Burning America: The Reagan Revolution or Who Was the Son of Reagan? Too Little, Too Late

Burning America: The Reagan Revolution or Who Was the Son of Reagan? Too Little, Too Late

https://www.popai.pro/share.html?shareKey=bb766a93834a80b9985076901572b2b4e8821ad74f305f7d02b207ae0426dc4b&utm_source=presentationsharepage

The most startling aspect of the Reagan Revolution is that, by hindsight, it was only a whimper. For the entire generation of Reagan followers whom he inspired, no one has emerged, nor has any conservative had a long-lasting cultural reversal resulting from the Reagan years. Reagan is the failed revolutionary.

Nonetheless, there are positive developments, which are to the President's credit. Ronald Reagan restored the office of the presidency to its place of prominence through policies that fostered a productive economy and that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan pursued what Frank Meyer called Fusionism as he attempted to combine many of the leading intellectual movements on the right: social and economic libertarianism, neoconservative interventionism, and traditionalism.

Unfortunately, some of Reagan's policies were not helpful to the country. 

• Several of Reagan’s policies fit within the neoliberal consensus as he:

o reduced antitrust prosecutions.

o supported global free trade.

o signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which legalized millions of illegal immigrants and did not punish businesses for hiring illegals.

After the disaster of the Carter administration many people sought a return to normalcy after both the impeachment of Richard Nixon and the failed administration of Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan restored the office of the presidency to its place of prominence through policies that fostered a productive economy and that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the Cold War. 

Unfortunately, the neoliberal consensus doomed Reagan to be an example of too little, too late. No centrist, Constitutionalist candidate emerged from the Reagan Revolution as the left-wing marched through American culture while cultural and institutional decline occurred. 

The radical march through the institutions was heralded by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, who coined the phrase “the long march through the institutions” to explain how a minority could change society by taking over key institutions in education and bureaucracy.

Radicals followed Gramsci’s model by co-opting Great Society programs, ensconcing themselves in the education system, taking over the bureaucratic agencies created by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and modifying administrative law. Radicals transformed civil rights justice into progressive equity, diversity, and inclusion programs which downplayed talent and achievement by the most deserving and hard working individuals.

As America in general and African Americans in particular had benefited from the Great Society programs, radical Chicano activists like those of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) jumped on the racial preferences' bandwagon. They argued for the recognition of a pan-Hispanic “race” whose members would be eligible for race-based affirmative action like blacks. Some “white ethnics” like Irish Americans and Italian Americans argued unsuccessfully that they, too, should be included in affirmative action, because their groups had been discriminated against by Anglo-American Protestants for generations. The governmental obsession with race infected the alphabet bureaucracy as well.  

The Great Cultural Awokening had a profound impact on the CIA and FBI, which extended bureaucratic despotism far beyond anything the Progressives would have dreamed of. The Hoover FBI identified black nationalism as an issue and took steps to forestall it. There are FBI memoranda outlining general instructions to "prevent the RISE OF A 'MESSIAH' who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement," pointing to Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Muhammad Ali, and Stokely Carmichael as likely candidates (Cf. https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/COINTELPRO-FBI.docs.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email). Of that cadre, two were assassinated, one was stripped of his title, and the fourth fled to Africa.

Nonetheless, a far more compelling messiah was to arise, one who could unite militant

black nationalism, and the white New Left progressives. All that was needed was a more thorough cultural Marxist revolution.

The early Soviet active measures campaign took on a life of its own and survived the collapse of the USSR. It provided the philosophical and strategic foundations for a cultural Marxist revolution that was so profound that it penetrated the cores of the CIA and the FBI. 

Once the revolution was in place, the messianic Obama arose on the backs of the New Left progressives and black nationalism.

The tool, Obama, used the George W. Bush-era centralization of the intelligence community to impose critical theory and cultural Marxism on the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence services.

As Robert Mueller had centralized the FBI, the new director of national intelligence would have central authority over all American intelligence agencies. 

Obama had placed one of the most radical and flawed intelligence figures since the Comintern infiltration of the World War II Office of Strategic Services. James Clapper was an ideal choice for Obama in 2010 because he looked like a Republican but acted like a Marxist. After being unanimously confirmed by the Senate as the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper will assume responsibility for the entire American intelligence community throughout the remainder of the Obama presidency. 

Clapper found a devoted White House partner in John O. Brennan, the former CIA chief of staff and Obama's special assistant for homeland security. Brennan referred to Clapper as "my foxhole companion and a trustworthy companion." Soon after, Obama would name Brennan as the CIA director. 

The cultural revolution in the intelligence community, along with a significant portion of the government bureaucracy, commenced on August 18, 2011. On that particular day, Obama issued Executive Order 13583. The title was simply 'Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce." The shepherdess of the executive order was Valerie Jarrett, a confidant of the president. 

The Diversity Order 13583 was a social revolutionary act. It did not mention enhancing intelligence collection, analysis, operations, or capabilities. The aforementioned statement lacked any elucidation regarding how a diverse group of individuals could augment the intelligence community by enhancing their language proficiency, understanding of domestic and foreign cultures, or leveraging the advantages of diverse personal perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds. It was an act of ideological machination. 

The executive order was a majoritarian decree intended to transform the culture of the entire federal bureaucracy through the implementation of critical theory. As the theories of Antonio Gramsci of the Italian Communist Party and Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School taught, the appropriate opinions and policies would emerge once the bureaucratic culture underwent a transformation. Obama was aware that personnel is a matter of policy. 

In his memoir, Director Leon Panetta elucidated that the Obama White House staff displayed an "inclination towards dominion" over the CIA and the intelligence community in general. He did not provide a name. Despite this, the White House seemed more obsessed with taking over the levers of power through its cultural Marxist revolution than with terminating Osama bin Laden. 

Obama deferred the appointment of John O. Brennan as the Director of the CIA until the commencement of his second term in March 2013. Brennan had a traumatic past. He echoed Obama's view that the administration should transform the country through incrementalism. His political background was similar to that of Attorney General Eric Holder and especially Jarrett. During the Carter administration, when Brennan was first enlisted, the CIA somehow cleared him, despite his recent vote for a controlled Soviet asset, Communist Party chief Gus Hall, as President of the United States. Brennan dismissed the experience in his memoir as a lark and drew no lessons from it. 

After a carefully prepared Islamic ceremony onboard the United States Navy, Director Brennan executed Obama Diversity Order 13583 with gusto. He directed the establishment of diversity offices within the CIA components. He augmented the recruitment and promotions in accordance with Obama's critical theory criteria. Brennan implemented explicit preferential promotion based on gender, rather than talent, in response to a study on the status of women at the CIA, irrespective of the most qualified candidates for a particular position. 

Managers at the CIA Directorate of Support reprimanded their subordinates for failing to conform to the new politicized climate. Even female employees were concerned. According to retired CIA analyst Nicholas Dujmovic, some in the analysis directorate have called Brennan's politicization'soft totalitarianism. 

Nowhere in his 400-page memoir did Brennan claim that the goal was to make intelligence more efficient or its deliverables more productive. Excellence was not the goal. Brennan did not contend that Obama aimed to enhance the overall effectiveness of the government, particularly in the area of the Internal Revenue Service.

Radicals began to attack the “hidden curriculum” in public schools and weed out what radicals claimed were the racist, sexist, Christian, and homophobic ideas prevalent in school curricula

Activist teachers raised the consciousness of students to indoctrinate them into an awareness of a supposed Pablo Freire-like oppression to enlist children in the battle against reactionary forces.

Radicals in bureaucracy and education published authoritative documents on systemic racism and  endorsed antiracist activities for school children. These activities divided students into privileged and oppressed groups in order to institute equity privileged individuals. 

Unfortunately, the Reagan Era produced a son. Barack Obama became the poster child of affirmative action during this radical period in American education that began with college indoctrination but has since moved into the primary grades.

Obama’s early political career was launched in the living room of Bill Ayers, a far-left militant organizer and founder of the Weather Underground. This connection, along with others to controversial figures such as the anti-Semitic Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi, Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and Critical Race Theory pioneer Derrick Bell, paints a picture of a president influenced by extreme Leftist ideologies from the very start. Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical approach originating out of the leftist Frankfurt School.

Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright:

https://youtu.be/UnlRrxXv-v8?si=YXuGIkdyOxUAwSx2

Agitator Obama Speaks To Harvard Students Supporting Critical Race Theorist Derrick Bell

https://youtu.be/1_XphrCKvKE?si=v-JG2R3f8L_ZMaah

Obama learned about sex from a Communist.

Frank Marshall Davis was the subject of a 600 page FBI file. Davis was not only a Communist Party USA member, but engaged in activities considered suspicious by the FBI, such as photographing the Hawaii coast, possibly for espionage purposes. Davis was on the FBI’s “security index” of dangerous people. He also wrote a semi-autobiographical pornographic novel under a pseudonym entitled "Sex Rebel: Black." The author describes it more directly as a “complete sex autobiography…” It appears that Davis was part of a “free love” movement, someone who by the author’s admission “specialized in sex,” even with children. Davis was Obama’s mentor for about eight or nine years. Then Obama went off to Occidental College, where classmate John C. Drew says the future president was already a committed Marxist.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, " Obama wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists" (p. 100).

Obama’s point: I am a radical leftist. During my college years: 1979–1983; I am developing my radical views. 

• 1979 – The Iran hostage crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis) begins. In the aftermath, a second energy crisis develops, tripling the price of oil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_oil) and sending U. S. gasoline prices over $1 per gallon for the first time.
• Once in office, I will send cash to Iran. 
• 1980 – The United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) boycotts the Summer Olympics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Olympics) in Moscow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow) to protest the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan); also announces a grain embargo against the Soviet Union with the support of the European Commission.
• I will mock presidential candidate Mitt Romney for having anti-Soviet policies left over from the 1980s. 
• 1980 – The Refugee Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act) is signed into law, reforming United States immigration law and admitted refugees on systematic basis for humanitarian reasons
• I will exploit the Act for an open Southern border and encourage Biden to do the same during my Third Term. 
• 1981 Obama visits Pakistan with his boyfriend. 
• 1983 – 241 U.S. Marines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps) are killed by a suicide bomb in Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon).
• I will come into office with only two kinetic conflicts and commit blood and treasure in seven Middle Eastern countries to feed the military-industrial complex.
• 1984 – The drug problem intensifies as crack (a smokable form of cocaine) is first introduced into the Los Angeles area.
• I will increase inner city dependence on drugs, crime, public assistance, and poor education to increase misery. 

Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, testified before Congress that many of these programs encouraged students to become violent and to resist all authority as oppression.

Many antiracism activities taught that all white people are racists regardless of whether they have any conscious racial prejudice.

Antiracist training activities also pushed Pat Bidol’s new definition of racism as the combination of power and prejudice. In Bidol’s teaching, this meant that only groups with power can be oppressors.

Schools also urged white students to confess their privilege so they can become allies for the underprivileged.

• The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited overt acts of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. It barred the use of racial quotas.

• Radicals, however, took over the agencies created by Congress to enforce the law and began interpreting the law contrary to its own language.

The federal courts often deferred to the expertise of equity and diversity bureaucrats as laid out in a labyrinth of interpretive memos, clarifications, and guidelines.

Congress began delegating authority to agencies—for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—to prosecute violations.

In 1978, agencies adopted the four-fifths rule, which introduced quotas for race, sex, and ethnicity as de facto evidence of discrimination.

Bureaucracies themselves grew under radical leadership in terms of budget and personnel, even though federal hiring standards often had to be lowered to allow more minority hires in federal agencies.

Radicals extended the preferential treatment and entitlements afforded to African Americans under Civil Rights law to new victim groups: women, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, the elderly, the disabled, and homosexuals.

Radicals Transform Administrative Law

• Liberal regulatory agencies were intended to regulate and protect private industry for the public interest.

• Radicals rejected the idea of public interest and insisted that there was only the distinct interest of various groups.

o These groups included civil rights groups, environmentalist groups, consumer protection groups, and worker health and safety groups. 

o Elites were now able to claim to represent various unorganized and underrepresented groups.

• Property rights were also extended to include rights to welfare in order to protect those who now were receiving government aid.

• Congress began to approach each new issue by creating an agency and granting it broad powers to set economy-wide standards.

o These included the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Administration.

o Most of these agencies were primarily staffed by lawyers, not scientific experts in the respective field.

Late-1988 to mid-1989

During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university official about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/search?q=Obama+Accused+Of+Sexual+Harassment

The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.

In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

The White House spokesperson did not deny nor offer additional details about the abuse. 

Foreign Policy

"They [the Chinese among others] may well assume, as a result of Obama's early actions and international conversation, that the present government of the United States either would not object to these measures [Chinese aggression] or would do nothing concrete  to stop them--or perhaps even privately sympathizes with their particular grievances against the Western-inspired world order" (p. 7). 

How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security by Victor Davis Hanson, Encounter Books (2009).

Obama's apology tour in 2009 negatively impacted the view of America in the eyes of the world. 

The election of Obama in 2008 was America's Alaric moment. Alaric was infamous for sacking Rome in 410 AD, an event often seen as symbolic of the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Obama lacked the qualifications for the high office of president, given his lack of experience as a State Senator and as a Senator. As a State Senator, he was criticized for voting "present" on numerous controversial bills, such as promoting abortion, gun control, and criminal justice reform. His lack of decision-making and clarity on important issues made him singularly unqualified for advancement. Thereafter, he supported the renewal of the Patriot Act, which, in a bipartisan effort, expanded the government's surveillance and counterterrorism powers. Civil liberties advocates noted that the law violated the Constitutional rights of Americans. 

Nonetheless, on the specious premise of "hope and change," the American people embraced Barack as the savior to solve the race problem in US history. Obama, ever the 1960s-style race agitator, committed a serious misstep on race early on during his presidency. For example, the "beer summit" in July 2009, where Obama sat down with his friend Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the officer who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley, who was performing a routine police patrol. In this instance, a president took a clear stance by wading into a local police matter and favored his pal Gates when he called the arrest "stupid." The police were disrespected in this instance and anticipated later serious racial matters during the George Floyd incident. Obama set a trend, by engaging in such a public back-and-forth with a police officer, which could embolden those who criticize law enforcement without understanding the challenges they face. Identify politics grew exponentially after an incident such as the summit. None of Sergeant Crowley's peers identified him with racism precious to the Gates incident, and Obama's summit undermined police morale and public trust in law enforcement. 

Obama's presidency was marked by significant controversies and criticisms regarding his handling of constitutional powers and adherence to the rule of law.

Some specific examples include Obama's use of executive action to bypass Congress and enact policy changes, such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which many argued was an overreach of his authority. Additionally, Obama's administration faced scrutiny for its use of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's bulk data collection, which critics argued violated citizens' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Furthermore, Obama's administration was criticized for its handling of the Affordable Care Act, with accusations that it violated the Constitution's Origination Clause by originating in the Senate instead of the House of Representatives ^{(Ermakoff, 2020)}.  

Source: This paper will examine these criticisms by comparing Bush and Obama's constitutional power claims and actions in the areas of war powers, signing statements, and veto power ^{(Spitzer, 2012)}.

Examining Constitutional Power Claims

When comparing Obama's constitutional power claims and actions to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, it becomes evident that Obama pushed the boundaries of executive authority and engaged in actions that were deemed unconstitutional ^{(Spitzer, 2012)}.

Ermakoff, I. (2020, October 1). Law against the Rule of Law: Assaulting Democracy. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12253
Spitzer, R J. (2012, January 1). Comparing the Constitutional Presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama: War Powers, Signing Statements, and Vetoes. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1980301

Burning America: In the Best Interest of the Country? Preface

In recent times, astute observers of American society have noticed a profound transformation taking place within our government institutions, corporations, universities, and cultural landscape. It has become increasingly evident that certain changes have taken hold, with implications that cannot be ignored.  

We come across reports detailing the introduction of gender ideology in our schools, where young children are subjected to its influence. It is distressingly common to witness acts of violence, rioting, and looting on the streets of our major cities. 

Moreover, the economic stability of the American middle class appears to be on a perpetual decline. Meanwhile, the institutions tasked with safeguarding our rights, such as federal law enforcement agencies, have become deeply entangled in political agendas. 

Clearly, there exists a ruling class that governs our nation, guided by an ideology that poses a threat to the well-being of ordinary, hard-working Americans. To protect our cherished liberties from these radical ideologies, it becomes imperative to comprehend how these ideas emerged and spread over the past few decades, often in stark contrast to traditional American values and objectives. 

This undertaking serves as a means of reaching out to those who seek to understand the current state of their nation, to engage with the notion of a fading American citizenship. The US border has been porous and increasingly endangers the safety of Americans and leads to a declining American citizenry. We can learning from history. 

The Romans successfully integrated outsiders but no nation can long endure an invasion without a strong foundation for settlement. Here's an explanation of how the Roman Empire's interactions with "barbarians" led to assimilation and contributed to the legacy of Western institutions. 

The term "barbarian" was a blanket designation used by the Romans for various groups outside their borders. These included Germanic tribes, Huns, Goths, and others who possessed distinct cultures and ways of life. Relations between Rome and these groups were complex and evolved over time. There wasn't a single, massive invasion; rather, it was a centuries-long process of migration, conflict, and integration. 

The Roman army increasingly recruited from "barbarian" populations. These soldiers, known as foederati, often fought alongside Roman troops and could rise through the ranks. In exchange for service, they received Roman citizenship and land, leading to gradual integration. Whole tribes were sometimes granted permission to settle peacefully within Roman borders. This led to cultural exchange and the eventual adoption of Roman customs and language by most. 

Ambitious "barbarian" leaders sometimes secured high positions within the Roman military and political hierarchy. Some even rose to the level of emperor, demonstrating the potential for upward mobility within the system. The incorporation of "barbarians" invigorated Rome's declining military might, providing fresh fighting forces to protect the borders. 

"Barbarian" leaders who gained power within the Roman system established kingdoms that built upon Roman traditions and formed the bedrock of later medieval European states. Christianity spread among many of these "barbarian" tribes. The Roman Catholic Church, influenced by Roman administrative structures, became a unifying force in post-Roman Europe, preserving elements of Roman knowledge and culture. 

The Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital, continued for centuries after the fall of the Western Empire. It maintained Roman traditions of law, governance, and culture, becoming a bridge between the ancient and medieval worlds. 

The relationship between Rome and the "barbarians" was intricate and multifaceted. While the fall of the Western Roman Empire is a pivotal moment in history, "barbarians" played an important role in ensuring aspects of Roman civilization, such as Christianity and legal traditions, continued to have a profound influence on the development of Western institutions.

Thomas Sowell’s Ethnic America (New York: Basic Books, 1981) remains a most profound and provocative response to the liberal view of ethnicity and race. In his introduction, Sowell provides a chart that ranks ethnic groups in terms of average family incomes (p.5) Average is 100, but several ethnic groups exceed the average:

Jewish 172

Japanese 132 

Polish 115

Chinese 112 

Italian 112 

German 107

Anglo-Saxon 107 

Irish 103

Other groups do not fare as well:

Filipino 99 

West Indian 94 

Mexican 76

Puerto Rican 63 

Black 62 

Native American 60 

In the American example, some immigrating groups assimilated well into America as some groups did during the Roman Empire. But Liberals, Sowell explicitly and implicitly asserts throughout the book, believe these ethnic differences are due solely to discrimination. But, Sowell wonders, how can this be if several ethnic groups that have experienced discrimination rank above and even far above the U.S. median income?

The reason, Sowell claims, is something that, in his other books he calls cultural capital. Cultural capital includes a strong work ethic, a stable family structure, and a propensity to save and invest rather than to consume. Roman barbarians had cultural capital that was advantageous to Rome and to themselves. But cultural capital also involves an understanding of the four paths to the upper middle class and above.

The first of these paths is politics, especially urban politics. This involves electing members of your ethnic group to offices, such as mayor, that can provide access to government jobs in police and fire departments, schools, and municipal services. Roman elites maintained their prestige by taking part of the Roman military, political, and land-owning class and handed on their power to their descendants. Irish-Americans have historically excelled in governmen, while African-Americans have been using this path since the 1960s. Political jobs offer security and good benefits, but they are seldom very remunerative.

Business ownership may be more risky, but the potential benefits greatly outweigh the costs. High percentages of Jews, Japanese, and Chinese have excelled here, although Sowell is well aware that members of all ethnic groups have succeeded in business.

Higher education, the third area, is perhaps the most dependable path to success. Again, it is the Jews and the Asian-Americans who have excelled the most here. Both Sowell’s supporters and his critics call these groups the model minorities, a term that Sowell himself does not use.

There is a fourth area - sports, music, and entertainment. Here, the results can be spectacular, but the odds for success are not good. Often, this is the area first available to ethnic Americans. Sowell knows this, but he issues a caveat anyway. Put your eggs in this basket, he is saying, and most likely they will break. Sowell is clearly delivering a message to members of his own ethnic group - African-Americans. I will make the case that the 1950s example of capitalism in baseball provided a path but unfortunately sports became almost the exclusive path for African-Americans to the detriment of other more possible and lucrative paths. 

By now, Sowell’s argument is clear: the liberals are wrong. All ethnic groups have faced discrimination - some more than others, Sowell acknowledges—but it is really cultural capital that accounts for the income differences among ethnic groups. Sowell clearly suggests that entrepreneurship and higher education are the best paths to success. It is not surprising that he sees reliance on the federal government as the worst of the legal paths to success. While he in no way supports discrimination, he believes that pooling resources with members of your own family and ethnic group is a better way of starting a business than going to court and claiming you were denied a loan due to your ethnic or racial background. Even better, start your own bank within your own ethnic group. Eventually, you can start your own country clubs if the WASP country clubs will not accept you.

Naturally, liberals find Sowell’s ideas anathema. While most liberals would not quibble with the importance of cultural capital, liberals believe European and Asian ethnic groups have faced far less discrimination than other ethnic Americans. Assertive affirmative action policies and strong federal government action, liberals believe, are necessary to assure ethnic equality. The failure of these liberal policies are evident by the degeneration from the goal of liberal equality to the discriminatory aim of progressive equity. 

In short, and based on the work of Sowell, the historical example of the Romans has not been followed in the last several decades by the Americans and is now coupled with the disaster on the Southern border. American citizenship and the heritage of the Greco-Roman inheritance of citizenship has been swept aside since 1965. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, has significantly altered immigration into America and has profound implications for American citizenship. Before 1965, immigration to the US was heavily based on a system that favored immigrants from culturally compatible countries. Instead, the law prioritized family reunification. While the act initially set an annual cap, family reunification provisions led to a significant increase in overall immigration numbers in the decades that followed.

The Border Patrol may be able to handle 1,000 illegals a day, because anything more than that overwhelms the system. Recently, apprehensions have averaged nearly 7,000 per day. On the other hand, the Trump administration had brought apprehensions down to between 800 and 1,500 a day in his final year in office, the lowest numbers in 45 years. In 2022, Biden's daily average was 6,575. In 2023, there were three million apprehensions, a daily average of 8,219. Entering 2024, apprehensions were up to 12,000 to 15,000 per day. 

Illegal immigration has become a tsunami and the hidden reality is even worse, because these numbers do not include the people who entered the U.S. illegally without being apprehended—sometimes referred to as “gotaways”—a number the Border Patrol can only estimate. That estimate is two million, bringing the three-year total of illegal immigrants to ten million—a number equivalent to the population of Greater London or Greater Chicago. 

These are internationally incompatible with American culture: 45 percent come from 170 countries outside the traditional origin countries of Mexico and Central America. Many are unaccompanied minors: 448,000 to date. More than 330 people, as of November 2023, are on the FBI’s terrorist watch list. Many are murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and violent criminals. More than a million have been lawfully ordered deported by judges in the U.S. but remain in our country regardless. The dismissal by the executive branch of our government of hundreds of thousands of cases of immigration law violations is unprecedented. 

We know that the initial financial cost is high—$400 billion, by one estimate—to feed, house, clothe, and resettle the illegals who have been allowed to stay. Then there is the burden placed on public school districts that have no choice but to take in millions of new children who often speak no English and whose educations are not commensurate with those of their schoolmates. It is probably not coincidental that hospital systems across the nation have fallen deep into the red since the great mass migration crisis began. 

Expense, of course, is only one part of the equation in terms of impact. Public safety, criminal justice, and national security systems face unprecedented new burdens as the personal histories and criminal backgrounds of most of the millions allowed easy entry are unknown and, often, without documentation. The criminals increase the load on our already overburdened courts and prisons. Last but not least, this great influx will increase joblessness and put immense downward pressure on wages for American workers.

Within the following pages, we will delve into a range of topics that shed light on the plight of American citizenry in the post-Progressive era:  

The distinctions between the mid-century liberals and the radical elements that emerged in opposition to them; 

An exploration of how the post-sixties radicals ascended to positions of power within government bureaucracies and educational institutions;

A close examination of the principles of neoliberalism, which emerged in the late 1970s, and the ways in which these ideas transformed the moral and economic fabric of America;

An exploration of the underlying factors that led to what has been referred to as "The Great Awokening" during Barack Obama's second term, along with an examination of the ways in which the political and business elites embraced the cultural Left. 

By delving into these subjects, we aim to equip readers with a comprehensive understanding of the historical roots and contemporary manifestations of the ideologies that currently shape our nation. It is through this understanding that we can hope to navigate the complex terrain and preserve the fundamental principles that lie at the heart of our American identity.

This volume proposes to explain recent American history in a manner that encourages the respondent to discover the past first-hand through primary sources. Rather than having to rely on the opinion of another, including this author, the reader walks through history with a series of questions and answers; moreover, all the answers are based on solid, first-hand sources. As a result, the book is not about political right or left but right and wrong, in a passionate pursuit of what could summarize a Native American proverb: truth is a hard deer to hunt.

It's also worth noting that while the saying isn't a documented Native American proverb, it resonates with themes found in traditional oral stories from various tribes across North America. Concepts like respect for nature, understanding one's place in the world, and the importance of living honestly are often interwoven with metaphors and symbolism related to animals and the natural world. The summary proverb appears in the 1937 science fiction short story "By the Waters of Babylon" by Stephen Vincent Benét. 

To understand an American citizen's place in the world and to live honestly is the goal of many, and this volume will assist in that endeavor. The work can be read with profit alone or in combination with a reading group or a teacher. 

2017 Cliven Bundy Trial in Nevada

On December 20, 2017, Judge Navarro declared a mistrial in a criminal case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and three other men accused of leading an armed standoff with federal agents that took place in April 2014. According to Arizona news website AZCentral, Navarro declared a mistrial because "U.S. prosecutors willfully withheld critical and 'potentially exculpatory' evidence from the defense."[15]

Trial Account

https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

March 13, 2017

The Prosecution then calls to the stand Hugh Gourgeon, President of Challenger School Foundation in Sandy Utah, who is French with a really thick accent and was very hard to understand.  Mr. Gourgeon took several photos and cell phone video, for which he claimed he didn't realize he was taking video only photos.  Gourgeon's photos and videos consisted of getting a ride to the bridge, going down into the wash, filming the prayer before they protestors went the get the cattle.  Gourgeon was questioned about children being at the protest.  There was a lot of confusion in the court about the testimony about him being under the northbound bridge versus the southbound bridge along with other individuals, it was never clear which bridge they were talking about but, Gourgeon made several trips up and down the hill from the wash topside to  the bridge on the road.  Gourgeon said he went to the bridge in the wash because "he felt he was going to be shot"!  At this point several of his photos/videos were entered into evidence of Eric Parker and Scott Drexler on the bridge and a couple other people kneeling down.  Through questioning Gourgeon discloses that the FBI came to his work and to his home to serve a subpoena to get his photos and videos.  Gourgeon gave them to his attorney and his attorney gave them to "the government".  The Prosecution tried to submit an email Gourgeon received from Carol Bundy talking about the event Georgeon had attended.  The Defense objected siting the "co-conspirator statement" classification.  The Prosecution argued Carol Bundy is not charged as a co-conspirator but will prove later that she is, siting the Bundy Ranch Blog and the email being sent by her, which Judge Navarro sustained the objection for now.

Today's testimony was instrumental in making the governments case that Ricky Loveland was a "superior" in the conspiracy because he approached Shannon Serena while in conversation with Eric Parker and Eric discontinued his conversation with Serena and, Ricky made a phone call in his presence.  The Prosecution, through their witnesses, are trying to establish that Ricky Loveland was "in charge" of everyone on top of the bridge, but all they have as evidence is "feelings" and sighting "body language" of which there is no evidence.
The Prosecution will continue tomorrow with testimony from Hugh Georgeon.

    

 

March 14, 2017

Today court continued with Hugh Gourgeon, Sandy Utah, President of Challenger School Foundation on the stand to be cross examined.  Gourgeon reminded the court that he went to Bunkerville to see the cows get released.  He hitched a ride to the wash in the back of someone's pickup truck.  He went there to take photos using his cell phone, but "inadvertently" took video too.  He took many photos of the people on the bridge on I-15.  He was very mobile on the scene, moving from I-15 to the wash and under the bridge by the Bureau of Land Management barricade gate.  He stated that he knew there was a "danger of getting hurt by the BLM because they were pointing weapons at people".  He also disclosed that he brought his firearm with him, but left it in his vehicle.  Sometime after returning home from Nevada he received a visit from the FBI, not only at home, but at work also stating, "an employee ratted on him" for being at Bundy Ranch.  He lawyered up where he was presented a "Property Agreement" before he met with the FBI so his words would not be used against him.

Jess Marchese questioned the witness for the Defense saying, "so, you believe the BLM was organizing a task force to go get the cattle.  You go into the wash and witness the protestors praying.  Government Riffles were pointed at you, so you hide behind a concrete barrier"?  Gourgeon responded, "yes".  "While you were up on I-15 hiding behind the concrete barrier you saw the men with riffles"?  Gourgeon responded that "I realized I was standing in between the men on the bridge and the BLM, so I went back down the hill to the wash".  Marchese asks him to describe the crack in between the concrete barriers, and Gourgeon described it as "very thin".

Todd Engel was next to approach Hugh Gourgeon for questioning.  Engel questions Gourgeon about the events at the bridge, the BLM threatening the crowd and giving them demands, and that these words are what caused the protestors to stop and have prayer.  Engel got the witness to acknowledge that this was correct and that Gourgeon was still on scene when the BLM backed up to leave, and he was there when Las Vegas Metro arrived.

Todd Leventhal rose before the court to submit Hugh Goureon's Facebook posts into evidence as the Prosecution was very selective in the evidence they submitted, juts submitting photos and video and not the commentary from Gourgeon's Facebook wall.  Objections arose from the Prosecution barring the Facebook commentary from the Jury but, the testimony drawn out from him by the Prosecution as their witness in allowed, what he said as his affidavit to the events on Facebook are barred from possibly acquitting the defendants?  I guess we'll never know!  Another case where the Sixth Amendment is being trampled upon!  Leventhal did get Gourgeon to testify again that he was afraid that he would be shot, and that the people pointing guns at him were the BLM.  Gourgeon testified that the government edited his Facebook page taking his commentary off and some photos that he had penned commentary on.  Leventhal asked Gourgeon if on his was to the wash if he had heard of a "plan" or anything?  Gourgeon replied, "no, it seamed like everyone was on their own, it was spontaneous, no one directed me".  Leventhal asked the witness, "what made you want to go to Nevada"?  Gourgeon said, "some things he had seen on social media".  When the Defense tried to get him to mentions the videos etc that he had seen, this was objected to.

Shawn Perez was next to approach the witness beginning again, to get him to talk about his Facebook posts of photos and commentary.  All he was able to get him to tell the Jury was that his posts were all done after he arrived back home in Utah, and they were his "personal observation" of what he  saw.  "There was no media in the wash, and he wanted everybody to know what was going on".  Perez then asked, "did you post any impressions you had at the time"?  To which Gourgeon replied, "yes".  "Did you get a sense of why they were doing what they were doing"?  Objections halted the answering of that question, but was able to reiterate that he "felt threatened by the BLM that day, and did not feel threatened by the men on the bridge.  I did not get the feeling they would hurt anyone".  Perez asked, "did you hear anyone, or see anyone giving orders"?  His answer, "no".  "Did you see anyone that was "the boss" of the people on the bridge"?  Again, "no" was the answer.  When questioned about who was in charge in the wash Gourgeon said, "the only time anyone was in charge in the wash was when a man silenced everyone so they could have prayer".