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