Category: Analysis

The Crawl toward Communism

Communist ideology should have been sidelined decades ago.

That’s what so many of us thought was going to happen after the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991.

Instead the malignant ideas and strategies of communism, derived from the twisted mind of Karl Marx, gained a significant academic, institutional, and cultural foothold in the Western world.

Here’s a brief summary of how things played out.

Just about the time when the 1970s counterculture appeared to be fading away, a quiet yet insidious revolution was set in motion here in the United States.

There was no red flag waving in the air bearing a hammer and sickle. Rather, a long march through American universities began to take place.

New Left radicals weren’t storming barricades. Instead they were earning PhDs. Humanities and social science departments became ideological echo chambers.

Drawing from Antonio Gramsci’s theory on how the ruling class maintains power, and also the Frankfurt School’s critical theory that derided capitalism and promised social liberation, communist principles became the blueprint for how to deconstruct a societal framework, with the ultimate goal of supplanting it with a Marxist one.

In order to accomplish this, a battlefield had to be set up. The one chosen was that of “The Oppressors vs. the Oppressed.”

Through the fomenting of class envy and the assigning of victim status, members of society were pitted against one another.

What was already entrenched in the halls of our universities quickly spread to our elementary and high schools. Then like dominoes in a row, our federal and local governments, corporate boardrooms, news agencies, internet platforms, and even our Hollywood studios simply gave way.

Communism has been described by some as progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. But call it what you will, it’s just plain old communism, forever seeking the gradual ideological capture of the systems that comprise our societal pillars.

Which systems? Government, legal, education, economic, business, and media, to name some major ones.

Looking back, it seems that for America communism was custom-tailored to focus on culture and identity, a relatively easy way of conditioning our society to turn against neighbor.

It was then marketed, i.e., propagandized, to an already-primed public in order to reshape institutions from within.

We need look no further than our universities to see how the reshaping from within worked to our country’s immense detriment.

The faculties of almost all of the elite universities in our nation have come to lean decidedly to the far-left politically. In most cases, there are entire departments that are devoid of any dissenters to the dominant ideology.

As would be expected, graduating students of these institutions are highly knowledgeable on the topics of “systemic oppression,” “equity,” and “decolonization.” But they are woefully ignorant with regard to the death toll in the millions, which occurred at the hands of history’s most notorious communist regimes.

Sadly, the same communist-laced curriculum easily made its way into our preschools, elementary, and secondary schools. Consequently, far too many of our youth now find socialism and communism acceptable, and sometimes even preferable, than the representative republic that has secured our freedom for just short of 250 years.

Of course, a sizable portion of our Democrat politicians, major corporations, news media outlets, entertainment industry, and internet platforms have played a major role in the crawl toward communism.

We have heard a whole lot of talk over the last few years about existential threats.

It appears that we are currently facing a potential “Mother of All Existential Threats”; that being that communism could seep into our hearts, minds, and souls under the cover of virtue.

Whether the unthinkable occurs in a single stroke or bit-by-bit, the end result is the same. The America we love and cherish ceases to exist.

This is why we are duty-bound to reverse the trajectory.

A good place to start is to hold accountable the politicians who are already out of the communist closet.

This is an imperative since having avowed communists holding public office is a fairly new occurrence. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t cozy up to communist candidates until somewhat recently.

Another idea is to join in on the religious revival that’s been going on, if you haven’t already. Nothing like faith, hope, and love to turn your world around.

May God bless America, now and forever.

The Imaginary Notion of a Sanctuary City or State

Many people in our country are painfully aware of the numerous clashes that have recently occurred between protesters and our state and federal law enforcement officials.

A lot of folks have also heard the word “sanctuary” being bandied about, in reference to the policies of some of the major cities and states within the U.S.

I thought I would do a deeper dive into the meaning of the word “sanctuary” within its current political context to try and shed some light on what has happened, what may happen next, and how we as a nation can find a way to navigate the uncharted waters.

From California’s longstanding policies to Minnesota’s more recent defiance amid ICE operations, these state jurisdictions appear to be working to severely limit cooperation between state and federal immigration authorities.

Certain jurisdictions have refused to honor detainer requests or lend assistance in deportation matters, even in cases that involve the most dangerous of criminals.

Proponents of city and state sanctuary policies claim to be guardians of civil liberties. However, a closer examination reveals that sanctuary status is actually a legal fiction.

In my research, I have found the idea of sanctuary cities and states to be a clever contrivance. Clever, but at the same time insidious, because it skirts federal supremacy and flirts with partial secession.

As President Donald Trump’s administration attempts to restore the rule of law, logic dictates that it is an appropriate time to deconstruct the sanctuary myth and clarify the constitutional principle of uniform enforcement of the law.

The concept of a sanctuary jurisdiction is dependent on something called “the anti-commandeering doctrine,” which was set forth in specific Supreme Court rulings as follows:

– In New York v. United States (1992), the High Court struck down parts of a federal law that required states to take title to radioactive waste if they failed to regulate the waste themselves. The majority held that Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures into enacting federal programs.

– In Printz v. United States (1997), SCOTUS invalidated certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

– In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the doctrine was used to prohibit Congress from barring states from authorizing sports betting.

The Supreme Court has not yet directly ruled on sanctuary policies in a major case.

Lower courts, however, have applied this doctrine to affirm that cities or states do not have to cooperate with federal agents who are enforcing immigration law.

This interpretation, in my opinion, is a legal fiction, because it is built on a selective reading of the law, which ignores the broader constitutional framework.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) declares federal law to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” preempting conflicting state actions.

By actively obstructing federal efforts, such as prohibiting local police from notifying federal law enforcement about arrested illegal immigrants, sanctuary policies do not merely deny law enforcement the much-needed assistance, such policies materially interfere with national sovereignty.

There is the very real practical fallout of the implementation of city and/or state sanctuary policies.

In sanctuary strongholds, federal law enforcement professionals, in the midst of carrying out their official duties, are forced to maneuver through a labyrinth of obstructive non-cooperation, which may lead to serious risk of harm to themselves and to the public at large.

Notably, federal law (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits states from restricting information-sharing about immigration status. And even more importantly, the federal law prohibits states from going beyond mere non-cooperation into active obstruction.

Obstruction is precisely what we are now witnessing in places such as the state of Minnesota. Under the Supremacy Clause, actions involving obstruction are directly crossing over into preemption territory, thereby rendering them illegal.

The Department of Justice’s August 2025 list, which designated states (including California, Illinois, and New York) as sanctuaries, underscores this. These areas create de facto safe havens in which federal immigration law is selectively ignored.

Rather than applying law, courts have allowed states to nullify federal policy without the outright defiance of the Nullification Crises, which put forth the idea that a state could declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus void within its borders. This tested the Union’s cohesion and was a precursor to the Civil War.

This brings us into a discussion of “secession.”

Sanctuary policies are, in essence, a form of partial secession, a kind of veiled attempt to carve out territorial exemptions from national authority.

By declaring certain cities or states off-limits to full federal enforcement, these jurisdictions are asserting a type of faux-sovereignty, which mirrors the resistance of the Confederate states to the abolition of slavery.

Imagine if states were to refuse to cooperate with federal tax collection, environmental regulations, etc. Such defiant fragmentation could never be tolerated.

Immigration, which is a core federal power under Article I, Section 8, demands uniformity in order to prevent chaos.

Defiance of federal law has an actual human toll, one that history demonstrates may lead to tragic consequences.

Congress needs to pass legislation affirming that while states should not be “commandeered,” they also cannot obstruct federal operations.

The Union must be protected.

For this to happen we need a return to reality.

Time to end the illegal charade of sanctuary cities and states.

May the USA remain that way.

The Long-term Consequences of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a philosophical construct in which there are no objective moral truths. There are only subjective truths that are shaped by a society’s hierarchy of authority, cultural norms, and myriad feelings on the part of its individual members.

In this article, I will attempt to give readers some background knowledge about:

– Moral relativism;

– The manner in which the construct has in a major way supplanted our nation’s long-standing moral framework;

– And the danger that moral relativism continues to pose for our society should we fail to reverse course.

In the United States, the concept of moral relativism first emerged within our universities. Then slowly but steadily it seeped into our governmental structure and our culture at large.

Its origin can be traced to the works of anthropologist Franz Boas and his students at Columbia University. Boas set out to destroy the concept of ranked cultures, i.e., that some cultures can be assigned higher or lower rankings than those of others.

Boaz and company insisted that each culture must be evaluated on its own terms and is never to be judged by external standards.

This cultural relativism quickly metamorphosed into moral relativism, meaning that no culture’s moral system should ever be assigned a higher or lower ranking than that of another.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Boaz’s students (which included cultural anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) turned moral relativism into a popular doctrine. By the 1960s, the construct had handily made its way into the popular culture.

The relativistic views of Mead and Benedict were routinely cited as a means in which to argue that the acceptable standards of the times were, in actuality, just one cultural option among many.

By the 1970s, largely due to the implementation of multicultural education, the idea was put forth that diverse cultures have diverse moral frameworks, and imposing one group’s values on another is, in essence, a form of oppression.

So here is where we find ourselves today.

What started out as an obscure academic theory is currently the predominant operating ideology of many who hold the reins of power in our country.

Moral relativism was pushed upon our society, and it slowly and insidiously demolished a major portion of our shared moral framework.

It promises liberation but delivers anarchy.

It tells each and every individual that it is perfectly acceptable to make up your own personal rules.

It obliterates the lines between right and wrong, allowing for extremism to be justified and enabling those who wish to harm others to rationalize their unthinkable actions.

Is it any wonder that after decades of moral relativism imperatives, our society is no longer able to agree on the basic definitions of right and wrong?

For many of us it is painfully apparent that we are now living through the wretched fallout of relativistic thinking as it pertains to society’s moral code.

As we have seen, moral relativism all too frequently leads to deadly consequences.

Through tear-stained eyes we saw waves of unspeakable violence crash from shore to shore. And even as we watched we knew in our hearts the tempest was in no way over.

When a society accepts the idea that “truth” is whatever feels authentic, objective standards cease to exist. If everything is permissible, nothing is protected.

Without a common moral foundation, there is no debate over the best means to shared ends. There is only a raw power struggle in which violence is acceptable and might makes right.

Western civilization was built on the conviction that certain truths are self-evident; that human beings are created equal in dignity, not outcome; that rights come from God rather than government’s whim; and that marriage and family are society’s cornerstones.

Many have abandoned these shared principles in favor of the shifting sands of “my own truth.” But a society that cannot agree on what is virtue and vice is one that is hurtling toward collapse.

What’s the antidote to moral relativism? Well, for starters, cooler heads, clearer thinking, and caring attitudes.

If our nation is ever to regain its moral footing, it is essential that our society return to the values that carried us through for centuries.

But here’s the catch. In order for this to occur, our people have to really want it.

The question is, Do enough of us?

The answer determines our destiny.

The Ashes of the California Wildfires

On the morning of January 7, 2025, a brush fire in the hills above Los Angeles quickly transformed into an inferno.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, while hundreds of thousands were on pins and needles as they awaited the impending evacuation orders.

The first fire would come to be known as the Palisades Fire.

A few hours later the Eaton Fire would ignite in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Later in the night the Hurst Fire would erupt in the northern San Fernando Valley.

The following morning the Woodley Fire would emerge in the central San Fernando Valley.

And Los Angeles hadn’t seen the last of the fires yet.

Needless to say, numerous homes burned to the ground. Many people suffered injuries. And some individuals tragically lost their lives.

Two prominent leaders have dared to speak bluntly about the contributing causes of the calamity that occurred in Los Angeles: former LA mayoral candidate Rick Caruso and President elect Donald Trump.

— Caruso is a former commissioner for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He is also the owner of the Palisades Village Mall, located in the heart of the community that has been decimated by the wildfires.

Caruso’s daughter’s home was destroyed in the blaze, and he himself was evacuated from his home. As the flames were breaking out in his beloved neighborhood, he noticed something that defied comprehension. The fire hydrants were devoid of even a drop of water.

“There’s no water in the fire hydrants,” Caruso exclaimed, his voice revealing his exasperation.

“This is a window into a systemic problem of the city,” he said.

“The real issue to me here is two-fold. We’ve had decades to remove the brush in these hills…and the second is, we’ve got to have water. My understanding is the reservoir was not refilled in time…to keep the hydrants going…”

— President elect Trump had previously warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom that he needed to better manage the state’s forests in order to prevent wildfires.

In 2018, then-President Trump chastised Newsom over the burned-out remains of the town of Paradise.

“You’ve got to take care of…the floors of the forests,” Trump said.

Two years later Trump spoke out again after a new round of fires had inflicted severe harm on California. He talked about cleaning the forest floors, removing leaves and fallen trees, and preventing the igniting of the brush and forest debris.

The president elect recently used a post on X to comment on the current fires in Los Angeles.

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” he posted.

He also used his Truth Social account to wake up Gov. Newsom, writing, “…I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!”

Angelinos are far from happy with their government leaders.

— Despite fire warnings, Mayor Karen Bass flew to Africa to attend Ghana’s presidential inauguration on the day that the fire broke out; this after meteorologists warned that a “recipe for fire” was on track to strike LA.

— LA city officials reportedly failed to cut off electricity to power lines. Video footage from the Palisades Fire showed sparks flying as power lines came down.

— Officials in Los Angeles County had reportedly refused to refill reservoirs with the water that would ultimately be needed to flow to fire hydrants.

More information about the catastrophic failures of leadership will no doubt emerge in the coming days.

Out here in California, prayer is all we have. And yet it’s everything.

If your heart is able, please join in prayer for safety, solace, and strength for the people of the City of Angels.

May God’s blessings flow from the ashes.

“I will give them a crown to replace their ashes, and the oil of gladness to replace their sorrow, and clothes of praise to replace their spirit of sadness.” (Isaiah 61:3)

Trump’s Free Speech Blueprint

So much has taken place over the last four years that Americans across the board have found objectionable.

One of the starkest examples may be what happened to our constitutional right to free speech.

Way too many individuals on social media found themselves in situations in which they were censored, persecuted, and punished over statements made on forums that were formerly thought to be free-wielding platforms.

Editorial pieces with “unapproved” content were shelved by newspapers and kept from public view.

Cable TV anchors heard whispers from producers, instructing them to change subjects should conversations happen to veer into “taboo” territory.

Public figures, which included political candidates, were vilified for bringing up “inconvenient” truths.

Labels, including “conspiracy theorist,” “extremist,” “wingnut,” and worse, were slapped on many who refused to wear the muzzle, thereby harming their reputations while simultaneously silencing them.

I could go on, but sadly the list seems endless.

Yes, free expression took a major hit, but hope is truly on the horizon, thanks to President elect Donald J. Trump, his close-knit circle, loyal supporters, and slew of newfound like-minded influential allies, including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Rogan, to name a few.

Uber entrepreneur and “Dark MAGA” creator Musk recently shared a video that had been posted a while back. It features President elect Trump setting forth his plan to safeguard and restore free speech if (and now when) he assumes office.

In the video, he elaborates on the indispensable nature of free speech to our nation’s constitutional values, stating, “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country.”

He offers the additional warning that if freedom of expression were to continue to erode, other indispensable rights would fall like “dominoes.”

President elect Trump’s plans to restore First Amendment freedoms involve a number of common sense steps, including the following:

-The issuing of an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with outside organizations to censor the speech of Americans.

-A prohibition on government money being used to label any domestic speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

-A review of the federal workforce to identify and replace those involved in censoring speech.

-An effort to seek the reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently provides immunity for tech platforms. Modification would include placing limits on the power of tech companies to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

-The stopping of funding organizations that contribute to censorship, including colleges and universities that promote or engage in inappropriate or unlawful censorship.

-The creation of a “Digital Bill of Rights” that would ensure citizens have due process, that users are informed when their content is removed, that individuals are given clear reasons for decisions made, and that the right to appeal is in place, making judicial review and approval a prerequisite for the removal of certain online content.

Such policies will go a long way toward restoring our constitutional right to free speech.

Interestingly, on the day before the 2024 presidential election, two powerful media figures sat down for a conversation about the issues at stake in the then-looming election.

Musk spoke with Rogan.

After praising Musk for his purchase of Twitter, Rogan said, “I’m not exaggerating when I say you changed the course of history.”

The preeminent podcaster was talking about free expression.

Rogan explained that censorship and de-platforming by social media had severely impeded free speech across the U.S. landscape.

“We were headed down a path of unprecedented censorship and narrative control,” Rogan said to Musk.

What he was referring to is the notion that for speech to be free and remain an existing fundamental right, it must be free from government interference and corporate censorship.

The American notion of freedom cannot exist without these guardrails.

In great part, the understanding of the value of free speech to liberty and the commitment to end censorship have led to the formation of a powerful coalition of superheroes from all sides of the political aisle.

This coalition greatly contributed to the electoral earthquake that just occurred in our country.

Get ready to once again be able to agree and/or disagree to our hearts’ content.

And in between discussions and debates, breathe in the sweet air of free speech.

The American Culture and the Overton Window

Are you feeling like the whole world’s gone crazy?

You’re not alone.

So many changes in such a short time and most of the changes don’t seem to have been for the good.

In America, a sizable number of our governmental, institutional, corporate, media, and even religious figures have been operating at warp speed to implement changes within society.

From the classroom to the courtroom to the boardroom and beyond, fundamental philosophy has been supplanted, institutional policy altered, and underlying goals redesigned.

It seems as though the changes that have occurred have impacted each and every facet of our lives. As a result, many of us are suffering, often silently, in mind and in spirit.

In this article I wish to focus on the effect that all of the changes have had specifically on the American culture, changes that a major portion of the population finds unacceptable, and at times downright heartbreaking.

The culture of a nation is generally comprised of a common set of beliefs, values, and behaviors. This common set acts as a kind of a glue that binds people together and holds them together through the best and the worst of times and circumstances.

Like many of you, I have spent plenty of sleepless nights trying to figure out what is happening to me personally as well as what is happening to America and to our people.

In my assessment, America’s culture has undergone an extensive transformation. The transformation is still ongoing, though, so it is difficult to see exactly what the country is transforming into.

The nation, as well as the culture that binds us together, appears to be more and more divided. This is extremely serious because our cultural bond is being tested to its limits.

There is a concept called the “Overton window” that may provide some insight into what has transpired.

The term Overton window is named after policy analyst Joseph Overton.

In the 1990s, Overton found a way of determining the viability of a given idea when presented to a population.

Much like a kitchen window, there are limits as to what can be viewed when one is peering through it.

Picture this if you will:

The Overton window presents ideas on the other side of the glass. But there are limits to the range of ideas that can be, and are, featured at any given point in time.

The culture, with its set of beliefs, values, and behaviors in common, is theoretically peering through the Overton window. It is also reacting to what it sees.

Overton found that the viability of an idea is dependent on where it falls within a range of acceptability to people.

There are powers that be who are working to push ideas beyond the range that the present culture finds acceptable.

For a large number of people, this is causing discomfort, confusion, and oftentimes distress.

For others, especially those who align with the powers that be, the ideas are seen as progress.

The American culture is a tolerant one. It is also one that seeks harmony. And so it is that our people who are negatively affected by the changes that have been implemented so far have arrived at the place of unwilling acceptance.

It is here when another change of perspective is likely to occur, courtesy of the powers that be.

The Overton window shifts.

When the Overton window moves, that which was formerly unthinkable may not only become acceptable, it may also become the new standard.

There are ongoing debates as to whether the Overton window has shifted to the left or to the right politically.

To me, the two things that matter most are the extent to which the window has shifted culturally, and, when it moves again, whether we will be able to put the scattered pieces back together.

Cultural Marxism Being Used in Teacher Hiring

Cultural Marxism is a far-left intellectual movement that seeks to systematically destabilize society from within.

For a considerable length of time now those who subscribe to this ideology have been hard at work materially altering the values of the Western World, with a particular emphasis on values conveyed in society’s schools.

Some in the establishment media and institutional elite make the assertion that Cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist.

So what’s in a name? Well in this case, it’s a lack of truth in labeling.

Karl Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto, was of the political philosophy that human society develops through class conflict. The conflict takes place between the ruling class that controls the means of production and the working class that facilitates the production.

Marx espoused that a capitalist system eventually self-destructs, and communism is the ultimate governmental answer.

When World War I ended, some Marxist thinkers came to believe that in trying to achieve communist goals, Marx hadn’t really paid close enough attention to the need to infiltrate culture.

There was an influential group of European thinkers that methodically carried out an assault on the foundational pillars of society: religion, patriotism, marriage, family, and the criminal justice system.

Cultural Marxism adopted the viewpoint that traditional culture is a source of oppression and existing conventions, institutions, and even history must be torn down in order to rebuild a society with new Marxist structures.

More contemporary Cultural Marxism primarily tries to destroy the notion of absolute truth and replace it with relativism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and communist revolutionary theory.

We are at a point in our society where this replacement ideology has saturated our colleges and universities. Now there is quite a bit of evidence that in large part it has made its way to the elementary and high school levels of education as well.

Parents have disturbingly discovered that the Cultural Marxist concepts of “systemic racism” and “unconscious bias” are embedded in much of the school curricula, oftentimes under the label of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

One of the ways in which the far-left has increased and actually solidified the presence of Cultural Marxism in educational institutions is through the screening process for prospective K-12 hires.

Public school districts across the country are using a screening process for potential teachers that is apparently designed to ensure that future educators will be singularly aligned with Cultural Marxist ideology.

The National Opportunity Project (NOP), a nonprofit government watchdog and educational organization, has produced the first survey and overview of the DEI-model hiring process in K-12 education, with nearly 70 public schools participating.

The NOP found countless examples of the restrictive underlying ideology in the teacher hiring process.

Unfortunately, the notion of seeking out the most qualified candidates for open teaching positions appears to be taking a back seat. Instead would-be teachers are being evaluated on whether or not they adhere to desired DEI tenets.

For example, districts are using politically loaded language within job postings, seeking candidates who “demonstrate the qualities of an equity-literate educator” or who “demonstrate a commitment to diversity and recognized equity and inclusivity.”

Across the nation public school job postings are setting forth ideological pre-requisites that are rooted in Cultural Marxism.

Here is a sampling of some of the school districts that are apparently all-in with the ideology, along with some of the language that is being utilized:

–Evanston Township High School District 202 is seeking those applicants who demonstrate a commitment to “social justice” and “equity.”

–Denver Public Schools is looking for candidates who have an “anti-racist mindset” and will “work to dismantle systems of oppression and inequity.”

–The public school district in Washington, D.C. is recruiting teachers who are able to “define, understand, and promote equity” in order to “systematically interrupt institutional bias.”

–City Schools of Decatur, Georgia is looking to hire educators that are committed to “dismantling systemic racism and generating racial equity.”

In a similar vein, questions being posed during interviews appear to be attempting to screen candidates on the basis of their allegiance to DEI-Cultural Marxist concepts.

Here are some examples of such school districts, along with questions that are being employed:

–Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools asks prospective hires, “How would race and diversity impact your classroom?”

–Homewood-Flossmoor High School in Illinois asks candidates to “provide an example of how you have created equity in your classroom.”

–Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland inquires, “How do you ensure that student outcomes are not predictable by race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or sexual orientation?”

It is up to all of us to continue to monitor our local school districts and hold school administrators accountable with regard to the teacher selection process.

Yes, it’s one more thing to worry about and one more thing to have to contest.

But aren’t our children truly the best of what we’re all fighting for?