According to Jordanne Kemper, vice president of Independent Women’s Voice: “The radical Left’s talking points may sound utopian, but the track record can’t be ignored: less opportunity, economic stagnation, rampant crime, fewer choices, and a terrible quality of life.”1

Yet, many polls show that many young people view socialism more favorably than our U.S. constitutional republic. The U.S. school system has failed to educate them about the consequences of communism and socialism.

Independent Women’s Voice has produced an excellent new video about socialism with a “Back to the Future” theme. The nonprofit advocacy group has created the video to increase awareness in young people about the actual results of common socialist promises. The video is specifically aimed at young women but is great viewing for all American voters.

Subscribe now

What would it be like in the U.S. in 2050 if the policies of the Democratic Socialists of America were achieved? See the 3-minute video below.

Share this video with the young people and American voters in your life. The message is extremely timely.

Share

What is the takeaway for the midterm elections and going forward?

Subscribe now

Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Louisiana Republican has said:

There’s a small number of times in the history of America where the actual experiment in self-governance was on the ballot. The idea that we would preserve a constitutional republic: One nation under God, a government of, by, and for the people. All that is in question right now…We’re arguing over whether or not freedom is going to survive…This is a real question the American people have to decide in November, in a midterm election for Congress and Senate.

President Trump has discussed the topic in several recent speeches. He has said:

There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. These are not mere political disagreements like differences over taxes or regulations…They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights…Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Socialist platform

A look at the DSA platform shows many areas of concern.1 The DSA policies are as follows:

• Cancel the U.S. Constitution and create a new form of government. This involves ending the electoral college, packing the Supreme Court and abolishing the U.S. Senate. In this new form of government, the U.S. House of Representatives will select the U.S. President and U.S. Supreme Court judges.

• Withdraw the U.S. Bill of Rights. The DSA’s new form of government will cancel freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms.

• Expand the U.S. House of Representatives by creating more states out of Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. By the way, these areas just happen to be left-wing.

• Open wide the borders and give amnesty to all illegal aliens, including criminals and terrorists. Defund the military.

• Give voting rights to all residents regardless of citizenship. Expand mail-in ballots. Expand ranked-choice voting. Cancel measures that curtail election fraud. These changes are made in the name of opposing “voter suppression.”

• Close all prisons and defund the police. Stop making arrests for most serious crimes, even for repeat offenders. End police immunity.

• Dismantle the nuclear family. Promote sexual promiscuity, pornography and the ideas of queer theory.

• Outlaw all religion (except for the cult religion of communism).

• Massively expand the size and scope of government. The government will provide subsidized housing and grocery stores. You will receive a basic income and free education, day care and health care from the government. The free stuff and subsidized stuff are all provided in the name of “affordability.”

• Abolish private property. You will have nothing and “be happy.”

• Have government take over the means of production. No more private business.

• End free enterprise (capitalism) and replace it with central government planning.

Note that many of these policies are identical with communist policies.

Share

Standing against tyranny

The Declaration of Independence contains the key principles of the United States of America. These founding principles are what keep you free. Apparently, however, DSA members and their supporters don’t want you to be free. They have vowed to destroy the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all of our founding principles.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who practices constitutional law, says:

Our rights come from our Creator, God. They do not come from the government. The communists believe the opposite. They believe that the government, the state, is God. The state is the one that gives you all your rights. And you know what? The state can also take those rights away. And that’s exactly what happens. It’s inevitable. Communism and this philosophy has led to the murder of tens of millions of innocent people in the 20th century alone. It is a nightmare. It is a trail to certain death.

All told, communists have killed an estimated 150 million civilians. The body count is still rising. No matter how many times and how many different places Marxist ideology is tried, the results are always the same: Forced labor camps, concentration camps, persecution and genocide. Socialism and communism predictably lead to poverty, repression, violence and poor living conditions.

“I hoped and prayed it would never come to this, but here we are,” Johnson says. The barbarians are not just at the gate. “The barbarians are in the gate,” he says. [Emphasis added.] Make every vote count to oppose the DSA and their Democratic Party supporters.

View Mike Johnson making these points in the following 8-minute video.

The original goal of this newsletter, “2026,” was to help ensure we, as a country, made it to America’s 250th anniversary intact. Now that that day is nearly upon us, this is a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Why is it still very much pertinent today?

Subscribe now

The Declaration’s meaning

The Declaration of Independence summarized the American colonialists’ grievances against the king of England. It officially dissolved the U.S. colonies’ political ties with Great Britain and declared the colonies free and independent states. But even more importantly, it recorded for posterity the foundational principles of the United States of America.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.1

Those words enshrined in the Declaration of Independence lay out the key principles of the United States. The U.S. Constitution was later written to describe the structure of the U.S. government and how it should operate to achieve the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration and the Constitution work together, hand in hand. Neither is complete without the other. The Declaration is the golden apple in the center, while the Constitution provides the frame.2

Why it’s important today

The Declaration of Independence remains very pertinent today. It provides a set of foundational principles that are permanent and transcendent: All humans are born free. They have the equal right to be free from those who would exert mastery over them. They also have the equal right to be free from government oppression. These rights are unalienable rights given by God—not by government, and not by other people.

Since rights are not given by government, they cannot be taken away by government. Yet, the progressive movement over the past 100 years has tried to do exactly that.

The progressive movement explicitly rejects the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Progressivism argues that we should move away from the principles of the American founding and the original structure of the U.S. government. Progressives aim to step around the limited government, checks and balances, and other measures designed to prevent the undesirable effects of government.

“They knew that if government remained fixed on securing natural rights, government would always be inherently limited,” says Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto, professor of politics at Hillsdale College. But for progressives, placing any limits on the government was totally unacceptable.3

Instead, progressives have successfully pushed for the massive expansion of the scope and size of government. For them, the state determines the rights of individuals, not nature and not God, says Pestritto.4

We have now moved full circle. America started as a colony controlled by a monarchy. It then became a free nation with its citizens exercising self-government. Today, however, we have regressed to a pre-Constitutional condition in which the government trumps the rights of individuals. Ironically, this was done in the name of “progress.”

Share

What it really stands for

As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, it’s important to reflect on what the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, signifies.

…All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

People are born with natural rights and have the equal right to be free from human and government control. What are “just powers”? Our Founding Fathers believed that governments are just only if they have the consent of the governed.5

In total, the eternal truths in the document speak about what it means to be a free and self-governing nation. The Declaration of Independence provides the key guiding principles for the United States. From these principles spring forth the real America—the shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom, hope and opportunity.

With renewed appreciation, we, as individuals and as a nation, can once again use these principles as a compass going forward.

Fortunately for us, the U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to reduce the harmful effects of factions. In order to do this, the Founding Fathers of the United States studied past democracies to learn why they failed and how they could be improved. The Founders looked at the ancient democracies of Greece and Rome as well as the U.S. government in existence after the Revolutionary War but prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

Subscribe now

Ancient Greece

The city-states of ancient Greece had direct democracies. These consisted of a small number of citizens who assembled to vote or administer the government in person. These pure, or direct, democracies did not go very well. They were very unstable and constantly plagued with tyranny of the majority and mob rule.

According to Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 9: “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they ere continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were dept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extreme of tyranny and anarchy.”1

Colonial America

Colonial America also tried a form of government much closer to pure democracy. Prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the country was governed under an alliance between the states called the Articles of Confederation. The states had almost all of the power and employed a form of democracy close to pure in which the majority ruled. Majority decisions made by the state legislatures closely followed the changing majority opinions of the public. The executive branch was very weak. The laws that resulted were unstable, frequently changing, impractical and unjust.2

In addition, the majority kept passing laws that violated the rights of their fellow citizens. According to Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto, professor of politics at Hillsdale College: “Governments that allow the majority to vote itself some of the wealth of the minority, this is not a government that secures the equal natural rights of its citizens…You’ve got a lot of violation of the rights of the minority by the majority who possess power in these kinds of governments.”3 That is the nature of direct democracies.

Pure majority rule can be as despotic as the rule of a single individual, observed Thomas Jefferson about the situation under the Articles of Confederation. “One hundred seventy-three despots [the number of delegates in the Virginia legislature] would surely be as oppressive as one,” said Jefferson. “Little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”4

Need for a Constitution

The Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient protection from the threat of faction, insurrection, internal instability or internal fighting. The Founding Fathers of the United States decided that direct democracy, or pure majority rule, was not the answer. A constitutional republic was needed instead.

Share

In designing the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers made a number of improvements to correct the problems of direct democracy. The improvements included the separation of powers, checks and balances, an independent judiciary and elected representatives. The form of government they chose, very intentionally, was not a direct democracy. It was a republic. A republic is a form of government in which the citizens elect representatives to make governing decisions for them. The idea was to have elected representatives filter the people’s passions and allow rationality and reason to rule instead of emotions.5

The resulting republican form of government that we have today in the U.S. allows us to self-govern while reducing the destructiveness of majority tyranny found in direct democracies.

As Pestritto explains: “Consent is essential for just government. But it’s not sufficient because people are perfectly capable of consenting to unjust laws. A plurality of people are just as capable of making an unjust law as a single person…Sometimes people can consent to things that undermine natural rights as opposed to help secure natural rights.”6

When compared one against the other, direct democracies are as tyrannical as despotism. This year we are celebrating the 250th birthday of a nation that has solved these problems with a republican form of government. The United States of America prospers because it is a constitutional republic.

Democratic Party representative: “Tax the rich!”

Lyndon B. Johnson, former U.S. President (Democrat): “Take it from the haves and give it to the have-nots who need it so much.”

Karl Marx, father of communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Editor’s comment: What is the message shared by all the above people? Take the wealth. Take the capital. And with it take the means of production. No more wealth. No more capital. No more means of production. This is virtually always the way of communism, even when that communism is disguised as “democratic” or “democratic socialism.”

Subscribe now

Why communism can’t produce

When communist governments build housing units, they rent or sell them at below market price (cost). They do not make a profit. They do not create wealth. Without more taxpayer money, there are no funds for maintenance. The buildings quickly become derelict. The people who live in the units have no sense of ownership. They simply don’t care. So they don’t care if the buildings degenerate and decay. The buildings usually become rat-infested slums. In addition, without free enterprise, there’s no sense of supply and demand. Government officials have no good way to estimate demand and notoriously fail spectacularly. This leads to a glut of some items and a scarcity and rationing of others. Ration-cards and bread lines are typical features of communist governments. Overall, communists see economics as a zero sum game in which there is a fixed amount of wealth in a nation, or in the world, and no more wealth can be created. Their only source of money is to steal it or, as Karl Marx advocated, levy heavy progressive income taxes.

Share

How capitalism creates wealth

When people buy a house or stocks and bonds, they are providing capital (funds) that others can use to create wealth. This wealth is created in the form of building more houses or growing new or existing businesses that provide goods and services. The building of additional houses and the growth of new and existing businesses continually creates more wealth. Additionally, capitalism efficiently uses the supply and demand forces that naturally operate in a free market to quickly and accurately determine how much of each good to sell at any given moment. History has consistently shown that nations with free enterprise (capitalism) have the highest standards of living in the world. Many more people are moved out of poverty into middle-or-higher income brackets in nations with free enterprise.

Tax the rich? Bad idea. It’s already been tried and failed in communist governments operating in many different places at many different times. The results are always the same. The consequence of not looking at the results of policies that have already been tried is that the failures are bound to repeat.

We are now taking nominations for a more appropriate name. Please make a comment with your own ideas and suggestions.

Here is a short description of the names proposed so far.

The Socialist Party

The Democratic Party has become openly and unabashedly socialist. It advocates for socialism, in which the means of production are owned by the government. Socialism is a euphemism for communism. Communists throughout history, including Lenin and Stalin, have called themselves “socialists.” In the U.S. today, many Democrats call themselves “democratic socialists.” The “democratic” in front of “socialist” is supposed to make socialism sound nicer than it really is. Many, if not most, members of the Democratic Socialists of America are actual communists, promoting abolition of private property and the destruction of the nuclear family and religious institutions.

The Bureaucratic Party

This name definitely fits. The answer for most Leftists is always more government. The Democratic Party supports the big government bureaucracy we have today and wants it to be even larger. Much larger. It also wants the government to have more power over every aspect of your life. It wants a one-party government system with the Democratic Party being in total control.

Subscribe now

The Despotic Party

As we saw in the last issue, titled The Left’s Despotic Reign: In the last 100 years the Left has established a massive bureaucracy that now systematically takes away the rights of U.S. citizens. Kevin Slack, author of War on the American Republic,1 and an instructor for The American Left,2 says:

The tyranny you saw in 2020 is what the Left has in store for you—constant apology, constant subjugation and deprivation of all of your rights…Is America a republic? Not really. In a republic you would have laws passed by elected representatives. Instead, we have law-making power delegated to large bureaucracies by those who have no accountability—literally the definition of tyranny.

It would be entirely appropriate to call the Democratic Party the Despotic Party. Funny that the party that supports “No Kings” protests is, by far and away, the most authoritarian of all.

The Kleptocratic Party

A kleptocracy is a system ruled by people who use their power to steal their own country’s wealth and resources. Thievocracy, or rule by thieves, is another synonym for a corrupt government that exploits its people to gain wealth. Plutocratic, cronyistic and crony-capitalist are other adjectives for governments like this. Notorious examples include Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the U.S., neoliberal Leftists have pushed for global “free trade,” outsourcing, globalization and open borders. This has resulted in a ruling elite, or oligarchy, and the erosion of the middle class. In the “great awokening” during Obama’s second term, the ruling oligarchy—elites in business and government—took a hard left turn. They thought they could justify their anti-American globalist policies simply by funding groups that promoted diversity, equity and inclusion. The Left also attacked the idea of U.S. citizenship by elevating foreign cultures and illegal immigrants rather than promoting assimilation into the American way of way.

The Democratic Party’s backing of thievocracy makes the name “Kleptocratic Party” very apt.

The Anti-Democratic Party

Democracy means voting in elections in which the majority rules. We don’t have that today. Instead, we have a nation in which government decisions are managed by unelected bureaucrats. The Left has redefined “democracy” to mean that unelected bureaucrats decide what is best for the people. There is no representation, transparency or accountability. Any semblance of democracy is long gone. The Democratic Party believes that the people should give the government power and the government should give the people rights. These rights are chosen by the government and frequently change. What the government gives, the government can take away. This clearly is not democracy. In fact, it’s anti-democratic. It’s also antithetical to our constitutional republic. The euphemistic name “Democratic Party” should be replaced by the more fitting “Anti-Democratic Party” moniker.

Share

The Demoncratic Party

The Demoncratic Party, pronounced demon-cratic, refers to the Left’s promotion of lawlessness and evil. Demons and devils come to mind. How so? Many Democrats now feel that political assassination is justified. Others say “words are violence” as a justification for real physical violence toward people who hold opinions different from their own. The Left routinely opposes enforcement of the rule of law. “Defund the Police” and “Ice Out” are recent Democratic Party slogans. Sanctuary cities and states are all-too-common features of blue states. Crime rates skyrocket in Democrat-run jurisdictions. For all of these reasons and more, the Democratic Party has earned the additional nickname of “Crime-ocratic Party.”

Please leave your suggestions in the comments for a Democratic Party name that’s closer to reality. The current one is antithetical.

As we discussed in the last issue, the Left is on the last leg of a 100-year drive to destroy America. Leftists hate America. They hate American values, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, democratic principles and democratic rule. Their plans to dismantle the U.S. include stacking the Supreme Court, adding more states, and eliminating the electoral college and the filibuster. They push for open borders, weaponized mass migration and the destruction of election integrity. They also promote political violence, riots, fraud and corruption, increased crime and defunding law enforcement. They continually plot to subvert and destroy America by any means possible in their unending quest for total power.1

Subscribe now

What can Americans do to oppose the Left’s devious plans? Here are some suggestions from The American Left: From Liberalism to Despotism2, an online course from Hillsdale College.

• “Americans must rediscover what equal citizenship under the law means and what republican institutions and virtues are necessary to secure liberty. Americans should look back to their own republican institutions and traditions. And in doing so they need to regain knowledge of the things that secured their liberty.”

• “Christian and natural law traditions should be revived at the local level. Christians need to understand their own traditions and revive their traditions at the local level. And it’s not just a Christian tradition; it’s also a natural rights and natural law tradition. To understand on the side of the Right that certain rights are not subject to negotiation. And there is a right to the protection of those essential liberties.”

• “Conservatives should seek to form local communities with their own institutions so that they are less reliant on the incompetent federal institutions. They should look to empowering themselves at the local level…Conservatives need to focus on forming local communities, close friends. They can focus on creating their own separate institutions—things like charter schools, coops for agriculture and produce, private business, working and networking with one another.”

• “Most importantly, conservatives should stop apologizing for the color of their skin and for their religion and defend the rights of citizenship. They need to reclaim sovereignty from the bureaucracy itself, who has lost all legitimacy and has no basis left to claim the right to rule…They have to negotiate from a position of strength and only then will they be able to secure the rights that they have as American citizens. Americans need to understand that the Western heritage is not some abstraction. It literally exists in them in their own flesh and blood. And they can look back to their own founders to get some good advice as to how they should proceed.”3

  Share

I would add the following points:

Tyranny thrives when the people in power get away with lies. Demand transparency and accountability from government officials. Insist on the prosecution of fraud and corruption. Don’t support organizations or political candidates that promote the Left. Boycott corporations and associations that advance identity politics.

Support clean voter registration rolls and the strengthening of voter integrity laws. Use your vote to oppose Leftists and those who align with them. Instead, select candidates who support the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Exercise your right to vote as an American citizen by choosing candidates that have the best policies for the country.

Make a point of contacting your elected representatives on important issues. Speak up when safe and feasible instead of remaining silent. Finding our courage is key if we are to defend freedom from those who are trying to take it away.

Subscribe now

The Progressive Era

From 1880 to 1920, left-wing progressives rejected many of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. According to The American Left1, an online course at Hillsdale College, “Progressivism largely focused on providing moral, social and economic uplift to the parts of society that were less developed than the white middle class.” Unfortunately, this pleasant-sounding goal took the form of eugenics and the forced sterilizations of minorities, the disabled and others leftist elites considered misfits.

Liberalism

Liberalism as it’s used by the Left today does not refer to classic liberalism. Those are the ideas that inspired America’s founding, including limited government, the separation of powers and the protection of individual rights. Instead, starting in 1912, during the presidential campaign of Woodrow Wilson, the Left redefined “liberal” to mean someone who supports an expansive welfare state. From 1920 to 1960, liberals made numerous changes in America. They created central planning in which private business and government worked together to plan the economy. They rejected individual rights and redefined democracy to mean that unelected bureaucrats would look at research and polls to decide what was best for the people. Any semblance of democracy was gone. The people would give government power and the government would give the people rights. These rights would be chosen by the government and would frequently change. Starting with FDR’s New Deal and expanding with LBJ’s Great Society, the new welfare-warfare state maintained welfare at home and undertook nation-building projects abroad to create massive federal deficits.2

Radicalism

The 1960s radicals broke with the Left’s liberalism. Cultural Marxists like Peter Adorno and Herbert Marcuse created critical theory, which substituted race and sex for class but was otherwise unchanged from classic Marxism. The long march through the institutions, advocated by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, took place in the U.S. Radical leftists obtained powerful positions in education and government agencies. Teachers unions began indoctrinating children with critical race theory and political activism.3

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism began in the 1970s and ended in 2009. It was characterized by vast growth of the government bureaucracy, increased government spending, and inflation with economic slowing (stagflation). Neoliberals promoted deregulation since they believed that only free markets could produce enough wealth to fund the welfare state. Reduced antitrust prosecutions resulted in the expansion of monopolies. Neoliberals also argued for global “free trade,” outsourcing, globalization and open borders. They promoted military expansionism, democracy-building abroad, and the surveillance of U.S. citizens at home. The neoliberal era resulted in a ruling elite, or oligarchy, and the erosion of the middle class.

Identity Politics

From the 1990s through the present, the Left embraced identity politics. “According to this philosophy, people are not viewed as citizens with inherent rights but subjects who receive rights, privileges, and duties from government based on their [group] identity,” explains The American Left.4 Using the oppressor vs. oppressed paradigm, Leftists pushed for inequality under the law with preferential treatment for groups they alleged were “historically oppressed.” Many on the Left adopted democratic socialism and demanded the government root out “oppression” in every aspect of life. The Left opposed free speech and censored dissident speech. In the “great awokening,” the ruling oligarchy—elites in business and government—took a hard left turn. They thought they could justify their anti-American globalist policies simply by funding groups that promoted diversity, equity and inclusion. The Left also attacked the idea of U.S. citizenship by elevating foreign cultures and illegal immigrants rather than promoting assimilation into the American way of way.

Share

Despotism

Over the past 100 years, the American Left has established a massive bureaucracy that now systematically takes away the rights of U.S. citizens. Kevin Slack, author of War on the American Republic5 and an instructor for The American Left, says:

The tyranny you saw in 2020 is what the Left has in store for you—constant apology, constant subjugation and deprivation of all of your rights…Is America a republic? Not really. In a republic you would have laws passed by elected representatives. Instead, we have law-making power delegated to large bureaucracies by those who have no accountability—literally the definition of tyranny. Is America a democracy? Hardly. Democracy means rule by the majority of people. Instead, we have a ruling class that claims to rule in the name of the people, except when it doesn’t…The Left hates America…The citizenship rights we have are antithetical to the administrative state…The norm in human history is oppression and tyranny.

The Left would destroy equal citizenship rights under the law and return to oppression and tyranny. It is well on its way to doing so. The next issue will focus on what you can do about the Left’s despotic reign.

According to Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars: “The 1619 Project as a whole is myth-making aimed at intensifying identity politics and group grievance. It doesn’t aim, as it says, to tell ‘our story truthfully.’ It aims to tell it with falsehoods and deceptions for the purpose of instilling resentment.”2 Here are some of the most glaring falsehoods.

Myth: The United States is evil today because it uniquely had a history of slavery. Fact: Archaeologists have found evidence that Homo sapiens have had slaves for at least 4,500 years. The earliest finds are in ancient Egypt. Africans have sold rivals and members of their own tribes into slavery for thousands of years. It was a deeply embedded practice long before Europeans first visited Africa. The Arabs developed a massive slave trade selling African slaves. Eventually, the Portuguese and Spanish bought slaves from the Arab slave traders and created the trans-Atlantic slave trade, transporting African slaves to the New World. Less than 10 percent of these slaves were brought the North America. Over 90 percent of slaves went to the Central and South America, where many labored in silver mines under dangerous and brutal conditions.3

Myth: Slavery began in North America in 1619. Fact: Slavery was already here well before then. Native American tribes had practiced slavery for thousands of years. Since the early 1500s, Portuguese and Spanish traders shipped thousands of African slaves to the Caribbean, Mexico and Spanish colonies in North and South America. Historical records from the early to mid 1600s show the British colonists in North America—some of whose descendants later founded the U.S.—treated slaves as indentured servants. People who were bought as slaves could work their way out of slavery and become free; some owned their own businesses and even their own slaves.4 Chattel slavery, the lifelong enslavement of people and their offspring—practiced worldwide for millennia—did not develop in the British colonies in America until later.

Myth: The arrival of slaves in Virginia was the real founding of America. Fact: The lead author of The 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, admits she arbitrarily chose 1619 as the starting date for America based on a story she read as a teenager about some slaves arriving in Virginia. She also chose it because her project’s publication date of 2019 was conveniently 400 years after the year 1619, and that sounded good to her.5 In truth, the United States originated in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence announced the creation of a new nation free from British tyranny.

Myth: The primary purpose of the Revolutionary War was to preserve slavery. Fact: Before and after the Revolutionary War, British ships made lucrative profits plying the waters of the New World selling boatloads of slaves. The British opposed slavery in England but continued promoting it in their colonies abroad; they had no intention of ending slavery in the American colonies.6 The real purpose of the Revolutionary War was to free the colonialists from tyrannical British rule. The colonialists’ complaints are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Published in 1776, the Declaration announced the formation of a new nation unshackled from the British monarchy. The War commenced soon afterwards.

Myth: Southern plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism. Fact: Free societies have engaged in free enterprise throughout millennia. In America, the industrial revolution in the North fueled America’s economic growth, not cotton plantations in the South. The opposite of free enterprise, slave economies create poverty for the general population, not prosperity. The South lost the Civil War because its plantation slavery couldn’t compete economically with the North’s industrial capitalism.7

Myth: Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Fact: Abraham Lincoln began campaigning against slavery 10 years before the start of the Civil War. In 1854, Lincoln said:

If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.

As U.S. President, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He fought the Civil War to free the slaves from powerful Confederate interests that would destroy the union to preserve slavery. He promoted the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1865, abolishing slavery in the United States. The 1619 Project relies on cherry-picked quotes stripped of historical context to create a racialist narrative.8

Myth: American history is best described as a struggle of blacks against white supremacy. Fact: As anyone who studies history knows, the U.S. was not founded on slavery or racism. The United States of America was founded on the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. Constitution, along with its amendments and Bill of Rights, has created the freest and most prosperous society in human history. Today, claims of victimhood from slavery, which ended over 150 years ago, are often pretexts for a totalitarian makeover of our government. As critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi famously said, you can’t be antiracist unless you are anticapitalist.

Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, concludes:

The 1619 Project is not legitimate journalism, and it isn’t legitimate history either. It is mainly an assemblage of poorly sourced assertions—an extended opinion piece…The 1619 Project consists of an effort to destroy America by teaching children that America never really existed, except as a lie told by white people in an effort to control black people. It eradicates American history and American values in one sweep.9

The best defense against fake narratives is to study history from reputable sources. Hillsdale College offers free online courses for the public about American history and a free K-12 school curriculum.

Many similarities

Communism and fascism are simply different iterations of socialism. When communism failed to work as predicted, Marxists went on to create other versions of socialism. This included fascism and Naziism. Characteristics shared by both communism and fascism include state collectivism, planned economies and group struggle. Both communists and fascists campaign on slogans of inequality and employ group identity politics. In practice, both communists and fascists have predictably discarded workers’ revolutions and harnessed intellectual elites to grab power. The result in either case is a totalitarian dictatorship.

Take Benito Mussolini for example. He was a socialist in Italy who revised Marxism to create national socialism. He used a bundle of sticks (fasci) tipped with the head of an axe to symbolize fascism, synonymous with national socialism. The symbol represented state collectivism, a characteristic common to both communist and fascist regimes.

Subscribe now

While many leftists claim that Mussolini was a fascist, according to Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi roots of the American Left:

Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it.

In other words, fascism and national socialism are one and the same. They are forms of socialism.

Adolf Hitler was another socialist to rise to power—this time in Germany. Relying heavily on the writings of Karl Marx to formulate his policies, Hitler formed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, known as the Nazis. Like many socialists before and after him, Hitler used identity politics to mobilize his supporters. His brutal national socialist government was responsible for the deaths of 10 million civilians. In comparison, other socialist dictators caused 60 million deaths (Stalin) and 70 million deaths (Mao).

As presented in Joshua Phillips’ documentary series The Dark Origins of Communism: Rise of Global Tyranny:

The Nazi policies followed a 25-point program that closely mirrors the programs of today’s socialists. These included universal free health care and education, nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the splitting of large shareholdings to smaller units, and similar policies.

In The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi roots of the American Left, author Dinesh D’Souza wrote:

Hitler’s party defined itself as championing national socialism. Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi way of life.

Few, if any, differences

The differences between fascism and socialism are superficial. For instance, the various socialist dictators targeted different groups of people as state enemies. Lenin targeted wealthy farmers. China’s Mao Zedong targeted landlords. And Hitler targeted the Jews. The pattern is predictable: Socialist dictators characteristically choose an identity group, label people within that group as “oppressors,” and promote state-sanctioned violence against that group.

Share

The bottom line

Fascism is a phenomenon of the Left. The left-wing ideologies of communism and fascism are simply different interpretations of socialism.

The fighting in WWII was not between opposite ideologies. It was a conflict about what version of socialism would stick. In The Road to Serfdom, author and economist F. A. Hayek says:

The conflict between the fascist or national socialist and the older socialist parties must, indeed, very largely be regarded as the kind of conflict which is bound to arise between rival socialist factions.

Another well-known economist, Ludwig von Mises, wrote in Planned Chaos:

It’s important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships…The philosophy of the Nazis, the German National Socialist Labour Part, is the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anticapitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age.

Yet, modern socialists have adopted many of the same failed policies and slogans of inequality as fascists, Nazis and other socialists. Fascism and socialism are one and the same. In Orwellian Newspeak fashion, the Left’s “anti-fascists,” who allegedly fight fascism, are really fascists in disguise.

As a constitutional republic, the U.S. depends on respectful discourse between political opponents and a free marketplace of ideas. These concepts come from classic liberalism. Yet a growing number of leftists, who often call themselves “liberals,” promote violence and celebrate it when it occurs. Where did these undemocratic attitudes so prevalent on the Left come from?

Subscribe now

History is quite revealing. The ideas of totalitarianism—which have resulted in some of the most brutal regimes humanity has ever known—have infiltrated the political left.

Karl Marx

The author of “The Communist Manifesto” and father of communism, Karl Marx, stated there must be a violent revolution to bring about communism. He emphasized the need for terror, an oppressive dictatorship of the proletariat, and destruction of the current society by the masses under the direction of party elites. “Everything that exists deserves to perish” was Marx’s favorite quote, which he took from Goethe’s Faust. Marx habitually repeated this chant over and over.

Vladimir Ulyanov “Lenin”

Lenin was a Marxist who enacted Karl Marx’s vision in Russia. Despite a lack of popular support, Lenin’s elite force staged a coup d’etat in 1917 to destroy Russia’s provisional government. He immediately established secret police and concentration camps. He systematically began mass executions of his political opponents, small business owners and former allies. Confiscation of private property, bank accounts and businesses led to widespread famine; cannibalism became common. More than 25 million Russians died of starvation, civil war and executions under his brutal regime. Lenin famously stated that morality is whatever makes the revolution go forward.

Joseph Stalin

After Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin, a Marxist-Leninist, consolidated power using purges against anyone who disagreed with him. Show trials were conducted on those who had wielded power before him. He executed small business owners, ethnic minorities, former supporters and military officers, sending millions to forced labor camps, where many died of starvation, exposure or lack of medical care. Stalin instituted central planning to collectivize farming and industrialization. All Russians were assigned a job and told where to live; those who did not fully cooperate were executed. Stalin intentionally caused the Holodomor famine in Ukraine, exporting the grain and poisoning what remained so no one could eat it. This genocide resulted in the deaths of more than 4 million Ukrainians; cannibalism became prevalent. Stalin’s famous response: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” He is responsible for at least 60 million civilian deaths within Russian territory. Additionally, Stalin was behind communism’s spread to Eastern European countries and, later, Asia, resulting in well over 100 million deaths worldwide—a very conservative estimate. The true number is likely more than 140 million.

Adolf Hitler

A socialist who relied heavily on the writings of Karl Marx, Hitler formed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, known as the Nazis. His brutal socialist government was responsible for the deaths of 10 million civilians.

Chinese Communist Party

A faithful Marxist-Leninist, Mao Zedong founded the Chinese Communist Party, aided by funding from the Soviet Union. “It is necessary to create terror for a while in every rural area,” Mao said. He set death quotas and had 3 million people executed or sent to re-education camps. The Great Leap Forward was Mao’s plan to collectivize farming and industrialize the economy, even though he knew the policies would kill millions. “It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill,” he said. As a result, 45 million civilians died of starvation. His Cultural Revolution exterminated 25 million more, for a total of more than 70 million. As a result, Mao is known as the greatest killer of his own people in world history.

The Chinese Communist Party has continued as a fiercely repressive regime. Protestors were slaughtered at the Tiananmen Square. The CCP brutally enforced the one-child policy for years. Today, it utilizes slave labor camps and forced organ harvesting to repress political dissidents, ethnic minorities and religious practitioners.

The New Marxism

The latest attempt at communism is known as cultural Marxism. While academicians employ this term, the people who practice it call themselves “democratic socialists,” “progressives” or “liberals.” Using Marx’s cultural critiques instead of his economic ones, cultural Marxists aim to change society at the level of culture. They have brought socialism to race with critical race theory, affirmative action and DEI. They have brought socialism to sex and gender with queer theory and the LGBTQ+ movement. The purpose is to raise the consciousness about cultural Marxism among potential recruits, and the goal is the total destruction of all morality, ethics and human decency. Supporters no longer adhere to democratic principles, American values or the rule of law. Destruction of Western civilization and the anticipated power grab are to be obtained “by any means possible.” This ideology has led to riots, arson, organized crime and domestic terrorism. The history of socialism shows us where this always goes: Repression, human rights violations and the brutality of a totalitarian regime.

For more information:

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, victims of communism.org

Marxism, Socialism and Communism, Hillsdale College free online course, hillsdale.edu

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism: The Killingest Idea Ever by Paul Kengor.

The Lenin Library, also known as the Russian State Library, in Moscow, Russia.

Subscribe now

According to the memorandum, titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence”1:

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.

Hard Left’s tactics

As the “Countering Domestic Terrorism” memorandum explains:

These campaigns often begin by isolating and dehumanizing specific targets to justify murder or other violent action against them. They do so through a variety of fora, including anonymous chat forums, in-person meetings, social media, and even educational institutions. These campaigns then escalate to organized doxing, where the private or identifying information of their targets (such as home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information) is exposed to the public with the explicit intent of encouraging others to harass, intimidate, or violently assault them. As in the case of several ICE agents in Los Angeles being doxed, the goal of these campaigns can be to obstruct the operations of the Federal Government as well as aid and abet criminal activity the Federal Government is lawfully pursuing. These campaigns are coordinated and perpetrated by actors who have developed a comprehensive strategy to achieve specific policy goals through radicalization and violent intimidation.

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations. For example, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin engraved the bullets used in the murder with so-called “anti-fascist” rhetoric.

Definition of domestic terrorism

The memorandum references the following definition of domestic terrorism: Activities within the U.S. that endanger human life and are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. and that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

What can be done?

Under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the already-existing National Joint Terrorism Task Force will begin implementing a comprehensive national strategy to investigate, prosecute and disrupt organizations and individuals engaged in acts of political violence and intimidation designed to suppress lawful political activity or obstruct the rule of law.

The strategy to counter domestic terrorism will include:

• Investigation of potential federal crimes related to recruiting or radicalizing persons for the purpose of political violence, terrorism, conspiracy against rights, or the violent deprivation of any citizen’s rights.

• Investigation of organizations, officers, employees and individuals who fund, sponsor, or provide support for those engaged in domestic terrorism. The same for non-governmental organizations and American individuals with close ties to foreign governments or organizations that support domestic terrorism.

• Politically motivated terrorist acts of all kinds will be monitored, including doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, property destruction, threats of violence and civil disorder.

• The U.S. Attorney General will direct the Department of Justice to prosecute all federal crimes related to domestic terrorism to the maximum extent permissible by law.

  Share

• Financial networks that fund domestic terrorism and political violence will be investigated and disrupted by the already-existing Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Office of the Department of the Treasury.

• The IRS will act to remove tax-exempt status from organization directly or indirectly supporting political violence or domestic terrorism. In addition, these organizations will be referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

• The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act will be used to prosecute individuals and entities involved with organized networks of domestic terrorism. When federal crimes have been committed, RICO charges may apply.

  

The White House has commissioned Hillsdale College to create a video series to “help all Americans remember, understand and celebrate this unprecedented milestone.”

Subscribe now

The series is aptly named “The Story of America.” It’s divided into several parts, which are available on YouTube. Some of the titles from the series include:

• An Introduction

• The Shot Heard Round the World

• The Formation of the Army

• The Battle of Bunker Hill

• The Declaration of Independence

• John Adams

It’s anticipated the series will continue to expand. The series is published as a public service and you can view it at no charge.

Share

You can watch one of the installments, “The Declaration of Independence,” with a duration of 11 minutes, here:

For access to the entire series, “The Story of America,” click here.

Now is a good time to brush up on our American History as the United States’ Semiquincentennial—or Quarter Millennial—approaches. We will be celebrating 250 years of independence from the many tyrants in the world who would rule over us. The more Americans who understand the full meaning of what we’re celebrating the better. Please share this video series with your family and friends.

Fortunately, President Trump recently issued a memorandum to cancel restrictive water pressure and “energy efficiency” rules. These radical green energy regulations promulgated by the Department of Energy—supposedly based on the Energy Policy Act of 1992—have made showerheads, faucets, toilet, urinals, clothes washers and dishwashers less effective and, oftentimes, dysfunctional. The memorandum directs the Department of Energy to revert to the original standards required by statute (instead of creating ever more restrictive rules and enforcing them like laws) and urges Congress to consider amending or repealing the Energy Policy Act of 1992, in whole or in part.2

Subscribe now

This is welcome news. What’s been done for the past 30 years is just so typical of the way government works. The bigger the government becomes, the more it intervenes in our lives with horrible ideas executed horribly. Without public accountability or competitive incentives, government regulations often have effects opposite those intended.

This brings us to the topic of the washing machine I recently bought for my home.

My washing machine

My new clothes washing machine is a classic example of the results of heavy-handed government meddling. For instance…

If I want clean clothes, the government says I can’t. A normal cycle adds only two inches of water to my top loader. This is not nearly enough to submerge the clothes, let alone clean them. “Washing machine” has become a euphemism for “dirty laundry mixer,” thanks to government bureaucratic interference.

If I want to wash the soap out of my laundry, the government says I can’t. Phosphates were formerly used to quickly and effectively rinse soap out. But the government has banned even small amounts in consumer laundry detergents despite water treatment plant technology that removes them. In reality, commercial agricultural fertilizers are the principal source of phosphates in lakes and rivers.

If I want a warm rinse, the government says I can’t. Warm water is another effective way to rinse soap out. But no washing machine on the market today provides a warm water rinse thanks to government regulations.

Share

If I want to do laundry efficiently, the government says I can’t. In the name of “energy efficiency,” an average load weighing eight pounds takes 70 minutes to wash. This is very inefficient compared to my old machine, which did the job in 25 minutes.

If I want to conserve water and energy, the government says I can’t. The options on my new machine either provide minimal amounts of water, which doesn’t clean the clothes, or maximum fill, with nothing in between. Trying to rid clothes of soap with extra rinses wastes both energy and water.

After trying out my purchase, I have concluded that an “energy-efficient” washing machine is really a machine that wastes a lot of water and energy. Typical of the far left, the name is the opposite of the reality. George Orwell called this “newspeak” in his dystopian novel 1984.

Deep state overreach

Who’s in charge of my washing machine? Apparently, not me—at least for now. Hopefully, this will start to change with the new administration’s memorandum. It’s time to correct the deep state’s overreach into the lawmaking authority of Congress. And it’s time to ensure our markets are free from an unelected federal bureaucracy that has illegitimately taken away consumer choices.

Four main conditions

In The Psychology of Totalitarianism, author Mattias Desmet discusses the four main conditions that must be present for totalitarianism to occur. “These four conditions were present prior to the rise of Nazism and Stalinism, and they are also present now,” Desmet says.

Subscribe now

Condition 1: Social isolation. Loneliness, a lack of normal social relationships, and absence of social bonds is strongly associated with social media and other communication technologies. The problem is most keen in developed nations. “About 30 percent of people living in these countries report chronic experiences of loneliness and isolation, and this percentage is increasing every year,” explains Desmet.

Condition 2: Lack of meaning. Humans are social beings. A loss of social connectedness leads to experiencing life as meaningless, according to Desmet, a professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University, Belgium, and a practicing psychoanalytic psychotherapist. In his experience, viewing the universe as a machine without purpose or intention often renders life meaningless.

Condition 3: Free-floating anxiety. People who lack human bonds and meaning in their lives are prone to generalized unease and anxiety. These feelings are difficult to manage and can easily turn into panic, which, for most people, is something to be avoided and feared. “For that reason, a person in that state seeks to link their anxiety to an object,” Desment says.

Condition 4: Free-floating frustration and aggression. Research shows that people who experience social isolation, lack of meaning and indefinable anxiety generally feel frustrated and aggressive. They often look for objects on which they can take out their feelings. “The potential of unvented aggression present in the population—aggression that is still looking for an object”—is the fourth pre-condition for totalitarianism, Desmet says.

Mass formation

The mass media will often create a narrative that suggests an object for venting unvented aggression. Under Nazism that object was Jewish people. Under Stalinism it was the aristocracy. During the COVID pandemic it was the virus and, later on, the anti-vaxxers. In each case, identification of an object was followed quickly by widespread social support for carrying out a strategy to attack and take control of the identified object.

The fight against the object becomes a mission that is widely considered virtuous. The population’s frustration and aggression can now be taken out on the object. It can also be taken out on anyone who refuses to go along with “politically correct” narrative. The goal of the behavior, which often becomes ritualized, is to “subject the individual to the group.” As Desmet explains:

The individual must at all times show that he submits to the interest of the collective, by performing self-destructive symbolic (ritualistic) behaviors.

The end result is radically irrational collectivism:

What one thinks does not matter; what counts is that people think it together. In this way, the masses come to accept even the most absurd ideas as true, or at least to act as if they were true…The masses believe in the story not because it’s accurate but because it creates a new social bond.

The new social bond becomes a bond with a large group. This, in turn, assuages loneliness and generates superficial feelings of connectedness. Extreme intolerance to other opinions outside of politically correct groupthink is part of this phenomenon. Desmet has coined a name for this type of group behavior: mass formation. He is widely published on the topic.

The bottom line

Totalitarianism is not confined to Stalin and Hitler. The conditions are currently ripe for totalitarianism in the U.S. and many other nations. Social isolation, lack of meaning, free-floating anxiety, frustration and unvented aggression are conditions that have become widespread in many developed nations. This can result in mass formation. All it takes is the mass media to suggest an object and announce a plan to control the object. Far too often, the masses cooperate in the “politically correct” narrative by giving up their freedoms and submitting to increased authoritarianism and control. When the control becomes total, totalitarianism results.

Share

An important antidote is modesty. “One who knows the limits of his intellect usually becomes less arrogant and more humane, more capable of allowing the other to be different,” says Desmet in the concluding chapter of The Psychology of Totalitarianism.

Critical thinking is another potent antidote. No one person or group has a monopoly on all the facts and all the truth. There are limits to logic and rationality. “The awareness that no logic is absolute is the prerequisite for mental freedom,” Desmet emphasizes. The “experts” who confidently proclaim the facts today will almost certainly retract them tomorrow. Don’t fall in the trap of relying too much on technocrats or experts.

Last but not least, summon the courage to tell the truth. Totalitarianism cannot survive without a pervasive culture of lies. The ideology’s grip on society ends when enough people stand up to say: “The emperor wears no clothes.”

Civil rights laws

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “All men are created equal.” Guarantees of equality of opportunity and equal protection under the law are parts of the U.S. Constitution and its constitutional amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment, often called the Equal Protection Clause, states the following:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge then privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A while later in U.S. history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to further address concerns about discrimination based on race, sex, religion and national origin.

Subscribe now

The Civil Rights Act consists of eleven provisions.1

Title 1 guarantees equal voter registration requirements for all U.S. citizens.

Title 2 assesses discrimination in hotels, restaurants, theaters and other commercial businesses.

Title 3 prohibits segregation in libraries, parks, swimming pools, prisons and other public facilities. It enforces equal protections already in place under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Titles 4 and 5 end segregation in public schools and universities and enforce desegregation. They reinforce equal protections already in place under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Title 6 specifies that recipients of federal funding may not discriminate based on race, color or national origin. If they do, the federal government can conduct an investigation and terminate federal funding.

Title 7 prohibits discriminatory practices in employment hiring based on race, sex, religion or national origin.

Title 8 directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct surveys of voter registration and voting statistics.

Title 9 authorizes the Attorney General to intervene in situations where private individuals have allegedly suffered Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) violations based. It was amended in 1972 to prohibit sex discrimination in institutions that receive federal funding.

Title 10 establishes a Community Relations Service to prevent and respond to “alleged hate crimes based on actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability.” [This law is greatly abused by left-wing politicians today. The definition of “hate crime” has been widely distorted.]

Title 11 addresses the interaction between state laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Blue state violations

Several states and cities have passed laws that provide for “reparations,” using taxpayer money to make payments only to “historically marginalized” people. These are often descendants of slaves who were released from slavery more than 150 years ago. Once historically marginalized, they are forever marginalized, according to left-wing activists. This narrative flies in the face of the widespread reverse discrimination that we see today—euphemistically called “anti-racism” when promoted by woke Marxists.

The places with these “reparation” laws include California; Washington state; Evanston, Illinois and Asheville, North Carolina. These places give reparations only to “historically marginalized people” in a variety of ways. The reparations come in the form of direct cash payments, grants, forgiveness of loans or mortgages, or programs open only to certain races. All of these examples, however, are forms of clear-cut racial discrimination and violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Share

Many cities and states have also instituted sex discrimination. Trans-identifying individuals who are not biologically female are allowed in female bathrooms or on women and girls’ sports teams in these places. In addition, white men often find it difficult to get admitted to educational programs and universities or even get a job because of race and sex discrimination that violates civil rights laws.

What to do about it

The best way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race. The same with sex discrimination. These types of civil rights violations are handled by the Department of Justice, which did not enforce the law under the Biden-Harris administration. That is beginning to change.

In order to end the racist practices of blue states and cities, the U.S. Department of Justice is obliged to begin investigating these civil rights violations. The public will be quite interested to see their findings. (Look to alternative news sources since legacy media will not publish them.) In addition, enforcement of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act will ensure that recipients of federal funding who violate civil rights laws are investigated and defunded of federal taxpayer money. This includes states, cities and nongovernmental organizations as well as schools and universities with discriminatory practices.

Let your elected representatives know what you think about these discriminatory practices. Have you observed other current examples of “antiracist” or reverse discrimination? (They are quite common.) What about other types of discrimination? What do you think should be done about these civil rights violations?

This photo shows many of the blue states. It’s not quite accurate. Arizona, once a conservative or “red” state, is now considered a swing state but not a blue state.

My comment

This article is a great follow-up to my recent articles about left-wing activist networks. Chris Rubo and David Reaboi describe how left-wing activists organize protests layered with different levels of violence to advance their goal to destroy the U.S. The activists’ plan is to bypass normal channels of democracy using left-wing tools to fool the public. All Americans need to be aware of the tactics the Left are deploying against them.

The article

To read “‘Tesla Takedown' Activists Fool the Public," published by Christopher Rufo on 4-11-25 on Substack , click here. You can also find the article by going to Chris Rufo’s website at christopherrufo.substack.com and searching for the article.

“There’s something much deeper at work here,” say the authors of Next Gen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It. The authors are Mike Gonzalez, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Katherine Cornell Gorka, an expert on extremist ideologies and former appointee at the Department of Homeland Security.

Subscribe now

A deeper plan

Revolutionary far-left organizations in the U.S. have been working with foreign governments to subvert the U.S. Constitution and destroy the United States of America.

How are they doing this?

The world’s Marxists have unleashed a diabolical plan for taking power.

1. Fuel social discontent along with grievance and anger.

2. Encourage violence and social instability. Organize and implement riots and violent demonstrations. The goal is to destabilize governments and institutions.

3. Use social media to make discontent appear widespread and to organize protests and violence.

4. Pretend to support representative democracy. Advocate moderate policies and incremental reforms and promise stability. Then get into power through elections.

5. Once in power, implement extremist far-left policies. Support other Marxists locally, nationally and across borders to consolidate and continue to expand power.

The riots organized in Steps 2 and 3 are “meant to destabilize governments and institutions and to set up elections where the Marxist alternative, concealing their ideology and presenting themselves as populists [Step 4], would win.”1

The Marxist end goal is to destroy free nations, especially the U.S., and replace them with a global totalitarian regime.

The organizations

A long list of left-wing organizations in the U.S. are colluding with foreign adversaries to subvert the United States government. Black Lives Matter is a major player. Other organizations include Left Root, NetRoots, Alternate Roots, the U.S. Social Forum, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Project South, the National Domestic Worker Alliance, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Solis’ Southwest Workers Union, National Students for Justice in Palestine and many others.

A popular place for American left-wing activists to collude with U.S. foreign adversaries is at international conferences. World Social Forum, Left Forum, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the Sao Paulo Forum, Grupo de Puebla and many other international organizations host conferences that provide a venue for U.S. Marxists to exchange subversive ideas and tactics with officials of foreign adversarial nations. There the attendees sign mandates and declarations of their intent to destroy representative democracies, including the U.S., and introduce totalitarian practices. Additionally, a vast amount of subversive networking is done in online forums and on social media.

Share

According to Gonzalez and Gorka:

The Left has a skein of global, reinforcing networks devoted to consciousness raising and street protests…They used interlocking national and international networks where they coordinated strategy with other radicals, including representatives and even leaders of foreign powers who sought to weaken or outright destroy the United States. Indeed, the US networks are sometimes created at the urging of these anti-American regimes.2

The bottom line

Revolutionary far-left organizations pose a serious national security threat to our country. Many of these organizations collude with foreign governments to subvert the U.S. Constitution and try to destroy the U.S.

According to Ariel Sheen, a researcher who tracks left-wing extremist forums: “American media, public intellectuals and government officials have failed to present an accurate assessment of the threat that revolutionary leftist organizations that have declared their allegiance to foreign governments pose to the U.S. Constitution.”3

A good first step is for Congress to conduct hearings to investigate the 2020 BLM riots and the leftist groups who organized them. How much of the burnings, lootings, assaults and $2 billion worth of damage did they coordinate? Americans have the right to know what these organizations stand for and what they are working toward.4

For example, what did Alicia Garza, one of the BLM cofounders who have described themselves as “trained Marxists,”5 mean when she said the following:

It’s not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism. And it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression.6

It would appear that Black Lives Matter was never about black lives after all. It has been an effective networking ploy to gain more power for Marxists.

It’s derived from the 1965 book Repressive Tolerance authored by Herbert Marcuse. A neo-Marxist, Marcuse is considered the father of the New Left. In this book Marcuse calls for tolerance of left-wing ideas and leniency for leftist law-breaking. He also promotes intolerance and repression of ideas and activities originating from the Right.

These Marcusian conceits have spread throughout the U.S. and Western societies. When Leftists are in power, they stamp down on conservatives, employing harsh tactics like fabricated hate-crime accusations, cancelations, censorship, human rights violations and lawfare.

Subscribe now

Nowhere is this left-wing-promoted inequality before the law more evident than in a side-by-side comparison of the 2020 BLM riots with the January 6, 2021 riot.

The 2020 BLM riots

The following information comes from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit that worked in conjunction with Princeton University researchers. Concerning the 2020 BLM riots:

• Out of 12,000 protests, 660 were catalogued as riots. These riots were clearly not “mostly peaceful protests.”1

• The riots caused $2 billion in damage and were the costliest in U.S. history.2

• At least 25 Americans were killed.3

• Tens of thousands of police officers were injured.4

• The Lafayette Square riot organized and attempted an invasion of the White House. President Trump and his family were evacuated to secure bunkers when rioters made it past fences around the White House. Police officers were hit with rocks and some suffered broken bones.5

• Very few of the crimes were prosecuted. George-Soros-funded district attorneys released most rioters who committed crimes without any punishment. Former vice president Kamala Harris facilitated a fund to bail out lawbreakers. In many cases, no record was kept of the individuals who committed criminal offenses; they were simply given a clean slate.

• The 2020 U.S. murder rate went up 30 percent, a dramatic increase. This increase was linked to the police pulling back after the riots, a phenomenon known as the “Ferguson effect.”6

• Additionally, murders increased 11.5 percent in districts having BLM riots between 2014 and 2019, resulting in 3,000 additional homicides.7

The Jan. 6, 2021 riot

In contrast, here is some of the information published about the Jan. 6 riot:

• During this riot, five people died. One was an unarmed protestor with clearly visible hands who was shot at close range by a police officer; this was the only homicide in the riot. Another was a police officer who died of natural causes later the same day. The others were protestors who died of natural causes or, in one case, a drug overdose.8

• More than 1,300 people were arrested, with more than half being charged with numerous crimes. In addition, more than 900 were prosecuted and convicted while about 500 were incarcerated.

• Despite mass media headlines about “insurrection,” none of the defendants have been charged with insurrection.

• About a quarter were charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, an unconstitutional charge, according to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.

• Many arrests of the defendants were conducted by SWAT teams, a highly unusual and inappropriately aggressive tactic. Those convicted have had unusually long sentences—in some cases, more than 20 years in prison.

• The core constitutional rights of the defendants were violated in many cases. Judges, prosecutors and juries were not impartial or unbiased as required by the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections for defendants. Many were the exact opposite. Requests to move trials out of Washington, DC, were all denied, despite DC’s long record of politically biased courts and juries. Some defendants were deprived of their Brady rights—a requirement that all evidence supporting a defendant’s innocence must be turned over to the attorneys for the defense.

  Share

The bottom line

In the wake of the courts’ multiple due process violations, President Trump recently pardoned many of the January 6 defendants. In addition, a re-examination of the January 6 riot is currently underway in Congress. Unlike the first time, this inquiry is supposed to be bipartisan.

But an investigation of the 2020 BLM riots still remains to be done. The American public needs to find out to what extent the riots were organized and promoted by Black Lives Matter, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and other leftist extremist groups. The paper trail must be followed to discover who has been funding organized rioting and leftwing extremism. Those who funded or engaged in illegal acts—as well as those who continue to do so—must be brought to justice.

Why does this lawfare feel so wrong to many Americans? Geoff Shepard, a lawyer and author of The Real Watergate Scandal, describes it this way:

“The right to a full and fair trial—derived from English common law and the product of countless procedural refinements—is at the very center of our judicial system. Indeed, the Supreme Court has described the right to a fair trial as “the most fundamental of all freedoms,” which “must be maintained at all costs.”1

Subscribe now

A fair trial

The right to due process is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment says that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”2

The five requirements of due process outlined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as succinctly summarized by Shepard, are as follows:

A public trial

“A public trial with the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers.”3

An impartial judge

“Presided over by a fair and impartial trial judge. A judge should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.”4

Nonpartisan prosecutors

“With the government’s case presented by nonpartisan prosecutors, subject to uniformly applied rules of conduct. At stake here is the even-handed enforcement of the laws and the avoidance of selective prosecution—in other words, ‘equal justice under law.’ Prosecutors are not supposed to dust off laws which haven’t been enforced for decades or bring charges under entirely novel interpretations in order to ‘get’ particular parties they don’t like.”5

An unbiased jury

“Whose verdict is rendered by an untainted and unbiased jury of one’s peers. They must be free of racial, political and other prejudices against the defendant. Their impartiality must not have been tainted by pretrial publicity. They must learn the facts of the case from evidence presented in court and not from outside sources.”6

Right to appeal

“The right to a fair and impartial appellate review. Every defendant convicted of a federal crime has an automatic and guaranteed right to an appeal, to a full and fair review of all aspects of his trial. These appeals are typically heard before a panel of three circuit court judges.”7

Share

Lawfare = Abuses of due process

If any of these due process requirements are not met during a trial, the verdict of the trial is completely invalid. As Shepard reiterates:

“Without a fair trial, a jury could not have rendered a valid verdict. Guilt can be found only by a court after a constitutionally sound trial.”8

Shepard makes the case that Richard Nixon and his aids did not receive due process in the Watergate trials. Declassified evidence clearly shows that all five requirements of due process were violated. Today, the Left continues to use similar lawfare tactics against its political opponents, or anyone who does not sycophantically agree with them. The Left’s abuses of due process are numerous and severe.

That begs the question: If verdicts resulting from judicial misconduct are invalid, why are these verdicts and the people responsible for them not being thrown out of court? Shepard reviews several cases involving due process abuse that, when investigated, resulted in the convictions being officially withdrawn.9 Similarly, last year the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Justice Department had acted unconstitutionally when it inappropriately used an Enron-era obstruction law to convict Jan. 6 defendants with up to 20 years in prison on charges of “obstructing an official proceeding.”10 11 12

Reviews of our court system need to start happening regularly to ensure accountability. If the judicial system cannot police itself, congressional committees have the authority to investigate those who are subverting our judicial system. The offending prosecutors and judges need to lose their licenses and be held accountable for violating the law.