THE REVOLUTION WAS

Many years ago I came into possession of a petition from the National Society of Sons of the American Revolution to the Congress of the United States. This 53-page document was titled, "A Bill of Grievances, filed with the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives."

The SAR purpose was to "bring about an investigation of the interstate traffic in propaganda textbooks and teaching materials being introduced in the public schools of the Several States, to overthrow constitutional government and to bring about the adoption of a Social Welfare State." This petition of the SAR to the Congress was dated April 19, 1949, which just happens to be, I believe, the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, an appropriate time, as for so long, Bostonians bragged of being "the cradle of liberty."

It is impossible for me to reproduce the entire document here, and difficult enough just to copy down the material which relates to Dr. William Wirt who was an noted educator and administrator from Gary, Indiana, and who was eventually all but destroyed by his efforts to call attention to the plot to make the United States into a socialist branch of a world government.

I read his story, how he was invited to attend a dinner at the White House early in the regime of F. D. Roosevelt where the table talk related plans for the future of the United States which shocked him. So, on March 23, 1934, he appeared before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to report the gist of the talk.

The SAR tells his story, beginning on page 45 of their petition. Throughout the material below which I have copied, the emphasis is that of the original authors of the petition. They did reference by footnotes all the sources, but I am not going to write them all up, except that Dr. Wirt's testimony before the House Committee was filed May 2, 1934, No. 1439, 73d Congress.

PLAN OF REVOLUTIONISTS (from Dr. Wirt)

"The fundamental trouble with the 'brain trusters' is that they start with a false assumption. They insist that the America of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must first be destroyed and then on the ruins they will reconstruct an America after their own pattern.They do not know that the America of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln has been the 'new deal' and that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries we have been making great social progress. The common man is getting his place in the sun. Why try to put him back into the Dark Ages?

"Last summer I asked some of the individuals in this group what their concrete plan was for bringing on the proposed overthrow of the established American social order.

"I was told that they believed that by thwarting our then-evident recovery they would be able to prolong the country's destitution until they had demonstrated to the American people that the Government must operate industry and commerce.....

"The most surprising statement made to me was the following 'We believe that we have Mr. Roosevelt in the middle of a swift stream and that the current is so strong that he cannot turn back or escape from it. We believe that we can keep Mr. Roosevelt there until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin. We all think that Mr. Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution.....'

"I asked how they would explain to the American people why their plans for retarding the recovery were not restoring recovery. 'Oh,' they said, 'That would be easy.' All that they would need to do would be to point the finger of scorn at the traitorous opposition. Those traitors in the imaginary war against the depression would be made the goats.(emphasis supplied) And the American people would agree that they, the 'brain trusters,' had been too lenient and in the future they, the 'brain trusters,'should be more firm in dealing with the opposition....

"I was frankly told that I had underestimated the power of propaganda.That since the World War (WWI) propaganda had been developed into a science...that the power of public investigation in their own hands alone would make the cold chills run up and down the spines of other business leaders and politicians--honest men as well as crooks.

"They were sure that they could depend upon the psychology of empty stomachs, and they would keep them empty. The masses would soon agree that anything should be done rather than nothing....

"They were sure that the leaders of industry and labor could be kept quiet by the hope of getting their own share of the Government doles in the form of loans and contracts for material and labor, provided they were subservient.

"They were sure that the colleges and schools could be kept in line by the hope of Federal aid until the many 'new dealers' in the schools and colleges had control of them."

End Dr. Wirt's statement.

The House adopted a resolution creating a select committee of five members to make an investigation. This committee was instructed ".....to summon Dr. William A. Wirt, of Gary, Ind., before it and to require him to reveal the sources of the statements he has made...and to bring before it all officials and other persons alleged by Dr. Wirt to have given him said information, or to be connected in any way with said activities...."

Dr.Wirt appeared before the Select Committee on April 10, 1934. Certain individuals designated by him were examined on April 14th. He was denied the opportunity to make an opening statement.

Neither he nor his attorney, the Honorable James A. Reed, was permitted to question or cross-examine any of the witnesses. The minority members of the Committee were also denied that right.

It developed from the hearing that the following persons were involved in these charges: (In 1934, Democrats were the majority, Republicans the minority)

Henry A. Wallace, Vice-President of the United States:

Harry Hopkins, Federal Emergency Relief Administrator:

David Lilienthal, Director of Tennessee Valley Authority:

Harold Ickes, Public Works Administrator: Arthur Morgan and H. A. Morgan, Directors of TVA:

Frederick Howe, Consumers' Counsel of Agricultural Adjustment Administration:

General William A. Westervelt, Assistant Administrator of Agricultural Adjustment Administration of Gary, Ind.

The minority members of the committee demanded the right to subpoena these witnesses. The majority decided that it was 'unnecessary.'

On May 2, 1934, the majority filed a report with the following statements: "....it was unnecessary to examine any other witnesses.....From all the evidence presented to the committee there was none whatever showing that there was any person or group in the Government service planning to 'overthrow the existing social order' or planning or doing any of the things mentioned in Dr.Wirt's statement."

The minority members of the committee filed a statement with the following protest: "We cannot join in the majority report. The committee has not met its responsibility as directed by the House in House Resolution 317, enacted by the House of Representatives on March 29, 1934. On the contrary, we report that the committee has by a studied effort deliberately refrained from obtaining the information which it was directed to obtain by such resolution. We further report that the committee has not only deliberately refrained from obtaining such information but has deliberately suppressed the obtaining of such information......

"There can be no question but that the committee was required to subpoena and call in witnesses to ascertain what, if any, public officials were connected with said activities, to wit, 'carrying out a deliberately planned revolution or attempting to thwart the program of a national recovery.' Whether or not such people had talked with Dr. Wirt was entirely immaterial....

"As soon as the resolution was passed and the committee was appointed by the Speaker, the first act of the committee...over the protest and votes...of the minority members, was to pass a resolution limiting the first day's hearing to the testimony of Dr. Wirt with Dr. Wirt's testimony limited to the specific question of naming the people with whom he talked and setting forth their specific conversation.

Thereafter the majority members of the committee, over the protest and vote of the minority members, limited the second day's hearing to the bringing before the committee the six specific witnesses with whom Dr. Wirt talked at a particular party and refused to call any other witnesses that were named by Dr. Wirt in his testimony.....

"As further evidence that the majority members of the committee used this hearing for the avowed purpose of discrediting the witness Dr. Wirt and suppressing the truth with no reasonable desire or effort to obtain the truth, we point out the following:

"First, Dr. Wirt was denied the opportunity in his own way to make his opening statement. When the majority members denied to Dr. Wirt this opportunity, they denied to him a right and a privilege which has been enjoyed by all of the hundreds and thousands of witnesses who have ever appeared before congressional committees, House or Senate.

"Second, it denied to the minority members the right to call a single witness whom they designated or chose to call before the committee. In doing this the committee again repudiated all the precedents of congressional investigations. In doing so the majority members made it inevitable that the proceedings would be a suppression of the truth rather than an uncovering of the truth. As an illustration, what would have the Teapot Dome investigation amounted to if the majority members of the committee investigating those transactions had denied to Senator Walsh, a minority member, the right to call before the committee to examine under oath any and all witnesses whom he chose to call?...

"This committee is not authorized to sit in judgment upon the relative merits of the old order of a free people or a Government-regulated mode of American life. Under a broad, common-sense construction of the resolution creating the committee, we were commissioned to investigate whether Government officials, believing in a socialized American order, were so functioning as to facilitate the establishment.....

"This the American people are entitled to know. This it was not only the privilege but the duty of the committee to ascertain.

"Unfortunately, the committee booted away its opportunity.

"We therefore take the position that the committee has not performed its duties under the resolution and that the committee should be directed by the House to proceed to complete its duties under the resolution." *****

As a further support for its Congressional petition about activities of Educators and "Other Intellectuals". the SAR included a photostatic copy of an announcement of the "Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace," held at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City, March 25-27, 1949. The headline for the Conference was a welcome to our "international guests" who were addressed as "Honored guests: <em>leading foreign intellectuals who are invited to participate."

The SAR states: "The 'Honored Guests' referred to in that announcement were Communists from Soviet Russia sent to this country to spread propaganda against the Atlantic Pact. This document contains the names of two hundred and seventy-three American "intellectuals' sponsoring the meeting..." For purposes of brevity we will eliminate those names although some of them will sound quite familiar to many readers, and continue with the rest of the story:

"A group of intellectuals headed by President Robert L. Hutchins of the University of Chicago, is backing a movement for World Government. The following statement issued by the Committee for Constitutional Government contains a good analysis of some of the dangers involved in that proposal:

"Among the powers this world government would have are the following: "Equip and direct the world army, which would supplant all national armies, other than small police forces. The American planners of world government no doubt support a world army which would never, never be used against our country and people. But the idea of a world constitution is without value unless the world government is to have the power to use its army, navy and atomb-bombs against any nation whatever.

"Therefore, the world army could be used against us if we were bad, or 'imperialistic,' as others may decide. Furthermore, we would be unable to resist, for under the plan our own defense forces would be liquidated. It is interesting to contemplate American-born soldiers, commanded by foreign generals, waging war against their native country; or the nationals of any other country against their own people. Would this, in fact, be treason? The proposed constitution also contemplates that the world government shall have the power to levy taxes all over the world. As the United States is now helping to support 16 foreign nations, including the richest, one can guess once and guess right the particular spot on the globe which would be selected for the extraction of the bulk of the money. The world government would also have the power to decide national boundaries and form new nations. The planners do not, of course, plan that it would vote to return Alaska to Russia from whom we bought that territory in 1867. However, we do know there are some men in Moscow who would like Alaska back; and if Moscow got enough votes, that would be the result. This brings us down to the big brass tack: How is the voting to be done in the World, Incorporated? How will all these questions be decided? Who will wear the pants? The World has about 2,250,000,000 people. Only one quarter are white. The rest are yellow, brown and black. We have 147,000,000 people, or 7%. Assuming, as we must, that in the sight of God every human being on the planet is of equal worth, there should be one vote per person, in order to be 'democratic.' At least each nation should have representation in the world government in proportion to its population. This is the way Congressmen are apportioned among our 48 states. Therefore, in any question vital to us Americans, we would be out-voted 98 to 7, unless we could gather or buy votes among other nations, most of whom envy us. Any other voting arrangement which would give us representation, not according to our population, but according to our wealth, would create first class and second class citizens in the world government.... These are some of the questions this fantastic world constitution presents to us. They cannot be shrugged off.

As ex-President Hoover and Hugh Gibson say in "The Problem of Lasting Peace," being in a minority in a super-government, the political, economic and social control of our country would ultimately pass from our hands, and all the assurances of our fundamental institutions would be lost." A "Commission on Human Rights" was established by an order of the United States promulgated at Geneva, Switzerland, on December 27, 1947. It is engaged in framing "An International Bill of Rights" to have the force and effect of law as between the nations adhering to it. It would probably be construed in this country as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the event of any conflict with our present fundamental law.

Frank E. Holman, President of the American Bar Association has issued the following statement regarding that project: "It is revealing to note the 'makeup' or personnel of the Commission before examining the results of its work. "Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt is the chairman and the sole U.S. representative--she is not a person in any sense trained in legal draftsmanship. She is primarily a social reformer.

"Australia's representative is Col. William Roy Hudgson--by training a military man and from his biography a person whose experience has been confined to government service.

"The United Kingdom's representative is Lord Dukeston--a person with no legal training and so far as his biography shows, no familiarity with legal draftsmanship--a trade unionist by profession.

"These three are the only Anglo-Americans or representatives of English speaking peoples on the Commission of eighteen members. "It is this Commission which has undertaken to draft a 'Bill of Rights' for the people of the United States which so far as the Covenant is concerned is to be ratified as a treaty and under our Constitution to become the supreme law of the land and in due course implemented against all of us by the decrees of a new International Court of Human Relations.

"In spite of this extraordinary and revolutionary program the press and the public and even the Bar seem largely oblivious to the program and how far in certain particulars it is at variance with our fundamental concept of individual rights and freedoms and how far in other particulars it is a proposal for worldwide socialism to be imposed through the United Nations on the United States and on every other member nation."

On the domestic scene we find professors George S. Counts and Harold Rugg continuing their propaganda for a Social Welfare State. As Exhibit No. 36, we submit the book 'Now is the Moment,' by Professor Rugg, eliminated from public schools in the City of Washington after an investigation by the House Committee on the District of Columbia. The following quotations are taken from that book: In re Social Planners: "A key group, which already constitutes a potential national council of design and reconstruction, is assembling at Washington...Every Valley is sending its talent--from Iowa the practical prophet of the Century of the Common Man...from Texas the successful business man...from the metropolis the experienced idealist social worker....

"Not only are the creative energies assembling; they are beginning to push the social system in the direction of a better world. Here, on the very threshold of consummation, is the thing we have dreamed of and pled for...science in government...research in government...In short, a government of social engineering..." (pg. 3-4) Propaganda to be handled by Educators

"...Although a few of our most discerning statesmen...see and are stating clearly the grave task before the nation, there is no large vocal minority telling the Congress that they want something done about it. How can there be when most of the people lack the facts with which to make up their minds? How can there be unless we, who are responsible</em> for assembling the facts and for organizing study and discussion machinery, get the facts before them?

Federal Office of Education--a Propaganda Bureau "To break the Washington bottleneck which has held back American education, there is one major step...that is to create an 'Office of Education for Peace.'

"....a powerful new Office devoted solely to winning the peace should be created. But even that will be of little use unless the Office is given unlimited resources--a budget running into millions to reach ten, twenty, thiry million Americans day after day, week after week, without letup....

"(We) must help put an end to the fear and inertia in our profession...Make it absolutely clear to the Commissioner that he has complete autonomy; that he can try anything within reason at least once: that he is really the Chief-in-Staff of the forces that are fight the War-at-Home over a free, abundant, and creative World; that conventional routine ways of doing things are not wanted...Let Washington make it clear that there shall be no more appeasing in education!" (pages 233-234)

########

OUR BILL OF GRIEVANCES The Public School System of this country has been converted into a propaganda agency to support the projects, campaigns, crusades, ideas and personal philosophies of a self-appointed group of 'educators' who now assert the right to dominate and control that system. These men intend to nullify the Constitution with propaganda. Their purpose is to create a Social Welfare type of state under a Proletarian Form of Government. A socialistic government is not a democracy. It can only function where there is absolute power to dominate the people. It is the first step toward dictatorship and oppression. American democracy is the democracy of Thomas Jefferson, made effective under a constitution securing individual liberty. It is a Republican Form of Government--the kind of government guaranteed to the people by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not provide for a Proletarian Form of Government. It does not provide for National Socialism. The people alone have the right to determine any changes to be made in their form of government. They have the right to make that decision without being put under the influence of propaganda. We are entitled to a public school system in which these principles will be taught to the Youth of America. There is no place in that system for individuals desiring to use their position or authority to promote any New Deal, Old Deal, Fair Deal, Square Deal, Re-deal or any other kind of Deal. It is wrongful to make those schools an agency of The Political Action Committee, or any other Action Committee or Pressure Group. We dare not use our schools to 'Build a New Social Order.' We deny the right of any individual or group to issue a 'Call to the Teachers of the Nation' to use these schools for such a purpose. These are the methods of Stalin and Hitler. They cannot be tolerated by the free people of America.

Stalin’s Order to the CPUSA, 1932

RELIGION: By philosophy, mysticism, the development of liberal cults, and the furtherance of atheism, to discredit all Christian creeds.

ETHICAL: Corrupt morality by advocating promiscuity and advising high school and university students to practice same; introduction of companionate marriage ideas; advocation of legalized abortions; advancement of theoretical interracial practices—marriage of white women to colored men—by actual consummation through willing participants where obtainable.  Destruction of the family, abolition of inheritance, even to the extent of names; destruction of all records of title, birth and family history.

AESTHETIC: Cultivation of the ugly, futuristic and aberrant in art, literature, the drama and music, the practice of crude orientalism, modernism, and degenerate perversion.

SOCIOLOGICAL:  Abolition of social opposition by subversive practices; the display of vulgar extravagance, promotion and exaggeration of all social and economic conditions, political corruption, etc., to create unrest, suspicion and revolt by the workers, intensify class war.

INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL: Create mistrust of banks by circulation of rumors of instability and distress.  Destroy ideals in craftsmanship and pride of workmanship; set up—by series of public talks by professors of sociology and others—the picture of a golden serpent of profit.  Standardization of the cheap and shoddy; advocate the state monopoly of ownership; exchange of all foreign currency at slight discount for U.S. gold and gradually withdraw gold from circulation, send all gold currency to Russia.

POLITICAL: Set up the ideal of thinking ‘internationally,’ so as to undermine national patriotism; weaken all government departments by corruption.  Attack all political parties and create distrust and suspicion upon any an all occasions.  Amplify facts by fiction and create startling exposures.  Ridicule all patriotic effort and undermine all preparation for defense; carry out our set policy for world revolution outlined in Rykoff’s position.

RYKOFF: in Pravda, said:  “It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of all nations, the theory of international friendship, pacifism and disarmament, at the same time, however, never for one moment relaxing our efforts in the upbuilding of our own military establishment.”

LENIN said: “When a country is selected for attack we must first set up before the youth of  that land a mental barrage which will forever prohibit the possibility of that youth being  moulded into an armed force to oppose our invading armies.  This can most successfully be done through creating ‘war horror’ thought and by teaching of pacifism and non-resistance.  It will be found that powerful organizations of non-communists can be created for this purpose particularly with the aid of liberal-minded ministers, professors and lecturers.”

BUCHARIN said: “Friendship of liberal minded ministers shall be sought, as these men at the present time are the leaders of the masses.”

A BILL OF GRIEVANCES

In 1949, more than fifty years ago, the Sons of the American Revolution Society entered a petition into Congress, asking for an investigation into the interstate transportation of subversive textbooks. There were 53 pages of documentation to support the petition which was as follows:

"The Public School System of this country has been converted into a propaganda agency to support the projects, campaigns, crusades, ideas and personal philosophies of a self-appointed group of 'educators' who now assert the right to dominate and control that system.

"These men intend to nullify the Constitution with propaganda. Their purpose is to create a Social Welfare type of state under a Proletarian form of Government.

"A socialistic government is not a democracy. It can only function where there is absolute power to dominate the people. It is the first step toward dictatorship and oppression.

"American democracy is the democracy of Thomas Jefferson, made effective under a constitution securing individual liberty. It is a Republican Form of Government--the kind of government guaranteed to the people by the Constitution of the United States.

"The Constitution does not provide for a Proletarian Form of Government. It does not provide for National Socialism. The people alone have the right to determine any changes to be made in their form of government. They have the right to make that decision without being put under the influence of propaganda.

"We are entitled to a public school system in which these principles will be taught to the Youth of America.

"There is no place in that system for individuals desiring to use their position or authority to promote any New Deal, Ol Deal, Fair Deal, Square Deal, Re-deal or any other kind of Deal.

"It is wrongful to make those schools an agency of The Political Action Committee, or any other Action Committee or Pressure Group.

"We dare not use our schools to "Build a New Social Order." We deny the right of any individual or group to issue a 'Call to the Teachers of the Nation' to use those schools for such a purpose. These are the methods of Stalin and Hitler. They cannot be tolerated by the free people of America.

"It is a violation of our right and the right of our children to freedom of conscience to use those schools to disseminate slanted or intellectually dishonest propaganda.

"The parents and children of America have the right to a public school system where instruction is based upon truth.They have the right to oppose any and all school programs and activities where propaganda is substituted for the truth.

"Our people have the right to reject the experimentalism and unsound philosophies of the men who are followers of John Dewey. They have the right to instruct 'progressive' educators who are still carrying on dissertations and discussions, interpretations and reinterpretations, applications and reapplications of the obsolete and discredited Dewey School philosophy in training our children to become members of Communist fronts.

"The people have the absolute power and the sole right to control the public schools. To insure freedom, it is necessary for them to maintain that control at the local level.

"Educators do not have the right to dominate or control that system at any level.

"This is our Bill of Grievances. The following Constitutional Rights have been infringed: 1. The right to a nonpolitical public school system maintained and operated in a way that will secure freedom of conscience and prevent the introduction of all partisan, political, subversive and other intellectually dishonest propaganda. 2. The right to prevent the use of that system to support the programs of political action committees, political parties and other pressure groups. 3. The right to prevent abuse of the privilege of tax exemption on the part of individuals, trusts, foundations and other organizations engaged in contributing to the support of radical activities. 4. The right to have the schools accept and discharge their responsibility in educating our youth in the American tradition to equip them for the task of supporting and defending constitutional government in America.

THE RIGHT OF PETITION

This is a constitutional petition for Redress of Grievances. We are appealing to the Congress of the United States, and, through the Congress, we are making a direct appeal to the People themselves. Such a petition constitutes a solemn exercise of our right of self government. It is an historic remedy available at all times to resist oppression.

We invoke that jurisdiction now to support and defend Constitutional Government and provide for the National Security. The Congress, and the Congress alone, has power to afford relief in this emergency. We call for the exercise of all authority available under the circumstances.

Dated: April 19, 1949

AARON M. SARGENT

Attorney for Petitioner

==========================================

" A people may prefer a free government; but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; if, by momentary discouragement,temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions--in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty; and though it may be for their good to have had it even for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it."

John Stuart Mill

============================================

The War on 1070

You didn’t really think “red” is dead or has gone away, did you?  Or did you think about it at all? The latter I suspect.  But this present war on the State of Arizona, and those who support the new law #1070, really ought to convince you otherwise.

I have long thought there is a central committee somewhere which thinks up slogans and puts them into play, not to mention thinking up campaigns and putting them into action, and this war which erupted with the passage of AZ’s #1070 should be proof enough for anyone capable of analyzing events.  

Think back.  This wave of similar statements to boycott AZ is not spontaneous, --- there are agent provocateurs who incite the hue and cry against Arizona – as was done in the O. J. Simpson case, the Rodney King case, and going back as far as the 1952 Republican Convention when the Madison Avenue slogan was put in motion, “Taft Can’t Win,” which was a falsification if ever there was one, so the “internationalists” put their candidate in place.  There have been many such slogans since, and this latest “Boycott” movement is just another rung on the ladder.

I have been observing and participating since 1951 in  these crusades which sweep through the country  continually, and am convinced that trends in politics and culture do not happen by accident, but are driven to some unseen design, by some unknown, unseen designers.  Once a particular position has been set in motion, the designer(s) can go on to a new project and let the ball they set in motion carry on. 

Patriots have won a skirmish or two but then the war breaks out again in another location over some other problem.  Patriots are not as well heeled, or well organized as their opponents, the known and the unknown—of which there are a great many in high places of power.  Patriots are always in defensive mode, not actually knowing who their enemy is or what new activity might start in a new direction.  There seems to be no end to this struggle between the forces of right and those of the wrong.

That’s why I am always reminded of the parable Jesus told his followers, recorded in Matthew 13, about the landlord whose fields were sown with wheat. When the grain came up, the servants found poisonous weeds amongst the wheat.  Alarmed,  they ran to tell the landlord an enemy had done this while they slept. 

Jesus explained the wheat field is the world, the poisonous weeds are the children of Satan, and trying to pull the weeds damages the wheat!

Satanic “Reds” are very skilled at creating problems to which they then can provide a  solution. 

• Is the world overpopulated?  They think so, and thus  promote abortion, euthanasia, and genocide.  To oppose these issues is like hitting a blank wall at 50 miles an hour.
• Do we cling to morality?  Sex education from kindergarten up will eventually take care of that along with x-rated movies and TV in living color, literature,  art, and use of depraved language will take care of some of that, while the social prognosticators will promote their sophisticated philosophies through the schools of “higher learning.”
• Remember the origins of the use of drugs by teen agers – not to mention immature adults, with the introduction of LSD and marijuana which is “harmless.” (like a hidden rattle snake!)
• Protect your family, yourself, your country? Not  allowed in the new polyglot world, so  promote gun control and unlimited immigration.
• Do they hate the Judeo-Christian concept of right and wrong based on the Ten Commandments?  Erase wherever memorialized,  wipe them from man’s memory, promote nihilism in public schools  from kindergarten on. Forbid home schooling, private Christian schools.  Replace with worshipping the world.
• Do they hate the United States’ prosperity  and blame it for the poverty of  “have not” nations? Yes, promote the redistribution of wealth through foreign aid, State Dept. AID program, the IMF, World Bank, UNRRA, and other give-aways. Create a state of bankruptcy for the United States.
• Create social upheaval  and unrest, chaos and confusion,  by dividing  race against race, females against males,  old against young, one religion against another, or no religion against the religious.  Whatever position will result in creating the greatest havoc is the position the secret enemies promote.  Every year Warriors for the left pour out of our universities and high schools by the hundreds, stimulated by those who are safely tenured on tax-supported salaries, protected by a more and more left Supreme Court.

But I digress.  All this was brought on by my observations of the boycotts being served up against Arizona in other cities and states by members of government who haven’t read the 10 pages and don’t intend to.  Their function is not to suppress illegal immigration but to support it, but not to make it look as if they do—a phrase which may have a familiar ring to it, since wasn’t it Lattimore who said to “dump the Nationalists Chinese, but not to make it look as if we are,” or words to that effect.   

Let us hope those in city/county/state governments  unrelated to Arizona who have joined in the so-called boycotts are replaced at the first opportunity since either they are also part of the state/nation enemies, or they are totally ignorant of the cost of this invading army of illegals and don’t care.  Or worst of all, they recognize and approve it as part of the international program of countries without borders as enumerated in U.N. documents which we have not signed, but which are being implemented one segment at a time, plus the planned merger of Canada, United States and Mexico in the North American Alliance which has been underway without publicity for some years already.  So why spend money to fortify the borders?  It isn’t part of the plan.

I just ran across a remark made by Chief Jack Harris of the Phoenix P.D., last July in an interview on a TV program, Newsmakers.  He said, “It is the obligation and duty of any city government to protect and defend the public, and enforce the laws, not to provide them with entertainment.  If there is a choice because of a short fall that choice should be obvious!…Dispute the clamp down on criminal statistics occasioned by aliens who commit a crime the moment they cross the border illegally—the statistics are carefully shielded from public view.”

I hope he is still in office. 

 

 

 

Should we send our brave, courageous young to fight tyranny in other lands while day by day it is growing like mushrooms in the dark of our own land?

Jefferson Strikes Again

Some years ago the so-called “new left” mounted a campaign to brainwash the uneducated masses of Americans that the Constitution established a doctrine of “separation of church and state,” which is nowhere found in the 1st Amendment.  Is there anyone in the country who hasn’t heard that was based on Jefferson’s remarks in a private letter, never intended to interpret the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment?  But does the ACLU change its tune?  It has totally convinced the uneducated this is a true statement. Their agenda, of course, is to make this a secular country, to remove all vestiges of Christianity from its shores and even to convince people that it never was a Christian country – about like England in its present state where wearing insignias of Christian beliefs has become a matter for controversy with government agencies taking the lead – almost like the days of Scrooby!

The real intent,  of course, of the First Amendment  was and is  to keep the State from establishing a State religion as functioned in the “Mother” Country at the time of the Revolution.  “A Walk Through History” has documented that to deviate from the King’s view of the Bible was to become an instant criminal and to earn a stretch in the pokey.  Some went to the stake to be burned alive.  That isn’t a fate I could contemplate easily.

Unhappily, so universal has been the acceptance of this untrue belief, it is brought out and waved  at the slightest excuse. Aye, there’s the rub:  trying to convince the uneducated masses that there is no such thing in their Constitution.  How would they know---they probably never read it but will cling tenaciously to that interpretation because that’s what they heard someone else say --or write.

The teaching in America’s public schools of  our government’s foundations went out the window years and years ago with the introduction of “social studies” creating the disappearance of the  teaching of civics, along with history of the motivations of the rebellion against the authoritarianism of the British King,  his laws, parliament and the state-supported church which precipitated the authorship of that unique document, the American Constitution which once was taught in grade school, including memorizing its Preamble. 

But no more.

Franklin Roosevelt grew angry when the Court struck down his socialistic programs and decided to “pack the court,” and sought a means to increase the number of “justices.”  He didn’t succeed at that.  If  he could have prolonged his life another half century, the Court has been swinging his way, definitely making decisions he would have liked.  During his reign, however,  columnist Westbrook Pegler commented on Roosevelt’s court:  “The present Supreme Court of the United States is a low-grade outfit, not only by comparison with some courts of the past, but on the records of its personnel.”

At the time Carl Brent Swisher, was professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins, and wrote in the Virginia Law Review that “the Supreme Court looks back on two decades of bizarre behavior.  It stands exposed as a power group, competing with other groups wielding political power in our society.

“That is why so many lawyers say confidentially they just can’t advise clients with any confidence on the law and the Constitution…..Many of the individual Justices have joined in debunking what Federal Circuit Court Judge Jerome Frank has called ‘the cult of the robe,’ to the end of revealing not only that the court is a power group but that individual justices are themselves competitors for power and the individual prestige of determining the course of legal rationalization.”

Pegler, describing Roosevelt’s “court packing” scheme said it was “consistent with the plan which Col. E. M. House set forth in his revolutionary prophecy, Philip Dru, Administrator, that I truly believe Roosevelt got it from House who was his adviser early in the New Deal.”

Another chance is coming up soon, about two weeks actually, to take the Court even further left with the appointment of Obama’s newest nominee,  Elena Kagan.  He must be secretly chortling, about putting his critics on the horns of a dilemma:  What is there they can criticize about her and not bring down the all the scorn and opprobrium of the left:   Her background is about as far from that of a Justice of the Supreme Court as you could possibly get, never having had judicial experience to begin with, not to mention her antagonism to the military because of their “don’t ask – don’t tell policy.”   Her anti-life, pro-abortion stance is not in keeping with the history of our country either—even though they are pillars of the left. Plus it seems she would prefer to interpret by means of international law, not the Constitution.

Jefferson made another comment which deserves far more widespread use than the aforementioned “separation'” and in this one, he said, “to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters  of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

 This powerful nine-person elite  group more recently was described says one constitutional attorney, as performing “..in the American system of government a role similar to that by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority. The major difference is that the ayatollahs act as a conservative force, while the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—….to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values…..The salient characteristic of contemporary American society is a deep ideological divide along cultural and class lines, a higher degree of polarization on policy issues than at any time within memory. On one side of this ‘culture war’ is the majority of the American people, largely committed to traditional American values, practices, and institutions.  On the other side is what might be called the ‘knowledge’ or ‘verbal’ class or ‘cultural elite,’ consisting primarily of academics, most importantly at elite schools, and their progeny in the media, mainline churches, and generally, the verbal or literary occupations    …….they …often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions. and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.”

So said Lino Graglia, who also has been a professor at the Virginia University School of Law, and one of several constitutional authorities who contributed to Judge Robert Bork’s recent publication, A Country I Do Not Recognize, The Legal Assault on American Values.

One legal beagle’s essay in Judge Bork’s collection said every decision since 1937 would have to be wiped out in order to get back to the Constitution.  Ha!  That has about as much chance of happening as the proverbial snowball in H….!

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

The Agenda

In the neighborhood of the ‘30’s a theoretician and organizer of the Randolph Center Communist Colony, which included a large number of well-known Communist personalities (Nathan Witt, Lee Pressman, John Abt, Marian Bachrach, to name a few), gave a Vermont resident “their” agenda for the future:

“The Communist revolution in America would not be accomplished by violence and fighting in the streets, directed by Red Russian Storm Troopers, but would be achieved gradually by schooling the most intelligent and aggressive young people in their philosophy and then pulling strings to get them placed in strategic positions in government—Administrators, Judges, Advisers to Cabinet Members and Legislative committees.  This was to be a change of pace revolution: the Constitution was not to be declared null and void or even to be replaced, but was to be kept more or less as it is, to make the people think nothing had changed.  The word ‘Communist’ was never to be used: just ‘Liberal and Progressive’. A terrific plan!”

That’s what we see all around us.  It was particularly obvious when “they” came out in the open  in the  Johnson days, with the Viet Nam protesters, all  stimulated by left-wing so-called “professors” who  previously were graduates of the same sources of “higher learning.”  Our good and decent young men, the cream of America’s future went to Asia, supposedly to fight Communism, and we had it right here at home in our halls of academe!  Not to mention the State Department and  other  agencies of government!

There was another aspect to this agenda which since those long ago days has also been followed to the letter to confound  a puzzled electorate who didn’t recognize or  know about this agenda for a different future than was ever envisioned by our Forefathers, but you may see it has been followed to the letter and with the nomination of Elena Kagan promises to put the frosting on the cake:

“Because of the relatively few amendments that have been added to the Constitution since 1789, the impression may be gained that the American governmental system has changed but little in 150 years.  But there are other methods of change and all have been active.  Like any other, a written constitution must be interpreted—a dynamic process in which the legislative and the executive branches as well as the courts are involved.  Indeed, interpretation is one of the principal means by which our so-called living Constitution has been repeatedly adjusted to the altered circumstances of the powers of government—and particularly the commerce, taxing, and police powers—have progressively opened up new areas of governmental activity in an attempt to keep pace with demands.   The courts have also invented the judicial theory of implied and resulting powers in order to free the federal government from the constitutional theory of fixed express powers.”

That quotation came from a law textbook from the same source, the Randolph Center, and it is still  in use and updated since those almost pre-historic days!  The text, Business and Government, was written by Marshal Dimock, member of the Vermont colony and appointee by Harry Truman to a judgeship in Vermont. 

Manuel Miller, a long time resident of Bethel, Vermont, where the Center was located, included this information in a brief prepared, and submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on April 9, 1956, so you can see it is not a recent invention.

Miller rightly asked, “Who gave the courts the power to free the federal government from the restrictions of the Constitution?  Was this power derived from the consent of the governed? 

“No, the American people never have and never will knowingly give such power to any person or group regardless.”

Revolution was/is the goal:  dismantling the Constitution one decision at a time, the method.  

Roosevelt in his first administration inherited the  Supreme Court of his predecessors.  Irate over the failure of his socialist programs to pass  this Court’s scrutiny, he decided to enlarge the number of Court personnel. following concepts in  Philip Dru, Administrator,  written by Edward House, his mentor as far back as WWI, but even Roosevelt couldn’t get that through Congress, though many were Democrats – a different kind of Democrat then than the radicals presently controlling that Party and Congress.

The resultant furor caused some Judges,  tired of the whole affair, to  resign which gave him the chance to “pack” the court at least with ideological cronies,  so gradually the Court became the weapon and tool of the Socialist agenda.

With the end of Truman’s term it was clear the end of the long reign of the Democrats was in the works .  Straw polls made Taft/MacArthur the favorites and appeared to be shoe-ins.  

However, dirty politics raised its ugly head in the theft of the elected Texas delegation for the Republican Convention of 1952. 

Like most Americans I knew little about these things, having grown up with Roosevelt in office, but I was keen to have a change of administration  because I had just undergone nearly four long years in a socialist setting as a civilian on a Navy base. 

As a school child I was made a Democrat by the brainwashing of my grammar school teachers during the worst days of the “great depression.”  Those teachers separated me from my parents’ views which were decidedly different.  They had been cruelly victimized by employment conditions during those desperate days.  I was there.  I shared,  but did not comprehend the urgent desperation  of the struggle to put food on the table so I  never knew the anguish they must have endured. Today, I wonder how different it might have been had either parent been “born again,” and took The Lord into their problems.  Would it have been different for them?

“The war” rescued all of us.  Isn’t that dreadful? 

The cataclysmic destruction of  cities, property, farms, the rape of civilization in which millions of people were assaulted, maimed and murdered, or made wanderers with nothing but the rags on their backs became  the economic rescuer of most of the civilians of the United States. 

At war’s end and in its aftermath, in my early married days,  I was a civilian wife of a civilian scientist employed on a Navy base, in the middle of nowhere on the desert where all “political” conversation was verboten.  I  experienced living under a socialist regime and didn’t like it at all. 

A “hierarchy” ruled the base, making and  breaking the rules they handed us, whenever it was convenient or seemed necessary.   This was particularly true in relation to housing,  sometimes used as a bribe to lure a desirable potential employee with the right credentials.  We were bypassed for months even though we headed the housing list. 

Ever the rebel, I finally rebelled against  the heat, the everlasting wind, endless stretches of sand unbroken by greenery, the shimmering blue heat haze against distant mountains, the threat of sidewinders in the sandy “yard,” and the unfairness of the “rulers” against whom there was no recourse.  I took the children and fled to the “civilization” of Southern California and the so-called “dog eat dog” competition for after-the-war housing markets.  It was at least somewhat green, somewhat cooler, and one could make his own choices, not having to bend the knee or the neck to the dictates of a clique of higher beings!

Sick of the Democratic regime and convinced that Roosevelt/Truman represented the war party, I  converted to  Republicanism, and advocated a complete turnaround with Senator Taft and General MacArthur.  Sen. Taft made it clear he was not an internationalist.  He had written the ultimate purpose of American foreign policy “must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States.”  It was time, I thought, if more Democrats meant more socialism, I had had all I wanted of that!

After reading a Republican piece of literature listing the U.S. had accepted 22 more steps to socialism than in notoriously socialist England, I registered Republican and volunteered as a precinct captain,  a career which was destined to be short-lived. I didn’t know it but that piece of literature was headed for the scrap barrel when Taft/MacArthur forces were to be undone  before the first ballot at the Convention yet to be.

People weren’t talking about the Republican Advance then, and certainly I didn’t know about it  until a newspaper in Tyler, TX told the story of the formation of this group designed to combat and overcome any further opposition to “socialism” by Republicans in the upcoming election.  According to the paper, this group of leading Republicans  was financed by the same radicals who financed what was known as the ADA, among the Democrats.

The new marvel of television brought me the chance to watch pre-convention shenanigans in Texas whereby  a group of transplanted Democrats charged the legally elected Republican delegation  with “stealing” the right to vote for the Taft-MacArthur slate at the convention soon to take place.  The more I watched, the more I was convinced the people hollering thief were the ones doing the stealing!

A political novice,  I had no knowledge or experience on which to draw to support my opinion that dirty work was going on.  More than fifty years later, long after it was published in 1964,  I read Phyllis Schlafly’s small book, “A Choice, Not an Echo,” in which she tells the story of that convention and verifies to me, my feelings were justified.  There would be no more literature against socialism.  At the time, however, I felt as if I had been kicked in the stomach and resigned from precinct work. 

All I can say was that when Eisenhower was nominated on the first ballot, I, a mere novice with no knowledge or experience, wept.  When people asked me what I thought of the Republican Convention, I replied, “I feel as if all the children of the world were condemned to a concentration camp.” 

I already knew about the 5 million people who fled the Soviets during the war, and in Operation Keelhaul under General Eisenhower, they had been cruelly returned to the Soviets where they were either sent to Gulags or committed suicide.  And I also remembered how Eisenhower had been assigned to the presidency of Columbia University where he announced there were no Communists in the face of a whole cadre of known Reds.  And I remembered too, when he took over NATO, and in his speech said, “Now I am only 1/12th an American.  No child is born American but is made one by his parents.”  That didn’t sit well with me.

So he was elected and early in his watch, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution occurred, and  we,  the bastion of freedom and “democracy,“  stood by and did nothing to help the brave unarmed people stand up to Soviet tanks and guns.

I didn’t know until again half-a-century later, I read a book, None Dare Call It Treason, in which that same year, 1956, a Democrat member of the House from Ohio, Michael Feighan, released the text of a State Department telegram to Tito, Soviet leader of Yugoslavia, saying: “The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union.”

This was a well-kept secret from Americans who stood in silent wonder and sorrow while watching the destruction of the brave people of Hungary who went against their captors with bare hands, hopelessly looking for help that never came. 

In fact, between the time of Eisenhower’s election and his taking office, Paul Hoffman, ex-car salesman and now dispenser of millions in the Red-riddled UNRRA disposal of American tax dollars, Hoffman wrote an article in which he declared how Eisenhower was going to rid the Senate of those “obstructionists” who insisted on clinging to old fashioned shibboleths, Dirksen, Malone,  McCarthy, Jenner, Bricker, Bridges, and in essence declared war on those Senators who clung to old-fashioned virtues of patriotism and America First. 

That is, in fact, eventually just how it went although those good patriotic Senators gave the invisible and visible promoters of Eisenhower’s internationalism a run for their money!

First, of course, came appointments with Anna Rosenberg to the DOD, and Earl Warren to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Rosenberg made her first order the removal of all crosses on American national cemeteries, so when you see such with the heart wrenching hundreds of crosses you are looking at them in “Flanders fields,” –all overseas, not on American soil.

Then, of course, was the obvious political  payback to Warren with the appointment for which he was totally unqualified, but which had the effect of turning the country in the direction already spoken of so many years ago in the Communist-authored textbook about Courts. (I am indebted to John Stormer for this tally of the Supreme Court, way back then, 1964):

 “After Warren’s appointment to the Supreme Court, in the first eight cases involving communism in which he participated, he supported the communist position five times, the government’s case on three occasions.  After that, Warren supported the communist position in 62 cases without deviation.

“In the three year, 1956-58 period, the Supreme Court decided 52 cases involving communism and subversion in  government.  The decisions supported the communist position 41 times, the anti-communist position only 11 times.  Warren’s consistent pro-communist votes were the deciding factors in the many narrow 5 to 4 decisions……

“Under Warren’s leadership, the Court voided the longstanding sedition laws of 42 states.  Communists convicted under them were freed. The government was denied the right to fire federal employees who were proved to have contributed money and services to communist organizations.  Schools and colleges were denied the right to fire teachers who refused to answer questions about their communist activities……”

These decisions of the Supreme Court were highly criticized by the Bar Association and other similar agencies also involved with law and order.  A New York newspaper suggested impeachment of those Justices whose decisions consistently favored the communists.  J. Edgar Hoover, long-time foe of the Reds, told a Congressional Committee 49 top communists were freed because of the Supreme Court and quoted a top communist “who described the Court’s decision in the Smith Act case as the greatest victory the Communist Party had ever received.”

In a wrap-up of “Nine Men Against America,”  published decades ago, Rosalie Gordon said, “the Supreme Court has struck down practically every bulwark we have raised against the communist conspiracy in America.  In doing so, it has also continued to wipe out state lines and actually to leave the sovereign states helpless in the face of subversion….decisions ..have flowed from this revolutionary tribunal like manna for all those who would wreck our form of government…..Chief Justice Warren in 1956, wrote a decision taking away from the sovereign states the right to punish sedition within their borders….Justice Harlan wrote another decision…which makes it nearly impossible to prosecute conspirators against America until they actually physically start overthrowing the government….the Supreme Court has issued at least 15 decisions designed to put the meddling fingers of the federal politicians further into state affairs…the Chief Justice has aligned himself completely with the extremely leftist members of the Court.

“…..the Court capped a whole series of previous decisions establishing over the rank-and-file of American workers …the "’Labor Union Monopoly’

“In the light of this whole sorry record, we need not be surprised at the jubilation in communist circles over the Supreme Court of the United States.  In fact, the communists even held a rally in September, 1957, to, in the words of the communist Daily Workers, ‘pay honor to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent decisions’ and to ‘hit out at attempts to undo the decisions.’”

Rosalie Gordon reminded her readers of a Virginia Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson (and the left loves him so much, how could they complain about this) along with James Madison, on a doctrine of Interposition as follows:

“In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact (the Constitution), the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

“What this means,” explained Rosalie Gordon,”is that when the Executive, or the Court violates the Constitution by usurping powers which the Constitution forbids, the states themselves –three-fourths of whom form a power without which there would be no Constitution and no federal government—must interpose to “arrest the progress of evil” being committed by their own creature (the federal government), and force it to conform to the body of laws (the Constitution) which the states set up to govern its conduct.”

Clearly we should not be helpless in our present dilemma.

In 1996, Justice Antonin Scalia in a dissent, wrote:  “What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?….Day by day, case by case, (the Supreme Court) is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

Judge Robert Bork whose nomination to the Court was the cause of uproar among the lefts, put together a group of essays, using Scalia’s designation, A Country I Do Not Recognize,” as its title.  Another jurist, Terry Eastland writes in there that “the Court has so deformed a real constitutional provision that it bears little discernible relation to anything the framers and ratifiers understood themselves to be saying.”

An attorney with the background of Kagan once accepted as a Justice, is apt to be on the Court for as many as forty years, taking the country even further from its origins, placing us in another of Jefferson’s apt predicaments:”to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."-----or even as another president (Lincoln) wrote “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…..the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” *

_____________

*pg 7, A Country I Do Not Recognize, Hoover Institute Press, 2005, Edited by Robert Bork

 

THE THIRD GENDER

Why is do you suppose I nearly always start my blogs by saying, “A long time ago” or maybe “Many years ago”? because that’s what I have to say now, many years ago, which will be prehistoric for most of you, I am sure, but anyway, that’s when it was, a long time ago.   I went to school in a suburb of Boston.  This was so long ago it was before WWII! In our history classes we (my sister and I) had a wonderful instructor, Edward Rowe Snow. Every student should have an instructor like Mr. Snow. He made you glad to be an American!

He was known as the Flying Santa Claus because each Christmas for years, students collected gifts which he delivered by dropping them at the lighthouses up and down the East Coast.  Now, of course, automation has replaced the lonely life of the Light Tenders.

Mr. Snow loved the history of the area which many residents boasted was the “cradle of liberty,” and if you read some good histories of those epic-making Revolutionary War days, you would realize how great the people of that era were.  In summer Mr. Snow sometimes canoed  a bunch of teens  to Harbor islands to explore, particularly, as I recall Governor’s Island which has the remains of a fort.

This became of particular interest to Mr. and Mrs. Snow one time when he related the story of one escapee who, as I recall, heated the gun slit, expanding the opening and then slipped out the window.

One of Mr. Snow’s more aggressive students, Priscilla,  decided to try this, except she didn’t have anything to heat the stone with, she just attempted to slip through the opening and couldn’t do it, but neither could she get back out. 

I wasn’t there, however, in the same class, and heard about it from her brother, Eugene, who spent his evenings on our front porch.  Once,  with the connivance of our father, he pulled a dirty, dirty trick on my sister and me.  I’ll tell you in a moment, but back to Priscilla who was stuck in the window.  Fortunately, Mrs. Snow was on that trip. She sent all the males packing so she could remove some of Priscilla’s more intimate garments and oiled her down with salad dressing to get her unstuck from the gun slit!

Her brother, Eugene, was working his way thru college on a new program (then it was new), in which he went to school for 6 weeks and then worked 6 weeks.  So he had a job in a factory where they made gum which looked like Feenamint, but he said,  wasn’t.  He came to the house one evening in our absence  and left some with our father for us to sample. The open package of gum was conspicuously placed right under the hanging Tiffany lamp over the center of the round oak dining room table which was to me a warning sign. Too conspicuous.  Not to my sister.  Oh, no!  She who rarely chewed gum grabbed a handful.  I took one.  If  they weren’t Feenamints, they were the next best to it.  Margie spent the next day making hurried trips to the bathroom at the head of the stairs, which  replaced a sewing room in this 1880’s Victorian frame house.  I was our most favorite place to live.

I made a trip back there from California in 1974 and again in 1979 for my job and while there again  visited the islands on a tour of the Harbor which Mr. Snow narrated.  He kept looking at me as if he knew he should know me, and finally I went over and said, “Class of ‘40.”

Wow! I had to ride with him in the glass enclosed cabin from whence he narrated the sights we were seeing, this was much to the consternation of the other tourists!  When we came to the island, I thought I would break this up and so went to the ladies room to hide and waited and waited.  I didn’t want to make the tour, my feet hurt. 

When I thought enough time passed, I opened the door to find the tourists all in a line right in front of me, while I heard Mr. Snow’s voice, roaring “Where is she?  Where is she?”  It all happened in a moment, and there wasn’t time to flee.  He spotted me in the doorway with LADIES emblazoned over my head!  I could see by  puzzled faces I needed to explain this business of “teacher’s pet,” so in my passage to the front of the line, I kept saying, “Class of 40, Class of 40.” That made it all right!

The only thing important about that anecdote is the expression, “Cradle of liberty.”  I don’t know what has happened to those people, once so proud of their heritage.  Why would they keep voting the late Ted Kennedy back into office with his miserable record? What pray tell, could he know about the average working man’s life?  We thought of him as “Chappaquiddick Dick” and scarcely adequate material for so exalted a position as a U.S. Senator.  Well, what did we know?  I guess by now there are worse who have born that once honorable title.

And now, the area is the “Cradle of License!”  More of the aberrant futuristic ugliness seems to be passing through their State Legislature than most of the other states combined!

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, it was said, recognized Alger Hiss’s guilt as a Soviet spy, but since he was only found guilty of perjury, they restored his right to practice law, plus he was able to collect a government pension until he died.

Massachusetts was also the first state to get into the third gender controversy as well.  Of course, now the State has the help of the Feds with Obama proclaiming June as “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride month,” according to news reports.  So, even though the Legislature of Massachusetts had to cut government costs all down the line, they still raised funds for “homosexual programs in the public schools.” which apparently has a strong lobby in the State House. even though there is  strong resistance, as well. (MassResistance.com, P.O. Box 1612,  Waltham, MA 02454)

You can’t help but wonder how such a small percentage of people could wield such power at the State and national levels, because traditionally there weren’t over 3% of the populace into that culture.  However, I remember that a member of the Communist Party vowed to change that, and apparently he has.

Harry Hay was an organizer for the CPUSA who appeared before a government committee in July, 1955, where he took the 5th Amendment in response to his Communist Party membership.

This is interesting in view of the appointment by Mr. Obama of a man named Kevin Jennings as “Czar” of safety for children in school.  It seems that Mr. Jennings in a 1997 speech boasted of his relationship with Harry Hay who was his “mentor.” Mr. Jennings doesn’t keep his identity as a member of the 3rd gender a secret either.   Hay had a web site for several years before his death where he did not hide his relationship with the CPUSA, either. 

Hay read the discredited Kinsey report in 1948 which incited him to found in 1950 a secret society he called The Mattachine Society, after Renaissance male dancers who hid their faces behind masks.  Very appropriate title, but since then has been superseded by more radical non-secret societies, which have gained a surprising amount of support among non-gay society.  You can find more information in my book, In the Presence of Our Enemies, and if you haven’t a copy, but want one, let me know for there is much more to tell.

The sad thing is  its  entre’ into the younger classes of Massachusetts’ schools, now no longer the cradle of liberty, but of license.  The assault on the foundations of this country are immense, but sadly, most Americans are so brainwashed they don’t even recognize this.

Crossing borders

Once in a while our side wins a skirmish – even if losing the fight!  A story on the internet this morning tells about two guys who went to a Suns’ game wearing bright orange t-shirts which blared forth a message: viva los 1070, since the Suns’ owner supported the protests against AZ newest anti-immigration law.  Apparently their seats were shown by the cameras in every shot of the bench so a couple strong-arms for hire types came to get them to remove the shirts, which they refused so they were evicted.  Outside they appealed to a higher authority and got back inside.  Now they are being besieged by orders for the shirts from across the country!  The story is told in full on eletter@news.personalliberty.com site if you want all the details.

On June 2, our local paper printed a letter from a local viewer that made me say, “Gee, I wish I’d written that.”  Frank d’Ambrosio was the author and since his letter was already published, I am going to republish it here:

“Let me see if I got this right:  If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years of hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.

If you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get a job, a driver’s license, a Social Security card, Welfare, food stamps, credit cards, subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house, free education, free health care, a lobbyist in Washington, billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language, the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect, and in many instances, you can vote.

I just wanted to make sure that I had a firm grasp on the situation.”

He wrote a mouthful.