable incumbents rather than our most vulnerable constituents. This $1.3 trillion spending bill exemplifies that very confusion and fails that very test. Under this bill, neither the unborn nor taxpayers are any more protected from the abortion industry than they were under President Obama and a unified Democratic Congress.

“I understand that fighting on contentious issues comes with a cost. I understand that it is not easy. But other things come with a cost too.  It is not just this that comes with a cost — so, too, does not fighting on them, especially in the rare moments when we could win. This bill represents a significant opportunity missed — and missed at a time when we can’t be sure how many more we will be given going forward, how many more opportunities like this one we might have.  Some causes are worth fighting for, even in defeat — the God-given equal rights and the dignity of all human beings paramount among them.   The arc of history may, as I hope, bend toward life, but only if we bend it. I oppose this legislation, but I do so neither in anger nor in sadness; rather, I do so in hope, looking forward to another bill, another time in the not-too-distant future, one that stands up for  those Americans who asked nothing more than the chance to one day stand  up for themselves. I yield the floor.”

Lou Dobbs Pumps Trump

 “Does it ever seem to you that President Trump has done more than any president in modern history in just 16 months? Yep, me too.  He’s not only done more in that short time than any president since FDR, but he’s also rolled back almost all of his predecessor’s two-term, so-called legacy legislation, executive orders, and regulations.  16 months [of Trump] … and 8 years of Obama is just about gone.” — Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network video clip, June 1, 2018

What a stretch of the facts!  But the problem here is not Dobb’s blatantly unjustified assessment.   The problem is that Lou Dobbs betrays his conservative audience with his assurance that everything is moving nicely under the current president — so just sit back and watch the president perform.

Before we examine the betrayal issue, however, let’s take a look at Dobb’s claim.  Among his examples of Obama administration rollbacks, Dobbs lists “executive orders and regulations.”   He seems to be referring to the disapproval by Congress of several administrative rules issued by the outgoing Obama administration in its waning days — hardly a major roll back of eight years of Obama.

But how about other key areas?  Let’s take a brief look at the lack of progress in three — the Culture War, energy independence, and “trade” — that contradicts Dobb’s claim.

The “Culture War”

Revolutionary forces have waged a Culture War in America for decades — a ubiquitous assault upon America’s moral, spiritual, and cultural underpinnings.  They have drawn support from the writings of Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who argued that the road to power in the developed countries was “to capture the culture.”  Gramsci focused particularly on undermining what George Washington regarded as necessary for the support of a free society — religion and morality.   And President Obama certainly picked up the Gramscian torch:

“Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced an end to the military’s longstanding ban on openly transgender service members on Thursday, fulfilling a key piece of the Obama administration’s historic legacy on LGBT rights.” — NBC News. June 30, 2016

The Obama administration’s decision to force our military to cope with multiple aspired non-biological genders was a clear subversion of military effectiveness and morale.  And so, President Trump’s March 2018 order was popular in conservative quarters:

“President Trump released an order Friday night banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under ‘limited circumstances,’ following up on his calls last year to ban transgender individuals from serving.” — CBS News, March 24, 2018

However, the President’s order was quickly blocked by several court challenges, and four federal courts quickly ruled against the ban. The matter is now working its way through the courts.

Indeed, much of the public perception regarding President Trump’s accomplishments is due to the Left’s reaction to his threats or orders (such as his order temporarily banning Syrian refugees).  But Trump generally allowed his orders to be blocked by radical courts or neutered.  We are reminded of Andrew Jackson’s famous alleged response to a 1832 decision of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

That’s the story, in a nutshell, of the ongoing Culture War.  Although it was the Supreme Court, not the Obama administration, that legitimized same-sex marriage, President Obama and a sympathetic Establishment media supported an agenda that undermined public resistance to the decision.  And President Trump has accepted the decision as okay.

The inroads of the Culture War are still in place, and the war is still raging unchallenged, with the public being hammered into submission.  Indeed, that war will continue until the public is informed as to its real aim — to make freedom unsustainable — and the sponsors of the groups promoting the clever, but phony pretext of tolerance are exposed for their real agenda.

Energy Independence

As another example of lack of progress, where is the substance from Trump’s announced “intention” to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, which were signed by President Obama?  The earliest the U.S. withdrawal might take place  would be November 2020, (unless, as Trump demands, the U.S. could get more favorable terms)?

In the meantime, we have not seen any progress toward putting the U.S. on the road to energy independence.  For example, where are the new nuclear power plants being built to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power (as of 2015, France generated 40 percent of its electricity with this American technology, now blocked from use in the U.S.)?  Or when will American companies be allowed to tap our vast reserves of shale oil?

A more fundamental weakness is the failure of the Trump administration to enlighten the public, even with tweets, as to the agenda and fundamental deception of the environmental movement.  In particular, the administration is not telling the public that high-level Insiders have promoted the fiction of catastrophic man-made climate change as a pretext for a power grab.  And the battle for sufficient energy at an affordable cost cannot be won without the support of an informed public.


Or how about the misplaced focus in the president’s plan to renegotiate NAFTA to get a better deal?  NAFTA is a deceptive Internationalist attack on the freedom and independence of the United States.  It is designed to imitate the similar deception of the European Common Market, which led to the European Union.  NAFTA is much more than a trade agreement.  And the U.S. needs leadership to get us out of the trap.  “Fair trade” is not the issue.  (See our web post, “Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!”)

“This President Is a Marvel”

Much of President Trump’s real accomplishment has been to energize the Left while putting many conservatives to sleep. Both Lou Dobbs and Fox News are major forces helping to achieve the latter.  They are promoting the great American swindle that a president is supposed to run our nation and that the job of a responsible public is merely to choose every four years between the GOP and Democratic contenders, as vetted by the Establishment.

In a portion of his three-minute video commentary, Dobbs “marvel[s] at President Trump’s abundant, even endless energy,” and lists the following examples:

  • Trump made two flights to give speeches;
  • he signed the “Right to Try Act”;
  • he pardoned the late Jack Johnson and Dinesh D’Souza;
  • he might soon pardon Martha Stewart.

“And now he’s slapping tariffs on Mexico and Canada because they won’t negotiate on NAFTA and the European Union because, well, just because they deserve it.

“Negotiating to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and undeterred by the massive odds against success, an unlikely success, admittedly, but one that would cause the world to catch its breath — just the kind of odds that President Trump has overcome in his extraordinary life.”

If we were seeking to pump Trump, we could easily list more credible actions.  For example, we were surprised that Dobbs didn’t mention the tax cut or President Trump’s court appointees.

Instead, Dobbs mentions that Trump signed the “The Right to Try Act.”  The Senate passed the Act last year by “unanimous consent” without a recorded vote. The Act changes the FDA procedures to allow critically ill patients to “try” experimental, potentially live-saving drugs.   While this may deliver on one of Trump’s promises, the Dobbs and Fox focus camouflages the very real danger threating our nation (see below).

Dobbs concludes his endorsement with these words:

“And all the president is doing is leading, and as, he promised, winning.  And, yes, he keeps tweeting as well.

“And if you’re confused about what he’s doing about the massive trade deficit with China, bringing 323 actions and 301s as well, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and the European Union tomorrow, well, just read the most succinct policy statement that a president has ever written.  It reads, here’s his tweet:  ‘Fair trade, explanation point.’

“Like I said, this president is a marvel.”

Covering Up the Real Threat

Lou Dobb’s endorsement will certainly gain him approval from Trump fans, and help keep them hooked on Fox.   But Lou Dobbs is not a “watchman on the tower” blowing a trumpet to warn of impending danger.

Instead, Lou Dobbs and Fox are playing a flute to put their viewers to sleep.

Both the conservative and Leftist wings of the CFR-controlled media serve the Internationalist Conspiracy by covering up its existence, influence, and agenda, while entertaining their audiences with relatively minor conflicts (see, for example, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade”).

Indeed, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade,”also demonstrates how the Establishment media hype phony leaders to conservatives. John Bolton, President Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor and most recently a Fox News analyst, is no real foe of the UN.  While both complain about the UN, they also accept the legitimacy of the UN.   But the Internationalists created the UN through deception as a step to an unaccountable world order run by them (see our web post, “The UN — Freedom’s Enemy”).

And the most prominent front group for this cabal in the U.S. is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), of which John Bolton has been a veteran member since 2000.  For many years, Rupert Murdoch, the founder and current CEO of Fox News, was also a member.   So perhaps it is not surprising that Fox News and its voices do not expose this group and its subversive agenda.

Most viewers of Lou Dobbs would regard him as a “conservative,” although he describes himself as an “independent populist.” Independent?  The notion that the major media conglomerates have no agenda other than making money is a myth.  They do not just hire anyone whom they believe can deliver exceptional ratings, and then give them a free rein.  And let’s be careful of the not so well understood term “populist.”  Jimmy Carter also described himself as a “populist.”

Like so many of his popular “conservative” colleagues, Dobbs provides doses of commonsense based on a seriously deficient view of what is driving America’s problems.

Indeed, the accolades Lou Dobbs paid to President Trump say a lot more about Dobbs and Fox than they do about the president.

Gun Grab Cover-up

“Gun control advocates and Democratic lawmakers are keeping the pressure on President Trump and Republicans to act on gun reform even as other controversies threaten to consume the spotlight nearly three weeks after a school shooting that left 17 people dead in South Florida.” — The Hill, 3-4-18

Much of the media and numerous politicians would have us believe that the easy availability of guns is responsible for the recent mass murder of 17 Florida high school students, i.e., the weapon caused the crime. The media would also have us believe that the survivors of the mass shooting are now unanimous advocates of more gun control as the solution. At the same time, the media covers up the revolutionary organization and totalitarian objectives driving the gun-control agenda, while retailing the fiction that the gun-control movement is only interested in promoting “gun safety.”

In her February 28th column, Ann Coulter gave us good reason to question the media-created impression that all the school’s shooting survivors are now passionate gun control advocates. Coulter pointed out how the perpetrator, Nicolas Cruz, had repeatedly and openly threatened to kill students, but that school and law enforcement officials had refused to act. The reason: an official Broward County policy on school discipline ostensibly intended to end the “school-to-prison pipeline”:

“If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other ‘red flags.’…

“At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., ‘I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,’ ‘I’m going to watch you bleed,’ ‘I am going to shoot you dead’ — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

“Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.”
Coulter concludes: “When it comes to spectacular crimes, it’s usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail.”

The Cover-up

Yet there is much more to this story and its fallout than intolerable law enforcement “failure.” Ann attributes the refusal of Broward County officials “to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students” to their “pursuit of a demented ideology.” With this focus, Coulter insulates her readers from a much more sinister, decades-long agenda — the drive for civilian disarmament as a precursor to totalitarian control.

Establishment Insiders have pursued this agenda, domestically and through the United Nations for decades, but a corrupted media ensures that the public has zero awareness of the supporting organization and its real objectives. It’s not “demented ideology” driving the disarmament agenda; it’s a deceptive, unscrupulous power grab.

And so Ann, along with most of her controlled-media colleagues, ignores the critical reason why the horrible Florida crime has been so extensively adopted as a new convenient emotional pretext to drive the civilian disarmament agenda.

Americans who listen only to the major channels of Establishment opinion regularly hear about the monsters that have targeted defenseless school children and civilians. But they are not told about another monster in the wings — uncontrolled government, which so animated our founding fathers long before Professor R. J. Rummel documented the totalitarian record of the 20th Century in his Death By Government.   Nor are they reminded of the Rwanda genocide resulting from UN-supported civilian disarmament.

And naturally, Americans are not told of the organized forces behind the deadly gun-control deception. For example, in the their 1958 classic, World Peace Through World Law, Grenville Clark, head of the United World Federalists, and Louis P. Sohn, later a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, spelled out an agenda for a “world police force” and called for rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens.

A clever propaganda piece, “Jefferson’s ‘tree of liberty’ and the blood of schoolchildren,” published by a Senior Editor for Yahoo News (2-15-18) illustrates the media-created ignorance of the gun-control threat:

“The idea that Americans should arm themselves to fight ‘state overreach’ is a staple of gun-rights groups and politicians occupying the political terrain that runs rightward roughly from the NRA to the edge of the earth. It goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants.’

“And — call me naïve — but I would much sooner entrust my freedom to America’s justice system, which is also part of the Constitution, than to a bunch of middle-aged guys running around the woods in camo pants, no matter what kinds of guns they have.”

Of course, the preferred value of an armed citizenry is as one deterrent against a blatant assault on our liberties or form of government. Nobody should imagine that a minority of unsupported civilians could prevail in battle with the state. If the deterrent failed, universal support for action by an informed public, including even members of the military, would be necessary to reestablish “the tree of liberty.”

But many defenders of the Second Amendment make the mistake of relying solely on gun ownership for safety against tyranny. Would-be totalitarians do not depend on a single campaign such as gun-control to secure their aims — they seek to manipulate public opinion through control of the mass media, to create dependence on government for basic necessities, such as health care, and to create a submissive culture, among many other initiatives.

Other Ignored Factors

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams, while addressing the officers of the Militia of Massachusetts, explained: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We often find that Insider-controlled government is concocting a dangerous antidote to the poison it has itself created. In light of Adams’ admonition, consider the Federal government’s role in the culture war: the attack on the traditional family, the disrespect for religion, and the denigration of traditional moral standards.

Almost a century ago, Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, a prime strategist in the culture war, argued that in the developed Western democracies, the quick seizure of state power was doomed to failure. Instead, he insisted that for a revolution to be successful the supporting culture first had to be changed. The altered culture would then prepare the people, intellectually and morally, to accept the revolution.

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism

An internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper, discovered following the post-World War II takeover of Czechoslovakia, documented the deceptive practice known as “revolutionary parliamentarianism.” The tactic seeks to create the appearance of widespread popular pressure for revolutionary action.

Sympathizers in parliament (Congress) can then advance the revolutionary measure as though they were just responding to overwhelming public demand. Others congressmen, finding it difficult to stand up to the illusion, are pulled along.

Let’s look at several current examples of how the media, sympathetic politicians, and revolutionary organization create the illusion of genuine mass support for the gun-control agenda:

“Congress is under intense pressure to take action following the shooting, which reopened a national debate on guns.” [Emphasis added] — The Hill (2-27-18)

What debate? What the media calls a national debate is merely a media-orchestrated propaganda assault, masquerading as a debate. The voices put forth in the “debate” are carefully selected to keep the message within “acceptable” bounds and with an “acceptable” impact.

And how is the pressure organized, by whom, and for what purpose?

“Teenaged survivors of the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting have amassed huge followings on social media in the weeks since a gunman attacked their school, assembling powerful social media tools in the national debate over guns and mass shootings….

“The survivors’ emergence as pro-gun control voices on social media is a new development in the response to mass shootings.” — The Hill (3-3-18)

No one should doubt the initiative of teenagers to make use of social media and the new tools of technology. But somewhere the activists among them were mentored or encouraged by unmentioned adult forces. Nor should we accept that several hundred teenagers all have the same mind or speak with one voice.

Earlier, AP (2-20-18) reported:

“Students who survived the Florida school shooting began a journey Tuesday to the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to prevent another massacre….”

“Three buses carried 100 students who, in the aftermath of the attack that killed 17 people, want to revive the gun-control movement.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the teens organized this all by themselves?   Consider this report in The Hill (2-20-18):

“Lawmakers say they are feeling more pressure than ever to act on gun control after the latest deadly mass shooting at a public high school.

“A large reason, aides and lawmakers alike say, is the emotional pleas from students who survived the shooting — and who have expressed horror at the idea that nothing will be done in response to the killings of their schoolmates.

The grass-roots movement, dubbed ‘Never Again,’ has kept an extra layer of pressure on members to enact stricter gun laws and take other steps to prevent future massacres….

“Still, the public outcry that followed last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has fueled some hope among gun reformers that the political winds are shifting in their favor.

“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said the protests in recent days constitute ‘a new type of organic outcry,’ one even more prominent than the demonstrations that followed a similar shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“But after the latest deadly shooting rampage in Florida, high school students are taking the fight into their own hands — a powerful shift that appears to be having an impact on the national conversation surrounding the emotional and heated gun control debate….

“Young activists have been making impassioned pleas on national television, demanding action from their elected officials and organizing rallies, walkouts and marches — including one planned for Washington, D.C., on March 24.” [Emphasis added.]

The Hill and Democratic Representative Mike Thompson would have us believe that the teens planned this all by themselves. AFP (2-18-18) reveals more of the extensive planning:

“The ‘March for our Lives’ will take place on March 24, with sister marches planned across the country, a group of students told ABC News, vowing to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in America’s deadlocked debate on gun control.”

And Fox News (3-5-18) also reported the advertised planning, while cooperating with the revolutionaries to hide the “rest of the story” and keep the public in the dark:

“So along with 16-year-old Madeline Paterna, Giancola began to arrange for her school to participate in the National School Walkout, a protest led by students demanding action against gun violence, on March 14 – one month after the Parkland school shooting….

“For 17 minutes at 10 a.m. across each time zone on March 14, students, school faculty and supporters around the world will walk out of their schools to honor those killed in the massacre at the Parkland high school earlier this year and to protest gun violence.

“More than 185,000 students are expected to participate in the walkout, according to the latest numbers provided by a Women’s March spokesperson. And a map of participating schools on the event’s website shows the walkout has gone international – with schools in Ireland, Israel and Mexico participating.”

Fox News did point to a group calling itself Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, sporting a clenched fist in its website logo, as the organizers of the March 14 demonstration.   But the Fox story supported the protest by pointing students to another website where students could find out if their school is participating and the story recited the group’s objective to “protest Congress’ inaction” at face value.

Good Morning America (2-27-18) reported on a Rhode Island executive order to “establish a new ‘red flag’ policy” to “help keep guns away from people who ‘could pose significant threats to public safety.’”

“‘The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort,” Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday. ‘We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence.’” [Emphasis added.]

And for “authoritative” input to the public “debate,” Good Morning America gave us this:

“‘Today is a major victory for Rhode Islanders and an encouraging sign for people throughout the country as they demand lawmakers take concrete action to prevent gun violence,’ Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.” [Emphasis added.]

Leadership Betrayal

As usual, we see political leaders in both parties eagerly supporting the orchestrated Insider media spin that what the Florida mass shootings demonstrate is the need for government to give us more “gun safety.”   Here are a few examples:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

“Propose something, Mr. President. And I think Republicans have an obligation to work with Democrats to make it law if we can,” Graham said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”  — The Hill (3-4-18)

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R):

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich commended young Americans for demanding that their elected officials take decisive actions to reduce gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla…..

“According to Kasich, their idealism may actually succeed in ushering in new gun measures to protect Americans.

“‘And the more they push, the better chance we have of getting something done — to have greater gun safety and better protection for everybody in our country,’ he said.” — Yahoo (3-4-18) 

House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“‘Yesterday, we were encouraged by what President Trump had to say, our members who attended the meeting,’ Pelosi said.

“The minority leader was also encouraged by Trump pushing for legislation that would institute background checks for firearms purchased online or at gun shows. A bipartisan measure from Reps. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., that would do just that has reached 200 co-sponsors in the House.

“‘We’ve never had anything like 200 names on a gun safety bill. This is remarkable,’ Pelosi said. The King-Thompson bill is something Democrats have long pushed for in the wake of mass shootings like the one February 14 at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 dead….

“‘I know if the comprehensive bill on background checks came to the floor, it would win,’ Pelosi said.” — Roll Call (3-1-18)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach….

“‘For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,’ Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).” [Emphasis added.] — The Hill (3-1-18)

A Final Word:  The Wisdom of James Madison

From his deep study of history, James Madison warned of the dangers of ignorance, deception, and betrayal:

“Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.

“But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.”

Please share this perspective widely!


Immigration Betrayal!

To solve the immigration problem, we must first understand why it exists. And that requires digging deeper than just blaming desperate foreigners for crossing our borders illegally in search of a better life. Indeed, the real reason why both illegal and legal immigration are out of control is because it serves an influential cabal targeting our freedom. And only Congress, under pressure from an informed electorate, can stop the betrayal.

The Intended Damage

Massive immigration that does not assimilate subverts our culture — the culture that supports freedom. This is not racism or xenophobia. It was the attitude of America’s founders.

In his report on immigration to the First Congress, James Madison urged that America “welcome every person of good fame [who] really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States.”

Alexander Hamilton argued that our goal should be “to render the people of this country as homogeneous as possible” as that “must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanency of their union and prosperity.”

Immigrants who do not assimilate create conflict in society (useful to would-be totalitarians), or in Hamilton’s words: “In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

With today’s massive government welfare extended to illegal immigrants, the economic strain undermines the middle class, another bulwark of freedom. The welfare magnet should not be underestimated. In the early part of the previous century, the absence of a welfare state made assimilation a necessity. Indeed, many immigrants returned to their native lands when they couldn’t make it here in the work force.

Then, of course, the criminal element, terrorists, and drugs coming across our porous southern border help to destabilize society. In particular, smuggled heroin fuels the opioid epidemic, which serves the goals of those seeking authoritarian government and a submissive population.

Organized Subversion

The Insiders of an organized Conspiracy have supported specific programs that have led to America’s immigration crisis. For example, politicians carrying out the Insiders’ agenda have encouraged illegal immigration by extending government welfare to illegals and promoting amnesty. They have also undermined border enforcement by refusing to adequately fund the border patrol or even repair fences.

These Insiders have supported socialism and conflict around the world, also encouraging illegal immigration. And wars and pogroms by totalitarian regimes, whose birth can be credited to the Insiders, create pressure on America (and European nations) to accept refugees.   In addition to the sheer numbers of immigrants, several Establishment-promoted programs (see below) serve to discourage assimilation.

The “Open Borders” Movement

For decades, Robert L. Bartley, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), used his position as editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal to influence conservative readers, arguing that the nation-state was finished and that America should have open borders.

Insiders have promoted hemispheric integration via NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. In May 2005, just a few years after the 9-11 attacks, the CFR’s “Independent Task Force on the Future of North America” issued its report, “Building a North American Community.” The report proposed a North American Security Perimeter as a substitute for enforcing national borders.

The radical immigrants’ rights organizations also subvert border enforcement, in particular by challenging deportations in court. But these organizations didn’t just spring up by themselves, they had Establishment funding, most notably from the Ford Foundation.

The Ford Foundation

It is inexcusable today for any competent reporter to allow “advocacy groups” to posture as genuine grassroots defenders of Latino interests. By the mid-1990s resistance groups compiled several studies exposing the fraud.   In 1994, for example, the American Immigration Control Foundation published Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda by William R. Hawkins, providing much of the background and history of MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund).

By examining the flow of funds, one quickly discovers that the Ford Foundation virtually created the radical Chicano movement, which seeks open borders, uncontrolled immigration from Mexico, and the de facto reconquest by Mexico of the Southwest portion of the United States (termed Atzlan by the radicals). (Note: Ford Foundation subversion was uncovered by the Reece Committee, going way back to the 1950s, but that story has long been forgotten.)

In 1995, syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship.   Her book should have been a wake-up call, as it included admissions against interest by someone with both radical liberal and Establishment credentials.   Georgie Ann Geyer was (and still is) a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an open disciple of the late Marxist and radical organizer Saul Alinsky. Let’s see what Geyer had to say.

Geyer’s book described how radicals were following the strategy of infiltration advocated by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to render impotent every tenet of our culture. Geyer claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Marxists have infected “American universities, unions, churches, bureaucracies, and corporations…. Three whole generations, often its best students and thinkers and even labor leaders, were formed with a Marxist component to their thoughts and actions, often without even knowing it.”

Americans No More didn’t just focus on the visible activists.   Geyer documented how Insider tax-exempt foundations had helped to create ethnic grievance groups. She even provided personal testimony. In the early 1980s, Geyer met with “two representatives of one of the major and supposedly representative ‘Hispanic’ groups, the National Council of La Raza.” When Geyer asked, “How many members do you have?,” one of the representatives admitted, “Well, we don’t have members.”

An incredulous Geyer demanded to know how an organization without members could fund and support its activities. The representatives replied, almost in unison, “The Ford Foundation!” As Geyer tells the story: “The two smiled as though they did not have a care in the world, and, indeed, financially, they did not. To promote and push through their programs and policies, they needed no elections, no campaign strategies, and none of that bothersome business of fund-raising or member-seeking. At the same time, of course, they basically suffered accountability neither to disparate sources of funding nor to the fickle interests of individuals.” With such support, La Raza could boast 150 organizations in 36 states!

Legal aid organizations, immigrants’ rights groups, and radical churches have widely distributed “The Bill of Rights for the Undocumented Worker.” Article VII demands: “Every immigrant worker shall be guaranteed the same rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens, especially the right of access to free and adequate social and health services, child-care and other similar social benefits.” And Article VIII states: “Every immigrant worker shall have the right to quality public education in his or her native language….”

Note: When Trilateralist Jimmy Carter became president in 1977, he chose “immigrants’ rights” activist Leonel J. Castillo to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Castillo adopted the euphemism “undocumented workers” as the official INS term for illegal immigrants.

Establishment Foundations and the federal government have also aggressively promoted “multiculturalism” as the new American ethic.  Students in schools everywhere are being hammered with the idea that all cultures, even the most primitive, are equally enriching for our nation and must be given equal treatment.

National Suicide

Three decades ago (1988), The New American magazine tried to sound the alarm:

“Invasion. That’s what we are witnessing: an ongoing invasion that has been escalating for over a decade. Each day, at hundreds of points along our southern border, thousands of people from countries all over the world are entering the United States illegally…. [Even with meager resources], for six years running the Border Patrol has apprehended well over one million illegal aliens per year…. A visible effect of our uncontrolled immigration is what is increasingly referred to as the ‘Third World colonization’ of the United States. Large sections of major U.S. cities now resemble Mexico City, San Salvador, Bombay, and Calcutta — with tens of thousands of people living in cardboard and tin shanties, or sleeping in the streets.”

By 1996, the Sacramento Bee reported: “Nearly one in four students in California’s public schools — more than 1.25 million kids — understands little or no English.”

Changing our Immigration Law

Legislation promoted by liberal politicians implementing the Insiders’ agenda inspired much of the invasion. Senators Robert F. and Edward Kennedy supported the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. The new priorities in our immigration law would emphasize “our obligation” to the rest of the world.

But the subversion didn’t stop there. When President Carter couldn’t get Congress to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants, he created a commission headed by Reverend Theodore Hesburgh (CFR and fellow Trilateralist) to study the problem and make recommendations. The recommendations were incorporated into the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

IRCA was sold to the public as a “solution” to our immigration problem, but it had the opposite effect. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens simply emboldened millions more to violate our borders in hopes of similar amnesties. And those who became citizens took advantage of the liberalization of the law re chain migration.

Steps to a Solution

The initial step must be to create recognition among a wider audience of why immigration is out of control and why Washington currently will frustrate any real solution. That requires exposing conspiratorial influence, objectives, and actions, along with highlighting the refusal of politicians and the controlled media to expose the domestic subversion. An expensive Southern wall provides no defense against the subversion from within.

At the same time, that understanding must be turned into effective action. What is needed is informed and organized public pressure on Congress — pressure to stop the betrayal and protect our heritage. In the face of conspiratorial inroads and influence today, these steps require the right organization and leadership — may we dare say, a much larger Freedom First Society?

The “Diversity” Police Draw Down … on Diversity

Apparently, spokesmen for the “diversity” agenda are useful to that agenda’s authors only if they can use diversity as a weasel-word. Like so many nice-sounding words in the Marxist vocabulary (e.g., freedom and equality), what diversity means to the trained revolutionary is basically the opposite of what it means to the rest of us.

Any “diversity” spokesperson who ignores that fact can potentially subvert the revolutionary narrative. That’s why it needed correcting immediately, when recently one such spokesperson veered off script.

What did she say that was so upsetting to the “diversity” police? Here is the dangerously Americanist take on diversity she leaked:

“I focus on everyone. Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT or whatever because that means they’re carrying that around … because that means that we are carrying that around on our foreheads.

“And I’ve often told people a story — there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation. The issue is representation and mix and bringing all the voices into the room that can contribute to the outcome of any situation.”
— Denise Young Smith,  Apple’s first-ever Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion

In retrospect, it might have been particularly impolitic to offer this nugget of good sense at the One Young World Summit in Bogotá, Colombia, in a panel discussion on fighting racial injustice. In any case, she was quickly called on the carpet.  We can infer this from the fact that she emailed a groveling apology just a few days later:


I have always been proud to work for Apple in large part because of our steadfast commitment to creating an inclusive culture. We are also committed to having the most diverse workforce and our work in this area has never been more important. In fact, I have dedicated my twenty years at Apple to fostering and promoting opportunity and access for women, people of color and the underserved and unheard.

Last week, while attending a summit in Bogota, I made some comments as part of a conversation on the many factors that contribute to diversity and inclusion.

I regret the choice of words I used to make this point. I understand why some people took offense. My comments were not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it. For that, I’m sorry.

More importantly, I want to assure you Apple’s view and our dedication to diversity has [sic] not changed.

Understanding that diversity includes women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and all underrepresented minorities is at the heart of our work to create an environment that is inclusive of everyone.

Our commitment at Apple to increasing racial and gender diversity is as strong as it’s ever been. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made, but there is much work to be done. I’m continually reminded of the importance of talking about these issues and learning from each other.



That a black woman with 20 years of experience working in the mostly white, male environment at Apple should have to issue an apology for alleged insensitivity to diversity concerns, shown just by her stating these sane, obvious truths, speaks volumes about the real agenda of the ostensibly charitable “diversity” police. In short, it has nothing to do with the everyday, American concept of diversity. Instead, it is the veiled, revolutionary usage of the term that is at play. And like every other nice-sounding, emotionally-charged word in the Marxist lexicon, this concept boils down to really meaning, “a Marxist-controlled socialist dictatorship, in which everyone does and says just what they’re told.” Because to Marxists, that’s paradise.

Murray Rothbard, the great Austrian-school economist and libertarian, wrote this incisive paragraph about Marxism and diversity:

“A hallmark of every utopia is a militant desire to put an end to history, to freeze mankind in a static state, to put an end to diversity and man’s free will, and to order everyone’s life in accordance with the utopian’s totalitarian plan. Many early communists and socialists set forth their fixed utopias in great and absurd detail, determining the size of everyone’s living quarters, the food they would eat, etc. Marx was not silly enough to do that, but his entire system, as Thomas Molnar points out, is ‘the search of the utopian mind for the definitive stabilization of mankind or, in gnostic terms, its reabsorption in the timeless.’ For Marx, his quest for utopia was, as we have seen, an explicit attack on God’s creation and a ferocious desire to destroy it.”
— Murray Rothbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995), vol. 2, chap. 11

But if the hard left are not really concerned about human diversity, why would they even raise concerns about these particular “minority” groups—​the LBQT, females, and non-whites? It’s because they have hand-picked those groups whose grievances (real or fictional) can be used to engineer a revolution that would produce such a Marxist “utopia.”

This is the overlooked truth of the current “diversity” hue and cry. Many have expressed this truth, although perhaps none more clearly than the blogger David Hilton (writing as “Moses Apostaticus”). It’s a truth the American people need to learn, well and quickly:

“Many Americans are familiar with political correctness, yet may not be familiar with its origins in cultural Marxist theory.… [C]ultural Marxism argues that … the nuclear family, traditional morality and concepts of race, gender and sexual identity … [are] chains of tyranny which must be broken by revolution.

“Modern woman, are you unhappy in your marriage? Are the responsibilities of motherhood and the burdens of work getting you down? Patriarchy! Black man, do you feel hard done by? Does it seem like the deck is always stacked against you and you can’t get a break? Racism! Gay man, are you tired of the sneers and microaggressions of straight men? They’re afraid that they’re gay too. That’s why they hate you!

“These are the narratives which are paraded endlessly in our education system. They are not natural or accidental. They have been constructed by intellectuals and academics who have had a radical agenda to transform the nation, and benefit themselves in the process.…

“Marxism is always cloaked in high-sounding utopian rhetoric. This is a ruse. What cultural Marxists seek has nothing to do with true diversity, social harmony or universal tolerance. They don’t want the races getting along. They seek power. The solution for the perceived injustices that Cultural Marxists have manufactured is radical social engineering. The power to carry out this social engineering must be given, of course, to a politically-correct elite determined to remake society along ideological lines.”
— Moses Apostaticus, “Cultural Marxism Is Destroying America”


Multiculturalism Exposed

In 2015, following deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, congressmen floated several proposals to pause and even limit refugee immigration from Syria. More than half of the state governors said they would not accept Syrian refugees.

However, President Obama, supported by fellow liberals, objected that such action “is offensive and contrary to American values.” In doing so, he was defending the politically correct agenda of multiculturalism.

Gauging by the liberal reaction, it was no surprise that when President Trump took office in January 2017 and ordered a temporary halt on immigration from certain Middle East countries, organizations such as the ACLU would oppose any such restrictions in successful court challenges.

However, the claim that an American founding principle demands an open door policy toward mass immigration from diverse cultures is a recently contrived myth. In fact, it’s a subversive rewriting of history.

Reacting to the Obama claim, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin provided an excellent summary of the opinions of America’s Founding Fathers regarding immigration.   As she showed, they were opposed to importing cultural diversity and would have abhorred the goal of “multiculturalism.”

Our Founding Fathers wanted immigration to support a distinctly American culture, a culture that could be counted on to support the principles of freedom as derived from the lessons of Western history.

Indeed, as Malkin wrote: “Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily ‘incorporate himself into our society.’”

And she recounted an even more explicit statement by George Washington: “George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that ‘by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.’”

At the birth of the American experiment in freedom, our Founding Fathers knew from their study of history that cultural diversity in a nation is not a strength but a burden and often a source of major conflict.

We highly recommend reading Malkin’s entire article: “Immigration and Our Founding Fathers’ Values.” But then go a critical step further.

The Critical Lesson

Malkin offers only ideological arguments to oppose the multiculturalism assault in an ostensible battle with “No-limits liberals.”   But this “safe ideological approach,” the norm with most popular conservative writers, conceals an immense driving danger, thus failing to sound the clear trumpet called for in 1 Corinthians 14:8.

Indeed, further research shows that Internationalist Insiders and their foundations are the drivers of both “the open borders movement” and “multiculturalism.” Their clear objective with these programs is to gain unaccountable power. And the pathway to their ultimate success requires the destruction of the culture necessary to support republican (rule of law) government and the associated undermining of America’s ability to resist totalitarian world government.

We summarize the “open borders” part of that story in Chapter 7 “Immigration Reform” of our Media-Controlled Delusion booklet. As visitors will see, even the front-line drivers are not limited to liberals.

For example, the above Chapter 7 recounts the support given by the Wall Street Journal. The late Robert L. Bartley served as its editorial page editor for 30 years. While adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, in 1979 Bartley was invited to join the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations. In a 2001 editorial, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….

Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.

Origins of Multiculturalism

The public advocates of revolutionary change often wear the liberal cloak and offer ideological arguments to support their agenda. However, if we “follow the money” we can recognize the real drivers and their goals.

Historian Oswald Spengler in his classic Decline of the West astutely concluded:

There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

In a 1992 article, Father James Thornton observed: “Though wild-eyed it definitely is, multiculturalism has Establishment support through the lavishly financed programs of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and other tax-supported and tax-exempt organizations.”

And multiculturalism also follows the strategy advocated by Italian Communist theorist Antonio Gramsci for achieving “cultural hegemony” over a nation. The first phase in his strategy is to undermine all elements of traditional culture.

Gramsci’s thinking, perpetuated by his disciples, has had significant impact on revolutionary organizations in America today, as well as on their big-money sponsors. Rudi Dutschke, one of Gramsci’s disciples, described the strategy of culture war as conducting “the long march through the institutions.”

In short, our point is that one cannot oppose revolutionary programs effectively by getting caught up in merely debating their public proposals. Ignoring the driving conspiratorial agenda is simply a no-win strategy, a widespread practice that neutralizes conservatives. Instead, we need to help others recognize the pervasive cultural attack, how it’s organized, and its real totalitarian purpose.

Just One Example

A 2004 Department of Education publication, “ACHIEVING DIVERSITY: RACE-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES IN AMERICAN EDUCATION,” includes these introductory remarks:

The diversity question in America now is not “Whether?” but “How?” The Supreme Court’s decisions in the Michigan affirmative action litigation affirm that our shared commitment to diversity is both compelling and just when pursued within lawful parameters. In light of these decisions, President George W. Bush has challenged the education community to develop innovative ways to achieve diversity in our schools without falling back upon illegal quotas. Most educational leaders, particularly at the postsecondary level, agree with the importance of this goal. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, they do. The reason why America became saddled with an unconstitutional Department of Education was to mold public education to achieve revolutionary goals, using federal money as a carrot and stick.

Among the report’s introductory remarks, we see the George W. Bush administration’s stamp of approval:

President George W. Bush has said that diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths and has encouraged the development of race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity in educational institutions.

Using the federal hammer to promote commonsense racial opportunity no longer masks fed-gov’s primary diversity objective. Indeed, multiculturalist pressure disparages assimilation into America’s defining culture, while glorifying other cultures, including homosexuality — you name it.

But if Americans are asked to oppose such programs as merely misguided, who will prepare himself for the battle? Indeed, it is necessary to understand the big picture before there will be sufficient alarm to organize the needed resistance.

For Whom the Court Toils

What most Americans considered unthinkable just a few decades ago — Supreme Court mandated recognition of same-sex marriage —is now reality. Those concerned about the widespread attack on traditional morality and the family would do well to learn more about what the Supreme Court has done, what drove the decision, and what can and must be done to return America to Constitution-based Federal-Court rulings.

A Flagrant Judicial Usurpation

There are few Supreme Court rulings, we must assume, where a large number even of those supporting the decision feel compelled nevertheless to repudiate, publicly, the Court’s reasoning. Yet there was widespread, serious dissatisfaction among those who longed for the Court to vindicate same-sex marriage and who read its opinion.

One of the clearest summaries of the consensus spanning the political spectrum comes from just such a same-sex-marriage supporter:

To phrase things delicately, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges are unequivocally horrendous. Legal textualists and political conservatives will remember these majority opinions as among the worst of the twenty-first century. While Kelo v. New London and NFIB v. Sebelius were equally despicable, these cases at least were based on plausible, albeit highly flawed, interpretations of existing law. King and Obergefell, in contrast, are purely results-oriented decisions that are at best maladroit workmanship and at worst flagrant judicial usurpations of legislative authority.

Was Obergefell really an instance of well-intentioned but “maladroit workmanship” or instead one of ill-intentioned, “flagrant judicial usurpation of legislative authority”? And if the latter, what was the real motive?

An Unexpected Argument

Same-sex-marriage supporters had generally expected the Court to pursue the line of argument usually taken in same-sex marriage cases that had been brought in state courts. That line was based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause: That clause forbids every state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The contention was that, given this clause, marriage laws should not treat homosexual couples any differently than they treat heterosexual couples.

However, for reasons that we explain in a separate article, an argument based on “equality” alone would have been quite frail and susceptible to devastating criticism. Another main argument was needed. And for this, the majority availed themselves of the long discredited appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “substantive due process” clause.

And, in doing so, the majority, led by Justice Kennedy, relied on a slippery meaning-change for the term marriage.

Redefining Marriage

In the view of Chief Justice Roberts, who strongly opposed the ruling, that slippery meaning-change was, in fact, the real point:

The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. … There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these [current] cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? … These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here.

Roberts summarized his objection to the very thinly argued case of the proponents: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.” The other dissenting Justices seemed to agree.

For Whom, REALLY, Was This Ruling Made?

But why would a majority of the Supreme Court risk their judicial reputation on such an obviously unconstitutional decision – which is already seen widely as such? What goal would make it worthwhile? And in particular, if the justices didn’t see “dignity”-seeking gays as the constituency that their ruling was serving, whom did they see it as serving?

A scholarly article, by Douglas NeJaime, in The Yale Law Journal in Sept. 2013, helps us answer that question. That article approved thoroughly of Justice Kennedy’s redefinition of marriage as expressed in United States v. Windsor (2013, striking down the Defense Of Marriage Act), also using the “substantive due process” approach to gay rights that he had first displayed in Lawrence (2003). And the article argues that the redefinition is responding to a revolutionary movement:

This Essay relates Windsor to a model of marriage ascendant over the course of the last several decades and to LGBT advocacy that has mapped same-sex couples onto that model. … a shift from a marriage model rooted in procreation and gender differentiation to one characterized by mutual emotional support, economic interdependence, and community recognition. … Justice Kennedy’s treatment of marriage in Windsor fits within this trajectory….

Of course, the Court is not conceptualizing marriage and its relationship to same-sex couples in a vacuum. Instead, it is responding to legal, cultural, and demographic shifts relating to marriage, as well as to LGBT advocates’ appeal to those shifts to claim rights for constituents. … Beginning in the 1980s, LGBT advocates mapped same-sex couples onto ascendant marital norms that stressed adult romantic affiliation and emotional and financial interdependence—marriage’s private dimensions….

Justice Kennedy’s rendering of marriage in Windsor is responsive to LGBT advocates’ contextualization of same-sex couples within extant marital norms. [Emphasis ours.]

Hey! Hang on a minute: Who are these “LGBT advocates,” to whose “contextualization of same-sex couples within extant marital norms” Kennedy’s new treatment of marriage “is responsive”?

Well, there were the more open advocates, and the more secretive ones: but they had all been pushing, for many years, the strategy of holding out same-sex “marriage” as just another, valid kind of marriage. Michael Gerson, exulting over the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, credits two of the better known advocates of this strategy:

Why has the gay rights movement been so dramatically successful? Certainly, the people who came out to family and friends — often at considerable risk and cost — humanized an abstract debate. Fictional gay characters — see “Glee” and “Modern Family” — did much the same.

But perhaps the most significant shift in strategy came from public intellectuals such as Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, who urged gays to embrace the conventional, bourgeois practice of marriage. What had seemed to many Americans a sexual liberationist movement requested access to the institution designed to limit sexual freedom for the sake of social order and effective child-rearing (while delivering joys that arise only out of commitment). Many gay rights advocates essentially made conservative arguments — concerning the individual and social benefits of faithfulness — to secure their legal goal.  It is a form of gay rights that Middle America — already inclined to live and let live — could readily embrace.

Then there were the more private “LGBT advocates” — the revolutionaries making the war plans and directing the troops. If anyone doubts the existence of a more or less secretive cabal of LGBT war-planners, they should read articles that have been documenting their subversive agenda since the 1990’s.

In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, professionals in neuropsychiatric research and commercial advertising, respectively, published After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the ’90s. Their book constituted a manual for the “overhauling of straight America.” In particular, they mapped out a strategy for deceptively promoting homosexuality in entertainment, the media, and education under the guise of a struggle for homosexual “rights”:

At least at the outset, we seek desensitization and nothing more. You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think that it is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

But their ultimate objective was the conversion of straight America:

[B]y Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life…. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends — using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or not. (p. 153)

According to Douglas NeJaime, it is to such (revolutionary, subversive) “advocates” that Justice Kennedy’s new treatment of marriage “is responsive.”

In short, the Supreme Court ruling was not an attempt to enforce ostensibly Constitutional rights. Its intention was a revolutionary one, and it had no other motive.

What, Then, Is To Be Done?

Therefore, the solution is not in another Court case or better arguing before the Court. Justice Alito was unfortunately mistaken in believing that his “colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own.” Yet in the same passage he shared some perceptive concerns about the future of American jurisprudence:

Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. …

Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.

That last statement is exactly right. This Court has thrown out the Constitution and the American system of jurisprudence. Its decisions no longer have anything to do with them.

And lest anyone think that the revolutionary assault is over, they need to realize that revolutionaries are never satisfied, short of total revolution. With any victory, standard revolutionary practice is just to up the ante.

Consider the story in the July 3, 2011 Northern Colorado Gazette, “Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals”:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

The story documents studies and federal actions already underway leading up to just such legitimization of pedophilia. It would be a great mistake to put beyond this current Supreme Court the overturning of state laws against pedophilia.

This Court understands only power – and, the ability and will to use it. Therefore, the only solution available to us is to learn about, and then to show the courage and ability to wield, the powers that we have under the Constitution for the reining in of a rebellious, or even revolutionary Supreme Court.

As Don Fotheringham has explained, impeachment is not the only solution – although certainly it is one route available. Another, of which most Americans are unaware, is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Don Fotheringham explains the means that the Constitution provides for curbing a federal judiciary run amok, in the lead article for our “Campaign for Decency – Curb the Courts.”

This concerted-action campaign needs the volunteer membership of many concerned Americans, to help convince Congress to reign in this revolution-seeking Supreme Court. Moreover, an out-of-control Supreme Court is only one part of a larger revolutionary assault that must be confronted in its entirety. We invite readers to consider the program of Freedom First Society.





Women in Combat

On September 10, 2015, the U.S. Marine Corps released an executive summary of a nine-month study of how an integrated force of men and women performs in a combat environment. The summary included some tempered resistance to the revolutionary feminist drive to open up combat roles to women.

The Marine Corps study was conducted in response to a January 2013 decision by President Obama’s radical Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, to rescind the ban on women serving in combat jobs.   To ease the transition, Panetta gave the services until the fall of 2015 to develop their plans to comply and to argue if any jobs should be excluded. President Obama’s current Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter (CFR and Rhodes Scholar), has already declared that he hopes to open all combat jobs to women.

And President Obama, himself, is certainly on board with the drive to place women in combat roles. In his February 12, 2013 State of the Union address, the president stated: “We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters and moms, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat.”

Reporting on the release of the Marine Corps summary, the Establishment’s Washington Post argued: “The Pentagon faces increasing pressure to fully integrate women, following the historic Aug. 21 graduation of two female officers from the Army’s Ranger School.”

What the Post did not say was that much of that pressure comes from feminists within the Pentagon, and that the external pressure comes from organized forces pursuing a long established revolutionary strategy known as revolutionary parliamentarianism (pressure from above and pressure from below).

Still Some Resistance

The Post report continued: “The Marine Corps’ research will serve as fodder for those who are against fully integrating women. It found that all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated better performance on 93 of 134 tasks evaluated (69 percent) than units with women in them.”

Perhaps the greatest resistance in the Marine Corps study to the integration drive was its pointed reference to the conclusion of the “1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, the last extensive examination of gender integration within U.S. ground combat units”:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

Well said! However, we should not assume that the pressure originates with the “personal desires” of some group (i.e, women in the services) to have equal opportunity to serve in combat. As we shall see, there is much more to the story.

The Real Drivers

To understand the real drivers of the worldwide culture war, let’s start with the more obvious, but poorly understood, feminist movement.

Brig. General Andrew J. Gatsis, USA Ret., 1921–2016Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis, one of the most decorated officers ever to serve in our armed forces, was also an intense student of military strategy and tactics. He completed courses and taught at many our nation’s military schools. From personal infantry combat experience in several of our nation’s wars and from his studies he was a vocal opponent of placing women in combat roles.   He testified before Congress in opposition, and he spoke and wrote on the topic.

In a through analysis for the March 16, 1987 issue of The New American magazine, General Gatsis wrote:

The Women’s Movement is the militant arm of a plan to place the family at the disposal of the state. From its very inception, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has remained the prime goal of the feminists, despite its repeated defeat. However, the feminists have always had an ongoing parallel plan — to force legal equality on society through the back door, through statute-by-statute enactment. No better environment exists to advance this plan than our Armed Forces, since the military is socialistic in nature….

The structure through which they work is the top command and control center of our military forces, the Pentagon, which is saturated with feminists. Over the past decade, members of various women’s organizations, such as NOW, have been placed in key positions of authority, where they formulate policies concerning the U.S. military readiness posture. The result is that the demands of the women’s movement have eclipsed national security considerations.

The very sound reasons why women should not be sent into combat generally fall into two categories: the negative impact on military effectiveness and the destruction of a pillar of civilization — respect for and protection of women as the weaker and softer sex.   We turn back the clock on civilization when we expose women to the horrors of combat.

In his 1987 article, General Gatsis explained: “Our soldiers are taught out of necessity to be brutal and to kill. Like it or not, these are the talents that win battles. It is immoral to place our daughters in this role when it is not necessary.”

Asking the Right Questions

It is so tempting to get caught up in arguing why the Pentagon plans do not make sense. But confining our arguments to their mere wrongness is a prescription for continued defeat. The same goes for the drive for same-sex marriage, legalization of pot, or allowing open homosexuals or transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces.

Rather than asking why common sense is constantly being trampled, Americans need to be asking, “who are the powerful people and organizations behind the drive?” and “what are the motives and real agendas of those providing the ultimate funding and direction?”

Simply put, the frontline individuals involved in revolutionary issues do not have the organization, connections, drive, or wherewithal to change society. The great 20th Century historian Oswald Spengler had it figured out when he wrote in his classic Decline of the West:

There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

NOW (National Organization of Women) founder Betty Friedan, whose 1963 book The Feminine Mystique launched the feminist revolution, once said that the feminist revolution would involve a restructuring of “all our institutions: child-rearing, education, marriage, the family, medicine, work, politics, the economy, religion, psychological theory, human sexuality, morality, and the very evolution of the race.”

Friedan was one of the signers of The Humanist Manifesto II (1973), which called for “a world order based upon transnational federal government” and “an international authority” to provide “massive technical, agricultural, medical and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe.”

But what about Insider funding and political muscle for the movement? We grab one example from the Washington Post article. The Post sought to overcome the adverse conclusions in the Marine Corps study by citing the objections of Katelyn van Dam, identified as a “Marine Corps veteran who has advocated for full integration.” She is also identified as “a spokesman for the Truman Project and Center [for National Policy]’s No Exceptions initiative, which calls for opening all military jobs to women immediately.”

The Center for National Policy (CNP) describes itself as “an independent policy institute, which brings together leaders from government, the private sector, and civil society to develop strong, smart and principled solutions to the global challenges Americans now face.” [Emphasis added.] The CNP is larded with advisors from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), including Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the CFR. The Council on Foreign Relations is an extremely influential Internationalist front group.

Drafting Women Into Combat

Where is this heading? Revolutionaries are never satisfied, short of totalitarian revolution. After any victory, they just up the ante. It is easy to see that allowing women to serve in combat is only step one in the revolutionary drive.  Requiring women to serve is certainly part of the revolutionary agenda.

In his 1987 analysis, General Gatsis referred to a February 1982 memorandum “Deputy Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci (the newly assigned NSC advisor to President Reagan) sent … to the Service Secretaries with the following demand:

… I want you to identify specifically the military career paths, officer and enlisted, which are closed or in any way restricted to women by combat limitations you have in place.

“Any military commander would immediately recognize this type of language as a directive to eliminate combat barriers against women or otherwise be identified as uncooperative and inefficient….” Gatsis added: “Don’t be deceived: The registration of women is always just around the corner….”

Years later (January 26, 2004) in “Will They Draft Your Daughter?” The New American observed:

“The equal rights amendment would make voluntary, as well as compulsory, military service available to women and men on the same basis,” declared New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug, a radical Marxist and founder of the modern feminist movement. Writing in the April 1971 Yale Law Review, Professor Thomas Emerson, another radical ERA proponent, insisted that exempting women from the draft would be intolerably “sexist”….

“No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children,” insisted feminist “foremother” Simone de Beauvoir. “Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women would make that one.”

With the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage fresh in our memories, no one should assume that Court interpretation of a future ERA or some other “discovered” legal doctrine would not demand such compliance.

Recommendation: Read and share Media-Controlled Delusion (booklet).Media Controlled Delusion

The Establishment-controlled media consistently allow revolutionaries to conceal their real agendas and their underlying organization, while trumpeting their public protests. The movement to place women in combat is but one example.

If our nation is to remain free, such widespread deception cannot be tolerated. In the small booklet mentioned above, your writer examines several timely examples of the deception and suggests what can be done to overcome it.


Here’s the Illogic of New Definition of Marriage

“Destroy the family and you destroy a nation” has been an oft-repeated aphorism of unverified origin that rings true from a common sense perspective. The family unit, after all, is the building block of all cultures and societies. And just as the law of unintended consequences manifests itself often glaringly when dealing with issues of a political nature, so likewise the unintended consequences of redefining marriage will likewise prove to be pejorative.

The proliferation of “same-sex marriage” is based, both judicially and from a political correctness standpoint, on two major fallacious premises. The first is that marrying whoever or whatever one wants is somehow a “right,” and the second is that marriage can be whatever we choose it to be.

Marriage to whomever or whatever one chooses to be is not a codified “right.” Even if it could somehow be so extrapolated, nowhere is it based on whom one professes love for. To the contrary, it is, based in natural law, lex naturalis, which is the system of law that is determined by nature and is thus universal. Embedded also in nature’s law is the use of reason to analyze social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of behavior from it. As fundamentally significant as marriage is to our culture, our society, and our civilization, the institution cannot be simply redefined based on fad or political correctness without negative consequences.

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist, has said, “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds…At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it; and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, and politicians have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization; and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

Foundations must be strong, and built to withstand the elements, corrosion, and the test of time. Otherwise, the structure built thereon will inevitably crumble. If a foundation is made with unmixed cement or just water, as same-sex marriage tries to do, the foundation is weak; and the structure (our civilization) built thereon will crumble. When we tamper with, and attempt to socially-engineer, the foundational elements and institutions to civilization and our society, the results will be destructive.

Redefining marriage based on who one purportedly loves is a spurious dilution of our societal foundation. At no time in human history has marriage been legally based on who one loves, but has always been about perpetuating the species and forming familial units that construct the foundation to civilization. Sometimes it has included multiple spouses; but always it has been based on propagational properties, whether age or fertility exceptions apply or not. Any semantic change to the definition is only that, semantic, and does not change the biological or anthropological verities etymologically embedded in the term. Such a change to accommodate same-sex “marriage” is therefore nothing more than creating a verbal counterfeit to the real thing. Referring to a snake as a swan doesn’t change it into something that it is not.

Nor is there a “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is, as most other “rights,” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage. As an attorney friend of mine said, “there is absolutely no logical interpretation of the Constitution that can stretch sufficiently to include the definition of marriage as a judicially definable term.”

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has warned that the door to what can be legitimized as a legal relationship is now wide open. “This doesn’t just stop at heterosexual marriage or same-sex ‘marriage,’ but it also will extend to bigamy and incestuous marriage and all kinds of situations. If the government doesn’t have any interest in [marriage], then polygamy is permissible, polyamory is permissible.  We would have group marriages. Incestuous marriages are permissible. Marriages with … children as young as 8 or 7 or however low you want to go on the list — all of that becomes a free-for-all.”

Dr. Charles Krauthammer makes the same argument. “Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender. If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices, then on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?”

Other factors now become arbitrary and exclusionary as well. A Missouri man feels he was discriminated against when the state disallowed his marriage to his chosen “partner.” He says of her, “She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her.” He can now employ the same charge of “discrimination” that is precluding him from “marrying” his favorite mare, Pixel.

Doug Mainwaring, an avowed homosexual, has made an astute observation regarding marriage. “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together…Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Words have meaning; and marriage, as the cornerstone to civilization, is copiously imbued with it. I have yet to hear a logical or cogent explanation as to why a binding homosexual relationship must be a marriage as opposed to a civil union or legal partnership. Rather than weakening and diluting the foundation to our society, we should be strengthening and encouraging it. After all, our future, and stability, as a society is dependent on it.


AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at