In 1958, former FBI Special Agent W Cleon Skousen published The Naked Communist in which he listed the then current communist goals for infiltrating, transforming, and ultimately taking over America. A hero to some, fringe writer to others, Skousen had a perspective both fascinating and shocking to reexamine today in light of recent events including those concerning the Iranian nuclear “negotiation,” gay marriage, Obamacare, power grabs of both Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, the advance of Islam, the support for illegal immigration, the ubiquitous charge of “racism,” the endless expansion of “civil rights,” and the dismantling of our Constitution.
Given Barack Obama’s success in executing the “fundamental transformation” of America, Skousen’s list gives profound insight into what might truly motivate the nation’s “smartest president ever.” While Obama cleverly attempts to sell his many efforts as just small steps here or there in simply “deliverin’ to the folks a little something extra” as we slowly progress toward “a more perfect union,” his whack-a-mole shotgun assault upon all aspects of American life more perfectly models a systematic and well-orchestrated march toward many of these very goals.
Meanwhile, most members of our mainstream media – executives, on air personalities, writers, editors, and producers alike along with an advertiser base that supports much of the enterprise – are, at best, merely able to express exasperation and confusion as to why Obama does as he does. Pretending to hold meaningful “conversations” about the President and his key associates, our mainstream media collusively avoids any genuinely honest effort to explore Obama’s true motivations in seeking the destruction of our nation as it was formed and intended to develop and thrive.
It is important to avoid focusing on charged words such as “communism,” “socialism,” or “fascism” as they often carry associations and meanings specific to the user or listener. As with Islam and other such systems, modernity pressures changes in appearances if not formulations such that the “communist” of the 50’s would not appear in similar manner today. What is significant about Skousen’s list of goals are the constructs, tactics and outcomes to which they attach, not the categorical headings under which they might fit.
Of the 45 goals in Skousen’s list, some obviously do not fit today’s changed circumstances while others are far more devastating than originally fathomed. Still, the entire list is provided to furnish proper context. Repeated as read into the Congressional record in 1963, the goals below speak for themselves and show just how far Obama, top aide Valerie Jarrett (herself from a family with various communist associations) and fellow comrades have advanced a great deal of this decades-old vision.
Category Archives: Religion
There’s nothing like being called a bigoted pile of garbage in the first sentence and being told in the next that love has won. Indeed, you know love has emerged victorious when a bunch of liberals are screaming in your face, calling your children ugly, and urging you to kill yourself.
Progressivism, as we’ve seen, is a bubbling cauldron of vile, hideous hatred. They dress it up in vacuous, absurd little symbols and hashtags and bright colors, yet the elites who drive the gay agenda are not out to spread love and happiness, but hostility and suspicion. And the obedient lemmings who blindly conform, with rainbows in their Facebook photos and chanting whatever motto they’ve been assigned, don’t really understand what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. The fact that this is the same ideology to come up with vapid slogans like #LoveWins is an irony too bewildering to comprehend.
When our culture was grounded in Christian principles, we used to think of love in the way that St. Paul described it: love is patient, love is kind, love does not boast, love is not self-seeking. Now in this progressive dystopia, love has suddenly become something that tells you to drink battery acid and die. The difference is slight, but noticeable.
But I wasn’t especially troubled by the progressive lynch mob and their vulgar, wretched, hateful “love.” I’m used to it. I’ve been more concerned by the large number of self-proclaimed Christians and Conservatives who’ve repeatedly informed me that the whole gay marriage issue isn’t important. “It won’t affect us,” they tell me over and over again. It’s not relevant to our lives. We aren’t hurt by it. Who cares? It’s all good. Whatevs, man. There are matters more urgent than truth and morality and the future of the human race. Like, what about the economy and stuff?
Why do you think liberals care so much about this? If it doesn’t matter, why have they dedicated years to bringing about this past Friday? Because they want gay people to love each other? Nonsense. There was never any law preventing any gay person from loving anyone or anything. The State never had any interest in encouraging, preventing, or otherwise regulating love. The State does have an interest in the foundation of civilization, which is the family. That’s why, up until recently, it recognized True Marriage.
Gay marriage is not an essential or true institution, nor does it serve any real purpose in society. There’s no practical or moral reason for the romantic lives of homosexuals to be recognized or elevated or protected in any way. Even most homosexual activist know this, despite pushing for gay marriage. Gay couples in many cases aren’t monogamous, and gay activists like Dan Savage have been very enthusiastic in extoling the virtues of open relationships and fornication.
This whole gay marriage debate is about opening up the lifelong monogamous bond of matrimony to a community that often doesn’t desire a lifelong monogamous bond. Do you understand what’s going on here? They don’t want marriage as it currently is; they want to change it into something else.
It makes no sense. That is, until you come to understand that liberals desire not to fortify or strengthen the family, but to dismember it. This is purely a game of power and destruction. Why do you think their victory on Friday prompted such vulgar, bloodthirsty gloating? Did black Americans react that way when they achieved civil rights? Did women respond like this when they won the vote? No, because these groups were actually fighting to participate in, and embolden, constitutional liberties. Modern liberals, for their part, wage a war not of freedom but sabotage. Now with their triumph last week, they act like marauding pillagers who just sacked a village and burned it to the ground. They brag like conquering tyrants, not warriors for liberty. Just ask the Catholic priest who tried to walk by a gay rally this weekend in New York only to be spat on by two gay bullies.
And look at this homosexual staging a mock crucifixion. I don’t remember Dr. King ever doing that. Nor do I recall any civil rights rallies, other than gay pride parades, where men get decked out in assless chaps and drag makeup and engage in all kinds of debauchery in the middle of the street. I definitely haven’t read of any other march, besides gay rights marches, that feature barely clothed children gyrating before a crowd of apparent pederasts. This is the kind of perversion and debasement only found in liberal “civil rights” causes, because that’s what the movement is about. It is focused not on freedom, but on imposing its decayed values on our society.
Affect you? Yeah, I think so.
Some might say that’s already happened, and I wouldn’t disagree. But eventually we’ll arrive at a point where even the ones who think it “doesn’t affect them” will have to finally face the harsh reality that all of this really does, and always did.
But by then it will be too late.
And what has replaced Judaism, Christianity, Judeo-Christian values, and the Bible? The answer is: feelings. More and more Americans rely on feelings to make moral decisions. The heart has taken the place of the Bible.
Years ago, I recorded an interview with a Swedish graduate student. I began by asking her if she believed in God. Of course not. Did she believe in religion? Of course not. “Where, then, do you get your notion of right and wrong?” I asked. “From my heart,” she responded.
That is why five members of the Supreme Court have redefined marriage. They consulted their hearts. That is understandable. Any religious conservative who does not acknowledge homosexuals’ historic persecution or does not understand gays who desire to marry lacks compassion.
But let’s be honest. This lack of compassion is more than matched by the meanness expressed by the advocates of same-sex marriage. They have rendered those who believe that marriage should remain a man-woman institution one of the most vilified major groups in America today.
It is the heart — not the mind, not millennia of human experience, nor any secular or religious body of wisdom — that has determined that marriage should no longer be defined as the union of a man and a women.
It is the heart, not the mind, that has concluded that gender has no significance. That is the essence of the Brave New World being ushered in. For the first time in recorded history, whole societies are announcing that gender has no significance. Same-sex marriage is, above all else, the statement that male and female mean nothing, are completely interchangeable, and yes, don’t even objectively exist, since you are only the gender you feel you are. Which explains the “T” in “LGBT.” The case for same-sex marriage is dependent on the denial of sexual differences.
It is the heart, not the mind, that has concluded that all a child needs is love, not a father and mother. And therein lies one of the reasons that the notion of obedience to religion is so loathed by the cultural Left. Biblical Judaism and Christianity repeatedly dismiss the heart as a moral guide. Moreover, the war to replace God, Judeo-Christian values, and the Bible as moral guides is far from over. What will this lead to?
For those of us of faith, it appears society has collectively lost its mind. Madness has set in. Yes, in fact, we see what Paul warns of in Romans 1. The people have been handed over to themselves and we are caught in the middle. It is a wildfire of the mind and society.
A lot of you want to check out of it. You want to take refuge, hide, and protect your families. You want to go for the Benedictine Model that Rod Dreher hints at — take shelter in the monastery and wait for the fire to burn itself out.
I actually think the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday hurts the Republicans in 2016. I think a lot of people whose votes they need will throw up their hands and walk away. They see a lot of Republican politicians declaring it time to move on. They see 300 Republicans, a lot of them from George W. Bush’s administration, supporting the decision. These cultural conservatives think it is time to get out of Dodge while the getting is good.
The 300 Republicans who wanted this case to go away as a political issue, might find that the base they have relied on goes away with it. They will not expand their base with black and hispanic voters as small government, cultural liberals. They will lose more of their base as they move away from cultural conservatism altogether.
Here is what I would say, though, to the conservatives thinking of departing for broad fields, no neighbors, and a life of small town values. The wildfire is burning. But, whether you think it nature or God, nature has a way of exerting itself and wildfires eventually run out of fuel or get rained on.
Defiance, however, means more than merely ensuring that your church or your Christian school doesn’t change its policies. It means more than still donating to your church even if the day comes when you can’t deduct the contribution. It means a willingness to lose your job, your prosperity, and the respect of your peers. It means saying no every time you are compelled to applaud or participate in the sexual revolution. It means standing beside fellow Christians who face persecution or job loss — not just shaking your head and thinking, “There, but for the grace of God . . . ” It means having the courage to proclaim an opposing message — even during mandatory diversity training, even when you fear you might lose your job, and even when you’re terrified about making your mortgage payment. And through it all, it means being kind to your enemies — blessing those who persecute you.
But being kind to one’s enemies does not mean surrendering to them. I’ll never forget the first time I feared for my job because of my faith. In the midst of my first major religious liberty case — defending a small, rural church against a plainly unconstitutional government action — a senior partner at my firm called and demanded that I drop the lawsuit. He believed the firm’s reputation would suffer for representing an Evangelical church. As a second-year associate, I had no power or standing to defy his order, so — after discussing it with my wife and pondering my own mortgage payment — I summoned up my courage, walked into the managing partner’s office, and simply and respectfully said, “I’m not withdrawing from the case. I understand if you feel like you have to fire me, but I can’t abandon the church.” To my immense relief, I kept my job — and the case, which ended up launching my constitutional career.
I tell that story not to proclaim myself as a model for others — I have more than my share of failings, and that small act of defiance hardly merits mention — but simply to say that this is an old problem. Even in the U.S., Christians who’ve not yet faced these tests likely will, and soon. When they do, it is the church’s responsibility to ensure that they not do so alone. As the church stands, it must remember that our present troubles are meaningless compared to the deadly challenges facing the church in the Middle East. And, always, we must remember who controls our destiny.
Yesterday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges represents the culmination of a perfectly executed public relations campaign.
In a purely pragmatic sense, it’s difficult not to be impressed by what this activist-driven effort accomplished—I mean in real terms, not the unserious victory slogans of the campaign itself.
In no particular order, it:
1. Successfully and fundamentally transformed the definition of “marriage,” and did so in a way that portrayed efforts to preserve traditional marriage as the novelty, rather than the millennia-old status quo.
2. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that there is only one side in this debate, despite the fact that the side claiming the monopoly had only existed in any meaningful form for perhaps 20 years.
3. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that race and sexual orientation are directly analogous.
4. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public (and jurists) that there is no possible argument against gay marriage—to the point where federal judges found that not permitting same-sex marriage is definitionally irrational, and had prominent left-leaning outlets calling yesterday’s dissents simply “crazy.”
5. Successfully branded opponents as simple “bigots” for daring to hold a different view on a live political issue, going so far as to take punitive action against those who did not adopt the “correct” viewpoint.
6. Successfully portrayed the battle as, literally, love versus hate.
7. Successfully accomplished all of the above in about a decade.
My God, the magnitude of it is staggering.
President Barack Obama urged supporters of same-sex marriage Friday to “help” people to overcome their religious convictions, so they are no longer held back from a progressive American view of equality.
“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.
“Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”
“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage.
“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”
“That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”
Perhaps reeducation camps?
The day after declaring Obamacare magically rewritten and that the lawsuits against discrimination in housing require no proof of actual discrimination, the Supreme Court found a unicorn in the 14th Amendment.
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy under that aforementioned 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868, when every state in America criminalized sodomy) requires that every state in America grant marriage licenses to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women, and that every state recognize such licenses from every other state.
By this point, nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court sees new rights in its Cheerios. As our Supreme Rulers, the Supreme Court can declare what they want to declare, since rule of law died long ago at the hands of leftist deconstruction of language. But this decision is particularly galling to those who believe words have meaning and that government is not God. The Court rejects both of those claims. Words have no meaning; they are merely tools to be used in implementation of the utopian agenda of the far-left. Government is God, a dignity-conferring institution capable of making moral that which religion teaches is sinful, logic teaches is worthless, and societal experience teaches is societally counterproductive.
Naturally, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has made it his lifelong work to read same-sex rights into the Constitution (this, after all is the man who once wrote, based wholly on the authority of the voices in his head, that the Constitution mandates “respect” for sodomy), delivered the majority opinion.
Kennedy opens by essentially paraphrasing himself in the pro-abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1989), in which he established one of his many preferred fantasy rights: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This time, he simply says that people have a right to “within a lawful realm, define and express their identity.” Of course, the Court defines that “lawful realm” at its whim; otherwise Charles Manson would simply have been expressing his Constitutional rights. Same-sex marriage falls within that lawful realm, says Kennedy, although he fails to explain how the state not granting people a piece of paper equates to preventing them from expressing their identity. Presumably the states will now be required to give Rachel Dolezal a race-change certificate.
Actually, Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador introduced their bill over a week ago, which didn’t get too much attention at the time. After today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell, expect it to get a lot more attention, especially from GOP presidential hopefuls. The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from imposing penalties on individuals, businesses, groups, and especially religious organizations for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings. Kerry Picket updates the effort today in the wake of Obergefell:
The First Amendment Defense Act seeks to protect individuals and organizations who contend that marriage is between one man and one woman from being targeted with federal taxes or removal of benefits.
For example, the bill would not allow the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations like religious oriented schools who maintain traditional marriage views.
Labrador, an Idaho Republican, introduced the legislation with 57 co-sponsors,in the lower chamber, while Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee introduced corresponding legislation with 18 co-sponsors in the Senate.
Lee addressed this in a Deseret News op-ed, calling for the protection of a critical “space of freedom.” He explicitly quotes Solicitor General Donald Verrilli declaring that government punishment for refusal to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies will “certainly be an issue”:
In a brief back and forth about IRS regulations, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli whether religious institutions — including schools — that maintain the traditional definition of marriage would lose their tax-exempt status should the court strike down state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The solicitor general responded: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”
This was a chilling moment, but not totally unexpected. For years we’ve seen warnings that, for some activists, the objective is not just legal recognition of same-sex unions, but government coercion of individuals and institutions to affirm — and even participate in — such unions, regardless of good-faith religious objections.
After citing a number of cases where refusal has brought government sanction, Lee predicts the outcome if Congress doesn’t act:
The next controversies will not be over whether gay couples should receive marriage licenses, but whether people who don’t think so may keep their business licenses; whether colleges that don’t think so will be able to keep their accreditation; whether military chaplains who don’t think so will be court-martialed; whether churches who don’t think so will be targeted for reprisal by the state; whether heterodox religious belief itself will be swept from the public square.
You don’t need to subscribe to any particular faith, or hold any particular beliefs about marriage, to see the danger of a government forcing innocent people to violate their conscience when they are just trying to make a living, serve their community or educate the next generation.