---

Update Thursday March 26, 2015:  Moving toward the 2016 election year it seems appropriate to remind voters of what happened to Sarah Palin after this webpage was published, and warn that the same "Unifying" forces will seek to destroy Ted Cruz in the same way.  His most powerful political enemies will not be his public political opponents.  His most powerful political enemies will be entrenched professional political Party operatives and "established" professional office holders, of all Parties, including his own.  They have become an unconstitutional political and governmental power unto themselves, operating outside the Constitution, and they will not yield their power, authority and Crony-Capitalist funding voluntarily. 

They will do the same thing to Ted Cruz that they did to Sarah Palin, if we let them.  We have got to work toward the elimination of Political Parties as well as electing men of high principle.  Unless we take the Parties out, we will no longer elect men of high principle.  See No Party America, Two Party Treason, American Constitutional Absolutism and New Way Politics. 

---

Blessed Polarization.

Vic Biorseth, Wednesday, October 27, 2010
https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/

Blessed Polarization and Political Division is what America desperately needs today. The last thing we need is another unifier, or one who can bring us all together, or an expert at reaching across the aisle to compromise with pure evil, and with the designers of our own destruction. It is time to draw a line in the sand, and take sides.

It is a time for dividing.

America’s thoroughly Communized Democrat Party, the American SLIMC¹ and even elitist professional Republican politicians scoff at Sarah Palin as a “polarizing figure” who cannot win because she is even a polarizing force within the Republican Party itself, and they claim she should not be considered because she cannot possibly win.

They are wrong.

The reason they are all wrong involves the rise of Blessed Polarization at the grass-roots level, i.e., the great Tea Party awakening. What America needs right now is Blessed Polarization, Division, and a clear political line drawn in the sand.

There is no Democrat or a Republican alive who can beat Sarah Palin in a political contest. There is no Democrat or a Republican alive who can raise more money than Sarah Palin can raise on short notice. There is no Democrat or a Republican alive who has more grass-roots support at this moment in time than Sarah Palin. The Democrats, the media they own, show-biz, celebri-twittery, “professional” Republicans and all of academia are all absolutely terrified of her; she is, as Rush Limbaugh might put it, living rent-free in their heads; they cannot get her out of their tiny little minds.

The Marxocrats will always tell you who they fear the most, by who they attack the most, and that is Sarah Palin, The Great Polarizer. (See the A Palin-Parker Ticket? page.)

Washington’s professional politicos no longer know how to draw a line in the sand; they are all about schmoozing, wheeling and dealing, back scratching and “getting things done.” Rather than solving our problems they have become our main problem. But the people are now shocked, and fully awake, and paying attention, and remembering, and sobering up, and focusing on what’s going on here, and drawing a clear, distinct political line in the sand. Whoever does not get on the right side of that line is gong to get run over. For those politicos who have already revealed by their own actions that they are on the wrong side of the line, it is already too late for them, and it does not matter at all whether they put an R or a D after their name.

I have often been amazed at how many younger people did not know who Karl Marx was or what Marxism is. I have often been astounded at how many Americans, of all ages, see “Liberal” political views and programs as merely another view of equal value to others, rather than as Marxist, anti-American, and aimed at the eventual destruction of America. Indoctrination via public education has done its evil work.

Cursed Unification is the opposite of Blessed Polarization. What the great political unifiers and compromisers of American political history have brought us to is an impossible blending of Americanism and Communism, two ideologies which, like water and oil, repel and oppose each other, and can never combine to make a good bottom-to-top solution. It just doesn’t work. Permit me to make my case.

I invite you to read the American Declaration of Independence for America’s founding principles, and the American Constitution, if you haven’t read them, and to use these links as reference sources for what is to follow. The Constitution spells out our national organization and government, and the rules by which our government operates. It is quite clear.

The things our government may do by law are carefully enumerated and strictly limited by the Constitution. Article 1 Section 1 states that all legislative powers – the power to make law – rests in the Congress and the Congress alone. No one else may make law. The executive branch executes law, and the judicial branch adjudicates law, but only the Congress makes new law. Article 1 Section 8 specifies and limits the bounds of legislation, and sets the boundaries beyond which the Congress cannot legally go in making new law. If it isn’t listed in Article 1 Section 8 then Congress has no legal or Constitutional business addressing it in law, or in taxes, or in the annual budget, or at all.

Thus America has a free citizenry, which is only possible with a limited government. Communism ultimately seeks total government control, which precludes a free citizenry. Water and oil. We cannot “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” unless we are unrestrained by government from doing so. Here, government serves the people, not the other way round.

I submit that the Communist Manifesto is diametrically opposed to, and seeks and intends the destruction of, all of the uniquely American principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Unite States.

I further submit that American professional politicians of both major political Parties have “compromised” with Communist principles at the expense of American principles over a long period of American history, to bring us to this clearly dangerous point.

There have been “upgrades” or “new releases” of Communist theory over time, but it’s all the same old thing. We’ve had the Progressive Movement, and even a Progressive Manifesto; but if you read it, it is the old Communist Manifesto just slightly reworded. It’s the same thing with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s all the same reworked pabulum and it’s all straight out of the old Communist Manifesto. Politicians who tout these destructive principles are known today by the innocent-sounding titles of “Liberals” and “Moderates” and “Progressives” and “Unifiers” and “Compromisers”. But what they are, whether they know it or not, whether they choose to reveal it or not, is Communists. Even the Cloward-Piven strategy is little more than a rewording of the old Hegelian Dialectic we spoke of in the Up From Obamunism page

We currently have a thorough-going Marxist President, and a Marxist-dominated House of Representatives, and a Marxist-dominated Senate. The actual goal of this Marxist regime masquerading as “good Democrats” is to bring the whole of the American system down, and replace it with some sort of a Marxist dictatorship.

Thus, the rise of Blessed Polarization, and the heating up of the Tea.

Evidences.

Public schools and the whole notion of federal government responsibility for education of anyone may not be found in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution. It is not among the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government. We have legislators, executives and justices, but no teachers among the positions and responsibilities enumerated in the federal Constitution. So why does the giant, behemoth, treasure-sucking Department of Education exist? Why are American tax payers paying for an activity that is not an official part of what federal government is constituted to do? Where did this even come from?

”10. Free education for all children in public schools.”
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

Blessed Polarization would put education back into the private sphere where it belongs, beyond the grasping claws of central government. We talked about privatizing public schools in the Socialized Education page. Public school education as it exists here today is more indoctrination than it is education. The more we spend on it the worse it gets. This is a polarizing topic.

States, counties and townships are perfectly free to establish and maintain public schools if their state Constitutions and/or local charters permit it. But the federal government was constituted to be a governing body, not a teaching body. At the federal level, teaching is not the business of executives, legislators or justices; their sole job is to govern as specified and limited by the Constitution.

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would shut down the Dept. of Education and privatize the public schools. Unifiers and Moderates and Compromisers and Liberals and Progressives (and Marxists) would throw more treasure into it and grow it and make it worse, as usual. Elimination would represent an immediate, dramatic, radical cut in government spending. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

Progressive graduated income tax may not be found in Article 1 Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution. It is not among the items enumerated and limited that Congress is to do. So what was the motivation behind the 16th Amendment to authorize Congress to lay taxes on private income? Where did this even come from?

”2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

Blessed Polarization would repeal the 16th Amendment. Note that once control of Congress is wrested from Marxist control, the Constitution can be Amended without the need to call a Constitutional Convention. This would clear the way for implementation of the Fair Tax and put us on the road to economic recovery, and then some. It would eliminate some 70,0000 pages of tax law, eliminate the need to ever file a tax return again, and eliminate another huge, bloated, treasure-sucking government bureaucracy: the IRS (or perhaps 99% of it.)

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would shut down the IRS and enact the Fair Tax. It would go a long way toward elimination of the political pork barrel. Unifiers and Moderates and Compromisers and Liberals and Progressives (and Marxists) would vehemently oppose Fair Tax and continue raising income taxes (and thereby reducing federal revenue,) growing the government and giving themselves raises, as usual. Elimination would represent an immediate, dramatic, radical cut in government spending. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

State suppression of religion in general and Christian religion in particular may not be found in Article 1 Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution. Yet all public displays and public expressions of our religion are either already banned or under legal assault. American citizens are often forced by law to be, appear to be or pretend to be atheist in public. How did this clear religious opposition come to be, and how did a Supreme Court come to the gross miss-interpretation and new, alien re-interpretation of the Second Amendment and invent, out of thin air, the bogus “Constitutional Principle” of Separation of Church and state? This ill-begotten decision had the effect of making new law at the federal level, something the Court is not constituted to do. It remains for a future legislature to overturn it.

The courts and many legislators have since taken up the task of legally secularizing American society, and imposing on the citizenry the religion or religious-belief system of Atheism, even against their will. Where did this hatred of all things Christian, and even all things religious, come from?

”But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

Blessed Polarization remembers and seeks to reinvigorate the religion of America. The entire tradition of America is Christian, from the Founders through the entire history to the present day population, America is and has been overwhelmingly Christian. Representative government, to be truly representative of the Founders and of the population, needs to respect and honor that simple matter of fact.

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would resist the secularization, by the government, of the public square and of the people, and would support and reinforce general Judeo-Christianity, without getting into any specific theologies. The common morality of America, in the time of the founding and in the present day, came out of the Judeo-Christian religion and is reflected in the American Judeo-Christian Ethos. The three branches of government need to strengthen and not hinder that. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

Movement toward pure Democracy at the expense of our unique American Republic, is diametrically opposed to, and destructive of, the American Constitution as written. The classical example of a pure Democracy is the lynch mob. Majority rules, always, in spite of justice, in spite of truth, in spite of anything at all – the majority always rules. This is quite impossible, of course, for any organization larger than one that would fit around a single conference table, and even there you will generally find some rule, such as Robert’s Rules of Order, tempering the proceedings, else you have utter chaos.

For this very practical reason our American “Democracy” is tempered and constrained by having been made a Republic rather than a pure Democracy. Our Senate was designed and intended to be “above politics” and a body of members representing individual states, rather than voters. This would be much akin to how an American Ambassador might represent the USA in a foreign land. We also have “Electors” in each state, forming an Electoral College, who actually elect our federal level executives, in accordance with the rules established by each sovereign state.

So what motivated an earlier Congress to even consider let alone establish the 17th Amendment, turning US Senators into mere politicians no different than the House of Representatives? What motivates many of the highest ranking American politicians today to drive toward the elimination of the Electoral College? Why would they seek to destroy the Republic so carefully designed by the founders and replace it with the utter impossibility of a pure Democracy? Well, we have this to consider:

“ … Now, as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
-- Letter to Joseh Weydemeyer; Jan. 1852; Karl Marx.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
-- ibid.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
-- ibid.

Marx saw everything involving social organization to be reduced to a matter of owning property, or not owning property. Marx, in his weirdness, equated all non-Communist government organization (which means every existing form of government,) of whatever title, to be a Dictatorship of the Bourgeois, which he sought to replace with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And that would be a pure Democracy. Of course, at first, there would be need of some “benign dictator(s)” for a period of time needed for the perfection of the proletariat (workers.) See?

In Marx’s dream situation, all of this would result in all property being collectively held. The relatively uneducated and/or unthinking Marxists of the Useful Idiot variety, and the more knowledgeable and evil Marxists planning a future American dictatorship, will tell you that this would mean Blessed Redistribution of everything, and everybody would be equal and everybody would be happy. That, of course, is false on its face. Everything would be under the control of the dictatorship and the people would all be impoverished. That is the real goal of Marxism today, and all real Marxists know it. In the end, there will be no “redistribution” of anything. Marxism is a path to dictatorship, pure and simple. See The Great Communist Lie page.

European “Social Democracies” are now learning the hard way that extreme Democracy, even just approaching the level of a “dictatorship of the workers” is simply unsustainable. The inevitable result is economic and social collapse, extreme crisis, and – guess what – eventual dictatorship. There is no other way out of the perfect storm of multiple crises eventually brought on by so called Democratic Socialism. European countries such as France are probably already long past the tipping point. Among their many deadly future crises may even arise open warfare with Islam, which may occur with or without invasion or aid from outside. When the money runs out or becomes worthless, the pensions dry up, unemployment is rampant, and there is starvation and blood in the streets, then the people will clamor for a strong dictator to straighten things out, and they will get one.

Here, Blessed Polarization seeks to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the rules originally established in Article 1 Section 3, in which the Senators are selected by the State Legislature of their state, and not by the citizen voters. Blessed Polarization would leave the Electoral College strictly alone and leave the Constitution as designed. And follow it. Today, thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators are now indistinguishable from Representatives, politicking locally, gathering round the Pork Barrel and fully participating in if not instigating all of the Legislative Earmark political nonsense that ought to be made illegal. Senators are supposed to be above local politics, insulated from the voters, somewhat more dignified and above reproach, and beholden to no one other than the State government they are supposed represent.

Senators are not supposed to represent the voters; they are supposed to represent their state. They are thereby supposed to temper our Democracy by having equal Senate legislative power to counter the legislative power of the citizen-representative House. This was intended to prevent large populated states from reducing small populated states to irrelevance, and give smaller states a stronger political voice. It counteracts simple “lynch mob” majority rule.

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would resist reducing our Republic to a mere Democracy, opening us up to either impossible mob rule or, eventually and almost inevitably, dictatorship, because pure Democracy is just as impossible as is Communist Utopia. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

A Federal Reserve, running a bank or running all banks, controlling the economy, setting interest rates, “saving” financial institutions, etc., may not be found in Article 1 Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution. Nor is the government authorized to create any banking cartel, protect any bank, control any lending, or to try to control any boom – bust economic cycles, or any of the things we have seen our government do since 1913. The Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to maintain a stable money supply, keep the nation’s books in order and protect the nations treasure. That’s it.

Today, under Obamunism, the government takeover of the nations financial institutions, rules and operations have gone on steroids. The federal government owns previously private financial houses, controls all student loans, controls virtually the entire mortgages industry, has squandered untold billions of supposedly “bail out” funds into any variety of slush funds, and the process of gaining absolute economic control continues unabated. But the question arises, where did the unconstitutional notion of federal government involvement in banking come from in the first place? From Marx.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

Blessed Polarization would repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and shut down the Fed. Private banking is not the business of the government. Controlling the economy is not the business of the government. Saving failing financial institutions is not the business of the government.

There is no such thing as a financial institution or a private business entity that is “too big to fail.” Never was; never will be. No bankruptcy or other failure of any private enterprise is the responsibility of the innocent American tax payer, and American treasure should not be expended to bail out any business. Government has no proper business interfering with private business, and no private enterprise or cartel of them has any business controlling American national treasure in any way. Any bank that holds American national treasure has a fiduciary responsibility to protect those funds the same as similar funds of any private or public customer of the bank.

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would repeal the Fed Reserve Act of 1913 and undo the entanglements between the government and the financial industry created by Obamunism. This means privatizing those institutions that have already been nationalized in a very sneaky and underhanded way. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

Government support of Labor Unions, and government involvement in achieving the goals of organized labor is not what the federal government was constituted to do. Government involvement in Big Labor is about as ethical as government involvement in Big Business, which is, not ethical at all. The legal establishment of “closed-shop” rules in which employees are forced to join unions and pay dues in order to work may not be found in Article 1 Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution. Today we see unions paying American politicians and American politicians legalizing and promoting the advance and growth of massive cross-company and even cross-industry unionism. Even international unionism. The Democrat Party promotes class warfare and publicly advertises itself to be “for the working man” and demonizes the Republican Party, and all other opposition, as being “for the rich.”

Promoting big labor unions and supporting union organization is not the job of the government; it is not what government is constituted to do. So where did all of this positive treatment of the notion of organized / unionized labor come from?

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
-- Ibid.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
-- Ibid.

Note:
Proletarian = Worker or Laborer.
Proletariat = Working Class.
Bourgeois = Owner of Property.
Bourgeoisie = Propertied Class.

Since 1848, the cry “WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!” has been the rabble-rousing call of the downtrodden to violent, bloody revolution. It has also become the main theme and driving purpose of America’s Democrat Party, and that is not just a fantastic coincidence. Take a good, long, hard look at every major labor union operating in America, and at its relationship to the Democrat Party and with individual Democrat politicians.

You will look long and hard to find any organized union that is of the “one shop union” variety. They are all national, or international. It’s the same union in all three car companies. There is only one union for all the dock workers; there is only one union for all the steel workers; etc., etc., etc. Labor and gang wars have been fought to bring it to what it is today; you will start a new union only at your own grave personal risk. We addressed some of this in the Against Unions page. To see where it all ultimately ends, see the Solzhenitsyn Speaks! article in which the renowned Russian author and survivor of the gulag addresses the AFL-CIO.

Why should any worker be at cross-purposes with his employer? Think about it: how does increasing the taxes, increasing restrictive business regulations, otherwise reducing the income or increasing the expenses of your employer do you any good as an employee? If it prods your employer toward going out of business, does it not also prod you toward unemployment? What does a $40 per hour pay rate for an American auto worker do to the price of an American car as compared to the price of an Asian car? Do you not think that the product or service that your employer produces should be competitively priced in a competitive open market?

The whole shebang is one more growing crisis among others driving America herself toward failure and economic meltdown. Unions, Democrats and other Marxists seek and intend to promote class warfare and to plant, fertilize and grow total animosity between employers and employees, and keep them at odds with each other.

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would repeal all legislation forcing union membership on any would-be employee as a violation of the free ability to seek gainful employment. No one should have to join a union and pay dues against his will. We should pass new legislation invalidating and abrogating existing government labor contracts with any unions, and not recognize unions representing any government employees. Our government is not constituted for the purpose of providing employment. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

Government control of national borders is now in the forefront of citizen consciousness, because the sitting government is clearly quite determined to leave the borders open and to grant amnesty, immediate citizenship and voter registration to all who enter illegally. How did it ever come to be that the entire Democrat Party and so many RINO Republicans and others came to be in favor of such an obvious policy of national suicide? How is it that the United Nations has now declared illegal entry into the United States of America, by anyone, from anywhere, to be a basic Human Right? And why does the world single out America alone for this brand new invented human right? Where did this incredibly stupid idea even originate, and how did it ever gain so much support, even in America herself?

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

It just doesn’t get any dumber than this. Obviously, Marx was absolutely stupid, but he was well spoken, and that made his stupidity infectious, and it became an intellectual plague among sophists, world wide. Just look at current Democrat plans for what they call “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

A line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would

1. secure American borders with all military and local civil force and means necessary;
2. rigidly enforce existing immigration, entry and exit laws;
3. find and arrest all illegal aliens, creating internment camps as needed;
4. identify and prosecute all employers and all who aid and abet illegal aliens;
5. permanently close down all businesses involved in illegal trafficking, employment and protection and confiscate all business land, property and assets for public auction.

The line in the sand could not be more clear. The elimination of meaningful borders is the elimination of national sovereignty. There is nothing complicated about this very simple black and white issue. There is no nation on earth that does not have borders and laws concerning the crossing of borders. America has got to be among the most, if not the most, lenient of all nations in this regard. There is nothing difficult about coming into America legally, and there never was. Thousands do it every single day. But there are people out there who want us all converted, enslaved or dead, and we have quite enough of that sort already entering by legal means. We need to modify the 14th Amendment Section 1 clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

to be reworded as follows:

All persons born to American parents, or naturalized, in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

to end the practice of illegal entry of pregnant women for the purpose of using the citizenship of the child to be born for special immigrant privileges later. Other laws need to be tightened up to prevent Moslem men from taking advantage of new American wives by dominating them into sponsoring non-American and anti-American entry and continued presence in America. This is just one of the many purposeful invented crises intended to drive America into failure and even out of existence as a nation to serve the purposes of Marxist ideology. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

State control of any news media flies in the face of the American Constitution. News of any nature at all, but particularly including political promotions or political attacks in public media, absolutely must be not only completely separate from, but completely independent of, any level of the government. That’s the whole purpose behind freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Of the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment, I submit that Speech and Press are the two most dangerous to Marxism and the most imperative to the continued existence of Constitutional America. Laws or regulations establishing rules of “Political Correctness” and of “Hate Speech” are direct open assaults on the First Amendment. These notions originate with and gain sustenance from Marxist ideologues intent on creating and growing class warfare and setting people against each other. There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 about any form of news media. We have legislators, executives and justices, but we have no news anchors or editors or publishers listed there. So where did the idea that government ought to have any say whatsoever about what kind of news is available to the public come from?

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
-- Communist Manifesto; 1848, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles.

Under Marxism, we would not be allowed to so much as talk to each other, let alone publish anything, without Big Brother approving of what is said. I have documented the clear Marxist domination of the main stream media, which I have dubbed the SLIMC¹ , in several pages on this site, including: The Vietnam War
SLIMC Versus the Truth
Bush Lied, People Died
Mainstream Media Lies and Liars
Ted Lie Redux
Old Traitors Never Die
and I’m sure many other places in this Website. Marxist ideologues have dominated the SLIMC¹ for many, many decades now. We have seen that Marxist ideology predominates in public (government) education, in upper academia, in show-biz and among popular celebrities. But now we come full circle, because for the first time, Marxist ideologues absolutely dominate American government itself. There is now a near perfect synergy between Marxist thought in the highest levels of government and the highest levels of the SLIMC¹ , to the point that we must wonder which came first and which is on top and giving the orders. I had always feared that Marxist ideology would first take over the government and from there take over the news media, but it appears to have happened the other way round. Make no mistake about this: the major news media can make or break any political candidate for any political office.

Yet another line is drawn in the sand here. On which side do you stand? Blessed Polarization would clearly and publicly identify the Marxist anti-American sentiments of the major networks, publications, internet locations and other public spokesmen for what they are, and let the people know about them. This can only happen after a political victory on November 2, 2010, in which the legislature, or most of it, is snatched back from the jaws of Marxism. Everything we are talking about here is clearly outlined in the Constitution, and the Marxist position opposes the Constitution in every single instance. You must choose which side of the line to be on, whether the Marxist side or the pro-American side.

All I can say about that at this time is, thank God above for conservative talk radio and Fox News, for if not for them, the people still would not know. As much as I have criticized Fox for airing Marxist views as if they had any validity as “counterpoint” to Constitutional Americanism, the Tea Party awakening might not have occurred on the scale it did if not for them. They are as close to a conservative voice as you are going to see on TV today.

Talk radio caused the Great Tea Party Awakening, and the Tea Party furor quite possibly killed any successful attempt by Comrade Obama to forcefully ascend to pure dictatorship over America. Although I believe he is ruthless enough to still make the attempt, if he does, he will ultimately fail, for the element of surprise is now long gone and the whole citizenry is now wide awake and angry. The best thing that may come out of all of this economic and social tragedy is that, 1, at this point, any attempt at forceful “revolution” toward dictatorship is now destined to fail, and 2, talk radio and Fox News may well have sounded the death knell for the thoroughly Marxist SLIMC¹ domination of American journalism, or even its survival as a competitive business entity.

What could be more important, just as one example, than the right to life itself? The right to life is not merely a Catholic issue. It is not just an Orthodox Christian issue. It is not only a Protestant issue. It is not solely a Jewish issue.

It is an American issue. It is in the Declaration of Independence.

I submit that opposition to the right to life is an un-American activity.

And yet we have ongoing intellectual discourse going on among the leading popular sophists from every discipline and school arguing and pontificating and seeking to determine the beginning point of human life itself, in the womb. Justices, judges, attorneys, politicians, political office holders, doctors, scientists and, of course, abortionists, all put in their two-cents worth and actually make laws or regulations or legal precedents regarding the beginning point and the “viability” point of human life. Proving their own stupidity, for all the world to see.

Life for any unit of any species does not ever begin; it continues. It is transmitted. The sperm cell was alive and identifiably human through its DNA. The egg cell was alive and identifiably human through its DNA. When the sperm and the egg unite to form the zygote, the zygote is alive and identifiably human through its DNA. Yet overeducated idiots will argue interminably over precisely when this “gob of tissue” might be considered alive, as opposed to dead, and when it might be considered human, as opposed to a cabbage or something.

Perhaps some champion of abortion might step forward and give us a little biology lesson regarding precisely what it is that is exponentially cell-dividing and growing in the womb of a pregnant woman. If it is not alive, we might wonder at the ongoing rapid development. And, if it is not human, then exactly what is it? It’s not a particularly good place to grow tomatoes, is it. So someone needs to tell us what it is if it is not human, and how it could be dead, and how, if it is not alive, and/or it is not human, how it could be a human pregnancy, and if it’s not a human pregnancy, then exactly why there might be the need of an abortion. Perhaps a miracle happens, and something that was dead becomes alive. Or something that was not human goes poof and becomes human.

These evil people are blowing smoke; they know exactly what they champion.

See the Abortion in America page, and the Refuting Pro-Choice page.

The Pro-Sodomy argument is equally stupid. The true but unspoken agenda is to move us from being a Christian people to establishing a new Sodom and Gomorrah right here in America. If there is a bigger plank in the Democrat Party platform than the unlimited abortion plank, it is the plank that promotes free and open public faggotry in America. It teaches that homosexuality is normal, in the face of simple arithmetic; that it is natural, in the face of elementary biology; that it is healthy, in the face of horrific morbidity and mortality statistics; that all detractors are mentally ill with “homophobia”; and, of course, that there is no such mental illness as heterophobia.

The latest push is to follow through on the Clinton’s failed effort to homosexualize the American military. All good Democrats want open homosexuals serving right in there with all the heterosexual servicemen, to teach them all greater tolerance of the other or something. Democrats and other Marxists are powerfully aided in this effort by the it’s no skin off my nose attitude typical of the Libertarians and the disgustingly indifferent and lukewarm Americans.

And they are right, of course; it is no skin off their nose, so long as they do not serve. It’s no skin off their nose if any heterosexual serviceman has to take a shower with an open homosexual, or a gang of them, or if he has to spend weeks or months in the field sleeping in a two-man pup tent with a real public flamer. As long as it doesn’t affect the Libertarian personally, it’s fine with him. Public faggotry is now on open public display in American show-biz and celebrity, so it should be on open public display everywhere else in American society, too. Even in Churches.

Perhaps if that Marine recruiting sergeant didn’t look so severe, but softened his look with a little lip color and a little eye shadow, and maybe some very discreet but cute little earrings, he could help make the corpse more inviting to the whole community, and over time the Few and the Proud might become the Few and the Prancing. Right?

This is aimed at the destruction of military unit cohesion. Period.

See the Homo-Nazi Movement page, and the Open Homosexuality Argument page.

It was Unifiers and not Polarizers who brought us to this precipitous point in our American history. Well meaning but spiritually and morally weak people were bamboozled by slick and well practiced liars. The process has created the phony but deceptive political position of the “fiscal Conservative but social Liberal” to go along with the “fiscal Liberal but social Conservative”, and these positions are supposed to be somehow wise and well thought-out, and able to compromise with each other, and therefore in the best position to govern well. That’s bull. Both Presidents Bush were social Conservatives but fiscal Liberals; what did that get us? Jiminy Carter, Marxist to the core, was Liberal on both sides; what did that get us? Billary Clinton, another Marxist, was forced by an opposition Congress to become more of a fiscal Conservative, but remained a social Liberal; what did that get us?

The people now running the show in Washington are the aging, dope-smoking libertines and Hippie freaks who came out of the Woodstock generation. They are the Communist revolutionaries who brought us the Sexual Revolution and worked to destroy American morality and remake American society in a new image. They spat on servicemen, burned American flags, bras and draft cards, demonstrated with sit-ins, screw-ins and take-overs, burned, bombed and openly attacked authority, and generally stayed buzzed. These are the people who are now in charge of us. They rule the American college campus, and they intend to rule the rest of us. Among them are experience bombers, terrorists and assassins.

There is one thing all of America’s true “top dog” Marxists have in common. The ranking public office holders, like Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Carter, Clinton and Obama; and all the many private sector big-shots, like Armand Hammer, Walter Cronkite, George Soros, Chris Mathews, etc., all share this one common thing. Whenever and however the new version of Marxism might take charge of America, none of them ever had any intention of getting their hands dirty working alongside the rest of us in any farm commune, factory collective or any other type of labor camp. They intended to either be the dictator, or to be high up in the insulated and well-off close inner circle of the dictator, and separate from us peons.

They intended to be the ones nodding in agreement with each other and saying that “The ends justify the means.” They would watch us all being transported off to some labor commune or other, and saying “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Their lower subordinates would be the ones telling the rest of us to “Shut up and get on the cattle car.”

”If we loose freedom here there is no place else to go. This is the last stand on earth.
-- Ronald Reagan.

If America were taken out of the picture, who would stand between Europe and a reconstituted and resurgent Soviet Union bent on military conquest?

No one.

There is nothing in the platform of the Democrat Party on which to compromise, or even on which to peacefully agree to disagree.

• Not the Democrat program of religious-cleansing and secularizing of the public square, and us.
• Not the Democrat program of promoting racism and racial division through “equal opportunity” or “affirmative action” or “minority set-asides” strictly racial selective special treatment.
• Not the Democrat program of normalizing and championing open public homosexuality, and legally forcing open homosexuality on military service.
• Not the Democrat program of promoting, sponsoring, championing and legal protection for abortion, infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia.
• Not the Democrat program of establishment and vast expansion of welfare, food-stamps and other inducements to never seek gainful employment.
• Not the Democrat program of paying people to not go to work through unemployment “benefits,” and the repeated extension of payment periods into perpetuity.
• Not any other Democrat program of making or training otherwise independent people into dependants of the state.
• Not the Democrat program of establishing minimum pay limits, maximum pay caps and limitations on bonuses paid in private industry.
• Not the Democrat program of legalizing dope.
• Not the Democrat program of gun control.
• Not the Democrat program of bailing-out any private business.
• Not the Democrat program of taking control of any private business.
• Not the Democrat program of controlling banking and finance for everyone.
• Not the Democrat program of firing executives of private enterprises, hiring other executives, and directing the business of any private enterprise.
• Not the Democrat program of extorting or commandeering monies or assets of any private enterprise without due process of law and using it to reward political supporters.

There is nothing in the Democrat Party platform that anyone with any brains at all should want to compromise with. The Democrat Party went Marxist a long, long time ago. You can call your Democrat friends “Liberal” all you want to; the planks in the Democrat platform are all destructive of the American Ideal; they all oppose the Declaration and the Constitution in some way.

We need our new representatives to repeal Obamacare and other Obamanations, if they can; they need to keep submitting repeal legislation and letting him vetoe it, again and again and again, reading the most egregious and un-Constitutional parts of it aloud for the record with each attempt. But that ain’t all, as you can see by what we’ve talked about here. Obama is just the most die-hard and ruthless of the Marxists ever to get into office here. But Marxism has been marching in the halls of Congress since before Obama was born, and it all needs to be undone if Constitutional America is to survive.

We need to take on Islam before it gets any more of a foothold here. Currently the best of talk radio is upset about the words of another “radical Imam” who called for the destruction of Israel, or the death of the Jews, or something. But what they don’t recognize is that there is nothing radical about any Moslem calling for the destruction of Israel or the death of the Jews, or even the death of all of us. That’s not radical; it’s just Islam. There is nothing that Imam – or the Blind Sheik, or Osama Bin Ladin, or Sheik Omar, or any other Moslem – said that is not in full accord with the Koran and the irreformable word of Allah. That is not going to change until the Koran is changed or done away with. Don’t hold your breath.

Islam, like Marxism, follows the Machiavellian dictum “The ends justify the means.” That means Islam will use any means at all to achieve domination of the world, including boldly lying right in your face. “Islam is a religion of peace” is just a flagrant categorical lie. We have noted that all Marxists are MEJTML¹⁴ s, and we have also noted that all true Moslems are s. We talked about this in the Tolerating Intolerance page, and the the Last Barbarians page, and the Outlaw Marxism page, and the Outlaw Islam page, among other places.

If Islam succeeds here, it will be because of it’s second strategy rather than the first and more obvious one. The first one, the one that has everybody’s attention, is terrorism and acts of “Jihad” against us, whether home-grown, foreign, individual, group, random, planned, organized or disorganized. That’s what we’re all looking at and worrying about and defending against.

The second strategy is to get in among us, and very gradually take ground. Note the enclaves and the new mosques, and the slowly changing attitudes of the worshippers in and around the mosques. It will start with “spill-over” crowds for prayer services at a mosque, where many of the participants wind up out in the street doing their prayers. It’s already happening in New York City. Eventually, the crowd of praying Moslems will block the sidewalks and even the streets for the duration of the prayer, and this will happen five times daily.

It will come to a point where they will dare you – they will dare you – to interrupt their community prayers by trying to navigate the sidewalk or the street and go about your business. There will then be flashes of violence and howling demonstrations against the intolerance and insensitivity of it all. After some successful actions like this, the whole area will gradually become Dar Al Islam, the domain of submission, meaning Moslem territory, where sharia law rules. And we will not regain sovereignty over that piece of ground without shedding blood. And it will grow. Ask the French about it.

How many Scripture verses tell us to turn back to God, repent and be saved? How many times must we be told how to get right with God? If we turn to Him in repentance and commitment, He will become our safeguard and He will fight for us. He will be our God and we will be His People. He said so. I’m telling you, America is not going anywhere worth going without God. Before we have any hope of turning our nation around we have got to turn ourselves around.

Any citizen who calls himself a fiscal Conservative but a social Liberal is a half-assed American. And if he claims to be any kind of Christian or any kind of Jew then he is a half-assed follower of his own religion. Religion comes first, not last.

Each of us needs to choose which side of the dividing line on which to stand. Right now.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

SLIMC¹ Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT² Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG³ Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild-Assed Guess
TTRSTF⁴ Them There Real Scientifical-Type Fellers
TTRSPTF⁵ Them There Real Smart Perfesser-Type Fellers
TTRSJTF⁶ Them There Real Smart Journalistical-Type Fellers
SNRTACBT⁷ Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB⁸ Surely Today No Serious Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN⁹ We Don't Know
BMDFP¹⁰ Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs and ...
HBAACOTE¹¹ Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU¹² Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF¹³ Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML¹⁴ Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML¹⁵ Islamic Ends-Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV¹⁶ Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG¹⁷ Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM¹⁸ The Reason Man's In This Mess
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder
HEJTML²⁶ Hedonist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
SEJTML²⁷ Scientistic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date: Sat Oct 30 06:57:21 2001
From: Laura
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Vic, you might be based in truth, but you go too far in what you say. All who opposed the Vietnam War were not Communists. Many were simply opposed to what they saw as an illegal war and some simply opposed it in support of peace, which is not a bad reason. All Democrats are not Communists. You cannot outlaw a whole religion and you cannot encourage intolerance of all Muslims without distinction. (I never heard of any prayer services blocking NY streets; where did you get that from?) Nor can you cut out every major government department all at once without causing huge social disruption. You are being more radical and more un-democratic than the ones you accuse of being Marxists.

---

Date: Day Sun Oct 31 18:29:23 2001
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Laura:

First, re Marxism, the Vietnam War was an act of Communist aggression imposed upon a sovereign nation (South Vietnam) by Communist North Vietnam under the direction of the Russian citizen and Communist agent Ho Chi Minh, and that aggression is what American, Australian, South Korean and other forces were there to resist. The Peaceniks were indoctrinated pawns, who didn’t even know they were being duped. These quotes are pulled from the Fatal False Premise page; here is where the so-called Peace Movement began:

"The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begin by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends." – Professor Manulilsky, Soviet School of Political Warfare

"It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.'' – Rykov (Council of Soviet Commissars.)

"First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." … "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution" ... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence" ... "It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.'' – Vladimir Lenin.

How do you suppose it ever came to be that so many of the aficionados of such a murderous and calamitous ideology as Marxism never even read, or if they did read, they never really believed, what the very authors and real life practitioners of this destructive, murderous and calamitous ideology say about it, and how they describe it and order it to be practiced? There are none so blind as they who will not see.

In old time Marxian language, the Communists seek to create and feed class animosity between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. In Modern Democrat Party language, the Democrats seek to create and feed class animosity between the Working Man and The Rich. I submit that there is absolutely no difference between the old time Marxists and today’s Democrats.

Second, re Islam, what I seek to outlaw is not a mere religion, but a belligerent theocracy bent on world conquest, and that has America in its gun sights. I cannot differentiate between “decent” Moslems of the useful-idiot variety from the insidious committed jihadists with their treacherous smiling faces, and neither can you. So long as the Koran tells them to make war on unbelievers until all submit or are dead, it might behoove us all to pay attention to the threat it presents to us, to Israel and to the whole world.

The following are some pictures of Moslems praying and blocking the streets of New York City, starting small, just as they did in many European and British cities.

Aren’t those nice, peaceful, prayerful scenes? Over time, we may expect these street-blocking sessions to grow, in size, in length of time, in frequency, and to hit a point where it is almost continuous. Then, the first time someone has the unmitigated temerity to try to use the sidewalk or the street to go about their daily business, the following is what we may expect, as has already happened in Europe and in Britain. Note the English on the demonstration signs.

Now, isn’t that the most peaceful, warm, friendly, tolerant, loving and welcoming religion you ever saw? How would you like one of these neighborly people to baby sit the kids? Do you suppose it might be nice to attend coffee klatch with them in the mosque basement after services?

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Mon Dec 13 11:48:32 2010
From: Rudy
Email:
Location:
Comment:

I take exception to your loose use of terminology such as the “thoroughly Communized Democrat Party”. My brothers and I represent the third generation of a Democrat family, and no member of our family was ever a Communist. If you so grossly exaggerate this point, why should anyone believe anything else you say?

---

Date: Mon Dec 13 18:47:34 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Rudy:

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

There is no exaggeration here; if anything, I am over-generous to the Democrat positions. They are clearly and specifically Communist in their overall makeup.

Try this. Take the Democrat Party platform, and reduce it to a list of simple bullet-points, and write them on an untitled sheet of paper. Then, take the Communist Manifesto, reduce it to a list of simple bullet points, and write them on a separate untitled sheet of paper. Change Marx’s use of terms like Bourgeois and Bourgeoisie and Exploiters to terms like the rich, and/or the wealthiest Americans, and/or millionaires and billionaires. Change Marx’s use of terms like Proletariat and Proletarian and Exploited to terms like the poor, and/or the working class, and/or the disenfranchised, and/or the minorities.

Then, show both untitled papers to a disinterested objective observer and ask him to identify which one is Marx’s great manifesto, and which one is the American Democrat Party platform.

I submit that the distinction will be very difficult to make.

Regards,

Vic

---

Note:

Saturday, November 03, 2012

As part of the ongoing effort to upgrade this whole website, upgraded this webpage to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release and to make use of the new reusable code features.
An earlier phase of this major conversion corrupted or adversely affected some fonts, alignments, quotes and tables in the previously published webpages. Not to worry; this phase is converting them all, one by one. Eventually, every webpage on this site will have the same look and feel as this one.
LOVE this new release!

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Sat Nov 03 12:40:11 2012
From: servant_of_the_most_high
Email: dshupert@satx.rr.com
Location: San Antonio, TX
Comment:

Just read your Blessed Polarization! (well...MOST of it!) WOW! Awesome, brother! I don't even know where to begin, but you are SO right on on SO many (if not every) points! If just 10% of Americans understood half of what you said in that ONE article, I have no doubt we would be a different nation! I found your site after doing a Google search on Democratic Party Platform versus the Communist Manifesto and think I struck a gold mine with your site! I will be reading more and passing your URL around! God bless you and your family and may He protect you and continue to "anoint" you to proclaim the Truth!

---

Date: Sat Nov 03 15:32:48 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Servant:

Thank you very much, and welcome aboard.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:   Sun Jul 27 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 

Regards,

Vic

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material