My Sister-in-Law Steve

My son Bob is in love, and wants to marry his boyfriend, Steve.  What’s wrong with that, I say?  Why can’t two people who love each other become man and wife?  But then, which of them would be the “man,” and which would become the wife? 

So I asked them, and it turns out that Bob will be the “husband” and Steve will become his blushing bride.  That will make Steve my granddaughter’s aunt and also the sister-in-law of my sister’s daughter Sue.  Heather, who has two mommies and is the wife of my other son, Bill, will also have Steve for a sister-in-law.  At the same time, Steve will be the mother of my grandchildren if by some strange miracle there are any, and the step-mother of my ex-wife’s son if she is willing to grant custody to me.  Looking to the previous generation, when my mother speaks of her grandson’s wife she will be referring to Steve, who will also be the grand-daughter-in-law of my father.  Finally, Steve will be the niece of his mother’s brother Joe.  Fortunately we have a small family.

Confused?  Of course you are.  That is the whole point.  Once we re-define “marriage” all of the other terms we use to describe familial relationships will become equivocal, and eventually obsolete.  And along with them will go all the ancient courtesies and symbols which render a family sacred.  Liberals hate the family because it is a pillar—actually, the most essential pillar—of Western (Christian) Civilization.  And the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are liberal.  A “family” once meant a certain institution that was foundational to society.  Now it means any group of people.  A marriage, if liberals get their way again, will soon mean the very same thing.  (Contemplate, for example, what a “prison marriage” would be.) 

But marriages and families are not arbitrary associations.  They exist in all surviving societies for the same essential reason, and that is because they are necessary for the production of new citizens and the transmission of the culture which, under the pressure of entropy, is never more than one generation away from chaos.  A populace can produce new biologically-human life forms without marriage, as long as it can afford to hire additional prison guards.  And it can pass on pop culture, for what that’s worth, without families of the traditional sort, provided the antibiotics continue to work.  But the creation of civic minded individuals with the traits of character and skills to maintain Western Civilization takes something more.  It takes the long term commitment of what homosexuals call “breeders,” men and women who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the development of their progeny and the good of society.   It takes marriages and families properly defined.

Remember when there used to be firemen?  That was a perfectly good word for the job before radical feminism came along.  Now the term is “sexist.”  But because “firewoman” was awkward and did not carry the same comforting tone of reassurance, we opted for the self-congratulatory “fire-fighter” instead.  “Waiter” and “waitress” were also deemed sexist, and so in their place we defaulted to “server” in spite of that term’s menial flavor.  (“Servant” was already taken.)  Next time you buy a shirt the man or woman who sells it to you will be a “sales person,” because “salesman” is sexist and “saleswoman” is offensive to the radical feminists who, as you may have noticed, are no longer anywhere to be seen except when abortion needs taxpayer funding.

If we allow marriage to be re-defined, rest assured that all the terms by which we define other family relationships will immediately come under attack.  Steve wants society to define his relationship with Bob as a marriage, but when I suggested that that would make him Bob’s wife and my daughter-in-law, he balked.  “It’s bad enough being called a fairy,” he scolded.  “It would be, like,  totally unfair to allow people to call me a woman or a girl.”  Stevie was comforted by the assurance that the law would never allow that.  And she was right.  To call a man a “woman” on the job, unless of course he wanted to be called a woman, would merely be sexual harassment.  At worst it might result in the loss of your job.  But to do so on the street would be a “hate crime” against a GOLTGI OPOP (Gay or Lesbian Transgendered Individual or Pet of Preference).    Obviously, once marriage is re-defined along these lines a whole host of new statutes will be required to prevent anyone’s being offended on account of his (or should I say “her”) marital status.  Bob suggested he and Steve might both be called “spouses.”  I thanked him for his contribution to linguistic clarity as I headed in to try on my bridesmaid dress.  “I’ve heard of donkey acts in Tijuana,” I mused to myself, “ that will require a whole new relational terminology.”  But I caught myself up short with the realization that such a perspective might deflate the joy of Steve and Bob’s wedding.

So go ahead if you want to!  Re-define marriage!  But don’t come crying to me when you no longer have any idea what to call the woman who keeps house with the daughter of your brother’s ex wife.  I saw this whole thing coming way back when the word “queer” was still a euphemism, when “gay” meant “happy,” and when Liberace was the only homosexual most people knew of who didn’t live in a Greyhound Bus station.  I once shared that careless thought with Curtis down at the perfume bar.  His wife, Fred, was deeply insulted.  But if I am a homophobe as some have claimed me to be, then I was born that way.  So deal with it!  Anyway, I still don’t see why everyone was so offended when I refused to shave my chest for the reception, though being told how much sexier that would make me was certainly a tempting enticement.  But no thanks!   Anyway, I’m afraid I can’t help much with the family identity problem unless you want to call all of your relatives “comrade” like the French did after their revolution.  Come to think of it, why don’t we all start practicing right now!

Chuck Norris: Stalin-style U.S. public education


Chuck Norris observations- Sets forth some interesting facts concerning the massive amounts that monopoly government employee unions ‘invest” in campaigns to elect “union friendly” legislators. Corrupt? What do you think?

Top Ten Lobbying Groups in Wisconsin..

1. Wisconsin Education Association, 7,239 hours, $1,511,272
2. Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, 1,427 hours, $777,430
3. Forest County Potawatomi Community, 1,492 hours, $756,512
4. Altria Client Services Inc., 1,321 hours, $755,733
5. Wisconsin Hospital Association, 5,126, $605,033
6. Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, 1,379, $560,544
7. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, 4,967 hours, $508,023
8. RAI Services Company (formerly Reynolds American Inc.), 186 hours, $466,253
9. Wisconsin Independent Businesses Inc., 7,939 hours, $458,414
10. Wisconsin Energy Corporation, 1,547 hours, $387,222.

The Wisconsin Education Association leads the pack of lobbyists compared to its closest lobbying competitor with twice as much spending ($1.5 million) and five times the amount of advocate hours (7,239 hours) in pursuit to buy, bribe and bamboozle legislators to do as it wants.

What also chaps my hide is that a gigantic chunk of the WEA’s gangster monies and time is used to lobby against alternative choices in schools (including charter schools) and against tuition tax credit programs that aid parents to send their children to private schools.

‘The Plan’ – Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty


Now you know the agenda for Clackamas County Commissioner chair Lynn Peterson’s appointment by the Governor to advise on “Sustainable” initiatives… Essentially communist inspired control and further movement towards massive central control via United Nations. Do your own homework..

Hundreds of Wisconsin Cops Take Sides With Leftist Protesters Inside Capitol Building | The Blaze

Well isn’t he interesting. He’s decided it’s HIS job to not only pack a gun as he should, being a policeman, but not stopping at that, he now is encouraging thugs to use force against the lawfully elected Governor and interfering with the peoples business.  How did he jump from being policeman to judge, jury, executioner, legislator.. and Public Union flunky as soon as his shift was over?

Fire him now… he cannot uphold the trust he was formerly entrusted with. This is exactly why public employee unions are a gigantic mistake.

“1 Vs. 100” Tea Partier defends himself against Union Members (Videos) – Truth About Bills

1 Vs. 100 Tea Partier defends himself against Union Members (Videos)

  posted 16 hours agoFeb 27, 2011 12:22 AM by Michael Simpkins   [ updated 15 hours agoFeb 27, 2011 12:39 AM ]

    Yesterday protests were held in every State Capitol. Union Members with the organization of rallied together to protest what has been going on in the State of Wisconsin. Even more so to protest the decisions of Governor Scott Walker. However, there were a few brave Tea Party Members who were there to show their support of the Tea Party movement. In Particular one Tea Party member took on a crowd of union members in their arguments. During the fierce debate Elliot remained calm and collected. While the union members would drown out Elliot as he spoke, Elliot would give each and every union member the chance to speak and try to refute his arguments for the Tea Party. Throughout much of our video the union members resorted to chants, language and name calling when they were unable to come up with a valid argument for the BRAVE Tea Partier. We here at Truth About Bills applaud Elliot for his charisma during the heated argument. We hope that one day the union members can take a page out of Elliot’s book and have a real discussion. Below you will find two videos of Elliot as he took on the union members.


Union Members Gang up on a Tea Partier



Union Members Gang up on a Tea Partier – Part 2



This is a very instructive example of the differences between thoughtful argument vs. brute force. The would be bullies are defenseless.. essentially disarmed.

Roots of American Cultural and Community Destruction – AFP Clackamas

This testimony was delivered to Congress in 2003.  Today, America is still under assault- but now we are also under the assault of Sharia – Some describe it as Islamic Cultural Jihad…This article doesn’t address that issue.  


Statement of Bill Wood

FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003


A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.


Roots of the American Culture and Community in disarray

Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges,  and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY.  And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting!  In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history.


When Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table and declared, ‘We shall destroy you from within’ during the infamous “Kitchen Debate” – he knew what he was talking about.

[Comparing the culture of the 50’s to that of 1998] violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared – from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide – a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 – serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%…

Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years.” [1]

While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family.  A myriad of today’s social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage.  Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today’s culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:


·         US House Testimony on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals, H.R. 4090.  April 11, 2002, 109 citations or references – consequences of welfare practices on the family unit, and exploration of the 1996 welfare reform bill’s requirements for strengthening families and marriage (…)

·         US House Testimony on Teen Pregnancy prevention PRWORA, Public Law 104-193 (Hearing 107-48). November 15, 2001, 43 citations and references —   effects of fatherlessness and divorce on teen pregnancy. (…)

·         US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38).  June 28, 2001, 83 citations or references – Social consequences of failed divorce and child custody policies (…) — Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.

·         US House Testimony on The “Hyde-Woolsey” child support bill, HR 1488 (Hearing 106-107, pages 94-103).  March 16, 2000, 75 Citations. – Concerning problems with nearly every state’s child support guidelines.  


Along with this testimony, I have written legal briefs for the Federal District Court on the unconstitutionality of Ohio’s custody laws, a legal brief opposing psychology in the courtroom, and am developing an extensive historical review of the rise of our current “family” law system.  During several years of research, a disturbing common thread continues to appear, tracing it back to its origins, it led to one Antonio Gramsci.


the personal is the political

In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia.  While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture.  His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.  

Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time.  His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy.  His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people.  Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth.  His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.


“… Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies.  These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc.” [2]


Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world.  A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.


Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law.  In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture.  This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.


Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple… Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.”  He repackaged Marxism in terms of a… “cultural war”…  

“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.  To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy… to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children.  It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny.  Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists.  They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.”

…[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools…  As deputy commissioner in Hungary… his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools… it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family.  Hungarian children learned… free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure.  Children were urged to deride and ignore… parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.  If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public… schools.

…Under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans.  The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace.  

Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States…  He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed.  “Make love, not war!” was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America.  His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture.  By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the… young of America…  

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society.  They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution.  If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women?  The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye… Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex.  Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [3]

Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today’s “feminist” movement.[4]  Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation.  Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure.  And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.

America’s socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family.  Socialists have openly adopted the “counter hegemony” taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture.  “[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state…  When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.” [5]  This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today.  As noted by William Gregg in the New American:


Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:

• “The visible impact of feminism.”

• “The effects of affirmative action.”

• “The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media.”

• “The acceptance of cultural pluralism.”

• “The transformation of family life,” including “rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media.”

• “The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on.”

• “The virtual abolition of capital punishment.”

• “The legalization of abortion.”

• “The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns.”

Significantly, Walzer admitted… these victories were imposed upon our society by “liberal elites,” rather than… “by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party.”  These changes “reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large,” noted Walzer…  [T]he left focused on “winning the Gramscian war of position.”

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] “the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man’s consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry.  It is these institutions that shape and articulate ‘public opinion,’ the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity.  Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base — the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism — but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture.”

Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding… the triumph of Marxism were… those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty — such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism.  But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the “indispensable supports” of free society — religion and morality.  In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, “The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” [6]

Gramsci’s Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy “Western” civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!”

Family Law, Child Support, and Welfare from Marxism?

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union.  Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country.  The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened.  Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children.  All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention.  America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction.  It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down.  Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform.  Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate.  On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation’s primary socio-political goals.

 “Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America.  The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare.  When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s.  Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[7]  America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.  


When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family… with fierce hatred, and set out… to destroy it…  

  • ne of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children… by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it…  The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation…  At the same time a law was passed which made divorce [very quick]… at the request of either partner in a marriage…

[Marriage became a game where it] was not… unusual… for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.    [T]he peasants… bitterly complained: ‘Abortions cover our villages with shame.  Formerly we did not even hear of them.’

Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation.  They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children…  The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.

…Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.

…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other…  The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support.  Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the ‘burgeois customs’ of Europe and America.

Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. [8]

The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies.  What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America.  Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code.  This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform.  “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [9]  

adopting the failed Soviet attempt to destroy the family

Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.”  America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law  was founded upon. [10]  These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters.  The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.  


No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system.  For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:


“Few members of the American legal community are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has had, for some period of time, what can be described as a no-fault divorce legal system…  [A]t a meeting with a group of Soviet lawyers in 1972, one of them asked, “Is it for a long time that you (California) have that system?”  When informed of the January 1, 1970 effective date of the California law she remarked, “I think it is the influence of our law…  [T]here are a number of similarities between Soviet and California divorce laws that suggest a “borrowing” or a remarkable coincidence.” (pg 32)

“For the Bolsheviks, with their Marxist disdain for reli­gion, the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities over the family was an outrage.  Since the family represented the major institution through which the traditions of the past were transmitted from generation to generation, the new re­gime had to destroy the old bourgeois notions of the family and the home.  There was also a very urgent practical reason for disassociating family relations from the influence of the religious authorities…  [T]he first task of the new regime in relation to the family was to break the power of the church and the husband.”  (pg 33)

“Birth alone was declared the basis of family ties, and all legal discrimi­nation against illegitimate children was abolished…  Early Soviet policy was intended to at­tack these evils [of “patriarchy”] and to transfer the care, education and main­tenance of children from home to society.  This would mean the end of the family’s socialization functions, and would remove the child from the conservative atmosphere of the patriarchal family to a setting that could be entirely con­trolled by the regime.”  (pg 34)

The Soviet press reported in the mid-thirties that promiscu­ity flourished… juvenile delinquency mounted, and statistical studies showed that the major source of delin­quents was the broken or inattentive home…  Additional public homes for children were established, and propaganda cam­paigns sought to persuade the public that a strong family was the most communistically inspired one. (pg 38, 39)

There was also the matter of seven to nine million fatherless and homeless children, according to Russian estimates of the early twenties.  In derogation of Marxist ideology, the state had been unable to assist single mothers, and there existed almost no children’s homes, nurseries or kindergartens.  Because of more pressing tasks and limited personnel and material resources the state had not been able to fulfill the conditions Engels had specified for extrafamilial facilities. (pg 40)

More seriously, anti-family policies were leading to a situation where many children in the first Soviet urban generation simply lacked the kind of socializing experience to fit them intellectually or emotionally to the new society the regime was attempting to build, with its emphasis upon self-discipline and control, perseverance, steadiness, punctuality and accuracy.  While the family influence had been under­mined, extrafamilial agencies had failed to provide a workable substitute, leaving the child prey to the noxious and deviant influences of “the street.”  (pg 41) [11]


The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;


“Family law in socialist Romania was modeled after Soviet family legislation…  t sought to undermine the influence of religion on family life.  [Previously] the church was the center of community life, and marriage, divorce, and recording of births were matters for religious authorities.  Under communism these events became affairs of the state, and legislation designed to wipe out the accumulated traditions and ancient codes was enacted.  The communist regime required marriage to be legalized in a civil ceremony at the local registry prior to, or preferably instead of, the customary church wedding.

Because of the more liberal procedures, the divorce rate grew dramatically, tripling by 1960, and the number of abortions also increased rapidly.  Concern for population reproduction and future labor supplies prompted the state to revise the Romanian Family Code to foster more stable personal relationships and strengthen the family. At the end of 1966, abortion was virtually outlawed, and a new divorce decree made the dissolution of marriage exceedingly difficult.



Gramsci wrote, “The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.”  Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals.  A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”  


“The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony.” [12]


Today’s Gramscian Marxists have numerous “oppositional groups” headed by lawyers and promoted by judges and bureacrats.  They advance such “counter-hegemonic” (culturally corrosive and culturally destructive) positions as homosexuality, abortion, the complete FRAUD of the non-existent “separation of church and state,” the (it only applies to destroying marriage and relationships) Violence Against Women Act, “outcome based education,” and the fictitious “global warming.”  They passionately HATE the initiatives that undermine their attempts to destroy America such as Title IX reform, Faith based initiatives, the 300 million for marriage, vouchers and accountability for education reform, and the Ten commandments along with ANY other reference to a moral Judeo-Christian code, and private property rights.


High profile court rulings openly display this Gramscian Marxist theory in practice: the attack on the pledge of allegiance, the ACLU suing Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandments, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling.  At the root of all of these rulings and many others is a violation of the judge’s oath to uphold the constitution.  That constitution says that we have a Republican form of government, NOT a socialist or communist form.  



Today’s Marxist Communists operate in law, government, religion, media, entertainment and education.  They use Orwellian NewSpeak with words such as  “tolerance” which actually means intolerance of things that prevent the destruction of all social structures and societal “norms”.  Gramscians preach the religion of division, class warfare and social warfare while spouting their hatred of anything traditional, conservative, moral, or values centered – their battle cry is “the personal is the political.”  They want all of Western culture completely destroyed and centralized government control erected in the place of the structure they seek to tear apart and discard.  The fruits of the culture war they have engaged on America can be seen in the corrosive remnants of broken families, broken children, filled prisons, and a host of other ills underwritten by America’s taxpayers.


Those who deeply care about this country and our constitution must fearlessly engage in this culture war–; the war for America’s heart and soul.  It’s not too late yet.  There is still a critical mass and majority of Americans who are not ready for the horrors of the type of communism or national socialism that Gramscians promote.  No form of Marxism or communism (even its most radical form of National Socialism) has ever survived without totalitarian control.  If the support were there for these Marxist Communists and National Socialists, history has shown that they would not hesitate to attempt a forceful or violent overthrow of American government.


“If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult selfishness.  The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse.” [13]  “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.” [14]  Marcus Tullius Cicero, in a speech in the Roman senate recorded by Sallust said;


“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city.  But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.  For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.  He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to be feared.  The traitor is the plague.”


Policy Implications

Gramsci’s “march through the culture” can be turned back once the roots and methods are known.  Recognizing the foundations of the current class and culture warfare, promoted in many levels of government, law, religion, media, and education provides relatively easy answers to solve these problems and to turn back the tide of their corruption and destruction.  


·         Institute non-coercive national unity and patriotism in public policy.  The national unity issue destroys the divisive class warfare while reviving patriotism helps to restore some of the “hegemony” the Marxists so passionately hate.

·         Mandate abstinence training in schools for states to receive health funds.  Stop allowing the natural inhibitions of children to sexual advances to be torn down by the current trend of pro-sexual education brought to them by their teachers who are also authority figures.

·         Conservative politicians should take some of their campaign time and effort to tap into and lobby for more than just money.  Conservatives must lobby large businesses to partner with inner city churches and schools to create programs of opportunity in disadvantaged areas.  This takes the race baiting and class warfare issue away from the left, and gets socialist government programs out of the involvement in people’s lives. [15]

·         Tie clear mission statements to EVERY government program and agency which include:  promoting traditional marriage and family, restoring national pride, reducing divorce, reducing illegitimacy, promoting abstinence, and encouraging strong morals and values.  Force a public debate on these issues and it will destroy the liberal Marxist establishment.  Ever since welfare reform the liberal establishment has been slowly crumbling.  Press the issues and accelerate their demise.

·         CAREFULLY identify several congressional staff members who have a proven track record of being pro-family, with proven integrity, and have shown a level of frustration over today’s social problems.  Assign them to a special research project to study Gramsci’s version of Marxist communism and how it has been implemented in America.  Publish their reports and develop strategies based on those reports.  (And if the lefties cry “McCarthy,” let the public debates begin!  An honest reading of McCarthy’s record completely vindicates him and exposes them!)

·         Press the Judiciary committee to amend Title 18 of the US Code to create provisions stating that no state or federal judge shall have any form of immunity whatsoever for engaging in actions which produce or promote taxpayer fraud.  For any such act or acts, they shall be subject to both criminal prosecution and they shall be subject to suit in their personal capacity.  Let the judges and lawyers scream about “independence” and then insist that they must interpret “independence” to mean that they should be free to break the law and commit fraud against the taxpayers of the United States.  

·         If Title 18 cannot be amended, then insert the provisions under Title 42 related to the Public Health and Welfare.

·         End taxpayer funding of PBS.  Expand libel and slander laws to include distortions, manipulations, or unbalanced reporting in television and cable news programs.  Let the trial lawyers have a field day with the liberal media.

·         Codify in the USC the mission of senior level bureaucrats and their guiding principles with explicit provisions noting personal liability for not adhering to these provisions.  Codify the requirement for annual reports by heads of agencies demonstrating how they have complied with these requirements.  For example:

o       Make the HHS Director’s mission something like “to work to restore traditional marriage and family while reducing the number of single-parent and broken families who need to collect welfare or child support.”  Make it a mandatory reporting requirement on how this mission is being fulfilled.


[1] King, Jennifer.  Who are the Real Radicals?  Rightgrrl, December 1998.  A brief exposition of Antonio Gramsci

[2] Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 168-169.  Routledge, London.

[3] Borst, William, Ph.D. American History.  A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1 (January 2003)  Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned by the Nazi’s and later by the Communists in Hungary.    Online version can be seen at

[4] “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism”  Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. — opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…”  — Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press.  Page 3

Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. — Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press.  Page 10

“Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur.  Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.”  A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116

[5] Schwartz, Joseph.  Toward a Democratic Socialism:  Theory, Strategy, and Vision.  Joseph Schwartz, a member of the National Executive Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, teaches political science at Temple University.

[6] Grigg, William.  Toward the Total State. The New American Vol. 15, No. 14.  July 5, 1999.

[7] Selma Moidel Smith, A Century of Acheivement:  The Centennial of the National Association of Women Lawyers, pg 10.  (1999); See also ABA’s Family Law Quarterly, 33 Fam. L.Q. 501, 510-511.  Family Law and American Culture – Women Lawyers in Family Law, Section B. The Crusade for No-Fault Divorce.  (Fall, 1999)

[8]  The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114.

[9] The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D.  May 6, 1998.

[10] Jus ex injuria non oritur.  4 Bin 639 — A right cannot arise from a wrong; Lex nemini operatur iniquum; nemini facit injuriam. Jenk. Cent. 22.—The law works injustice to no one; does injury to no one; Lex deficere non potest in justitia exhibenda. Co. Lit. 197.—The law cannot be defective in dispensing justice; Lex non deficit in justitia exhibenda. Jenk. Cent. 31.— The law is not defective in justice; Commodum ex injurie sue non habere debet. Jenk. Cent. 161. — No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong; Lex non favet delicatorum votis. 9 Co. 58.—The law favours not the vows of the squeamish; Nemo punitur sine injuria, facto, seu defalto. 2 Inst. 287.—No one is to be punished unless for some injury, deed, or default; Legis constructio non facit injuriam. Co. Lit. 183.—The construction of law does no injury;  Nemo punitur sine injuria facto, seu defalto.  2 Co. Inst. 287. — No one is punished unless for some wrong act or default

[11] No-Fault Divorce:  Born In The Soviet Union?  University of Louisville School of Law, Journal Of Family Law.  Vol. 14, No. 1 (1975).  ppg. 32-41

[12]  Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 169.  Routledge, London.

[13]   David Popenoe, “Modern Marriage: Revisiting the Cultural Script,” Promises to Keep, 1996, p. 248.

[14]  Linda Bowles.  Damage for the Children.  June 13, 2000.  Worldnet Daily online.

[15] A similar program which has been very successful is DAPCEP (the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program ).  The difference is that a program to undermine Gramsci should have BOTH parent’s involvement as its centerpiece.   While it would be ideal if they were married, requiring BOTH parents is a start in the right direction.

This was written just about 8 years ago. Bill Wood is spot on accurate in describing America’s internal destruction of it’s values, morals, and decency. Marxist’s now openly exalt terror on our college campuses.. with impunity. Our tax dollars fund most all of this destruction. No way could it exist if these “programs” required funding from a source other than the very taxpayer that these malcontents hold in contempt.

War on property rights in the name of sustainability- Agenda 21- ICLEI


Guest Opinion

War on property rights in the name of sustainability

By John Kuran

, May 6, 2010

Open war has been declared on our unalienable property rights by the Progressives and Marxists who advocate “social justice,” the forced redistribution of wealth.

It is part of a organized plan called United Nations Agenda 21.

I believe many Lake Oswego citizens would be more concerned about their unalienable property rights if they understood the policies of our city are being guided by the Marxist organization called ICLEI (International Council of Leading Economic Initiatives) under the disguise of “Sustainable Development.”

The people involved in this know that they have to be very clever in how this is presented to citizen sheeples.

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many … who would actively work to defeat any elected official … undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as ‘comprehensive planning,’ ‘growth management’ or ‘smart growth,”’ states J. Gary Lawrence, chief planner for Seattle and adviser to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Understanding this is going to require you to do your own homework. Find out what the truth is for yourself.

For a good overview of ICLEI and Agenda 21 follow this link:

Need an example of how this works in the real world?

How about the recent march (April 4) in San Francisco where the the website states that “People should not be evicted for profit. People’s rights should come before property rights.”

Next try the website a wealth of information. Listen to the videos. Click on “Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21.” It is critical to understand individual rights in our Constitution vs community or human rights. Look for the links to Clackamas County in this document. Get an education of how endangered species acts (ESA’s) and “biodiversity” are the tools that are being used to litigate us into oblivion for the purpose of controlling every aspect of our lives.

Find the link to the city of Lake Oswego in ICLEI.

Learn about “The Consensus Process,” or how to hold meetings with a predetermined outcome. This describes the technique that the city has been using on citizens during the “sensitive lands” meetings, and before that the Safeco building meetings.

Those of you that have attended the meetings will recognize the technique immediately.

Still not convinced that we’re having Marxism installed right under our noses?

Here’s a link to the Russian Pravda newspaper online (April 29, 2009) to get their perspective:

A great read in the destruction of our culture by “cultural Marxism” is the testimony of Bill Woods to the House Ways and Means committee. The link is

Look particularly at what the Marxists claim as achievements here in the US.

To understand the local players, here’s a link to Oregon’s Team Green in the Sustainability Professionals organization:

See if you recognize some of the names. There is Cogan Owens Cogan. Hmmm. That sounds like a familiar name … gee, Jim Owens (is a principal at Cogan Owens Cogan). He’s the facilitator for the Second Look Task Force. How convenient. And Sera Architects. Another familiar face. The city hired them for the WEB seismic upgrade analysis.

This is a very tidy little circle of friends getting tax dollars for the greater good of the collective.

Unfortunately, as a citizen and a property owner, they are not working in your best interest.

It’s time for the citizens of Lake Oswego to educate themselves as to what is taking place and determine if they want to continue down this road toward smiley-faced Marxisim disguised as “sustainablity.”

John Kuran is a resident of Lake Oswego.

Copyright 2011 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397 

A pernicious lie is infiltrating many communities across America- under the guise of “sustainability”. Take some time to carefully examine why the United Nations is working very hard to enforce this agenda on Americans. We Americans are very naieve and too self absorbed to take time to examine this effort to fundamentally change America. This is a system designed to lullaby self absorbed America into acceptance of a deception. Read this article, and other articles regarding Agenda 21 and ICLEA. It is designed to remove your right to personal property- turning all resources over to the State.. and more.

Freedom Advocates | Recognize Unalienable Rights



Freedom Advocates represents a cross-section of people from all political parties and backgrounds who are united in the principles of individual liberty, equal justice and the constitutional administration of government. People are born with unalienable rights and government exists to protect those rights. Rather than bureaucrats mandating indoctrination programs, parents should direct the terms of their child’s education. Rather than bureaucrats taking the use of private property, the ideals of private property should be protected by government.

Our mission is to advance the principles of freedom to individuals and government through public discourse.


Focus public attention on the value of the freedoms protected to Americans by the Declaration of Independence, and encourage individual and community interest in protecting those freedoms.
Provide opportunities for discourse among organization participants and others.
Promote and strengthen government responsiveness to the principles of freedom.
Inform the public about local, national, and international threats to individual freedoms.
Unite against the advance of international collectivist movements that cause poverty, oppression, and a degraded earth.

Political Environment

Policies, procedures, and laws enacted by government and non-government organizations in the name of diversity, community, and earth are diminishing individual liberty, degrading ecology, and threatening human life and happiness across America. These policies are approaching full implementation with little public discourse and with no voter input. While the political environment might seem disheartening to those who value individual liberty, the following opportunities appear to portray a changing political horizon:

The adverse consequences of collectivist policies and laws enacted by county governments are affecting almost every American citizen. As residents recognize the cause of the problems, they may be increasingly interested in supporting political change in their local political environment.
World events have caused Americans to become aware of local and international threats to their individual liberties. (War, 911, Global Warming Scams, Patriot Act, etc…)

The consequences are becoming clear…

You’ve likely already experienced some of the consequences of policies that are approaching full implementation, with little public discourse or voter input:

You’re not alone in recognizing these and other symptoms of our diminishing freedoms. The adverse consequences of collectivist policies and laws enacted by government bodies are affecting almost everyone. Many are ready to act to advance individual liberty, family autonomy, a vibrant ecology, and a strong economy.

We welcome your participation.


Freedom Advocates will provide a forum through which participants can learn about, discuss, and influence policies related to the following areas:

We will help build and foster a grass-roots base of residents who celebrate the principles of self-governance by sponsoring these activities:

  • Internet-based freedom center
  • Electronic communications network
  • Speaking and seminar events
  • Activism at local and regional political meetings and events
  • Direct mail and flyer campaigns
  • Political and politician surveys
  • Local radio interviews and programs
  • Political debates
  • Publications


Participation in Freedom Advocates is open to the public. Participants include people from all political parties and backgrounds who are united in the pursuit of individual liberty, equal justice, and the constitutional administration of government..

Here are ways you can participate:

  • Understand the full scope of Sustainable Development policies 
  • Take action in your local area and spread the information
  • Sign-up for news and information
  • Contribute 
  • Contact us

Board of Directors

  • Michael Shaw
  • Joanne Nathan
  • Daniel Beckett
  • Annette Crews
  • Andrew Duncan


  • Vern Westgate – Writer/Editor
  • Robin West – Office/Store Manager



Did you like this article? Be sure to share it with your friends, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, and subscribe to our RSS feed to stay up to date on problems with Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.








Go in depth to understand the communist origins and designs of the “Greens”.. As you learn more about the U.N. effort to control and subdue what remains of the freedom and liberty in America. Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are creeping into communities all across America- do you know their true agenda, or from who these organizations report to?

Fundamental to America is the concept of private property. In the view of the “Greens”, private property must be abolished- Think about it. Who then gives permission for your existence- your mobility- our source for food, water … If you guesses it would be some government bureaucrat, you would be right. You would forever be dependent upon a government for your subsistence. In the Statist world this portends, there will be no room for dissent. You very life is dependent upon conformity.. bureaucratic conformity and submission.

Hate-A-Rama: The Vulgar, Sexist, Racist, Homophobic Rage of the Left – Michelle Malkin – National Review Online

Michelle Malkin

Log In

February 25, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Hate-A-Rama: The Vulgar, Sexist, Racist, Homophobic Rage of the Left

It is not the tea partiers who lack civility.

Barack Obama’s new era of civility was over before it began. You wouldn’t know it from reading the New York Times, watching Katie Couric, or listening to the Democratic manners police. But America has been overrun by foul-mouthed, fist-clenching wildebeests.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Yes, the Tea Party movement is responsible — for sending these liberal goons into an insane rage, that is. After enduring two years of false smears as sexist, racist, homophobic barbarians, it is grassroots conservatives and taxpayer advocates who have been ceaselessly subjected to rhetorical projectile vomit. It is Obama’s rank-and-file “community organizers” on the streets fomenting the hate against their political enemies. Not the other way around.

The trendy new epithet among Big Labor organizers who’ve been camping out at the Madison, Wis., capitol building for more than a week to block GOP governor Scott Walker’s budget reform bill: “Koch whore.” Classy, huh? It’s a reference to the reviled Koch brothers, David and Charles, who have used their energy-industry wealth to support limited-government activism. A left-wing agitator based in Buffalo who impersonated Koch in a prank phone call this week used the slur to headline his “gonzo journalism” report. (If a right-leaning activist had perpetrated such a stunt, he’d be labeled a radical, stalking fraudster. But that’s par for the media’s double-standards course.)

The 20-minute phone call undermined the grand Koch conspiracy by exposing that Walker didn’t know Koch at all. No matter. “Koch whore” is the new “Halliburton whore.” The Captains of Civility are sticking to it. And the sanctimonious “No Labels” crowd is missing in action — just like Wisconsin’s Fleebagger Democrats.

Sexual vulgarity is a common theme in the Left’s self-styled “solidarity” movement. Among the Madison pro-union signs the national media chose not to show you: “Buttholes for Billionaires” (complete with a photo of Walker’s head placed in the middle of a graphic photo of someone’s posterior) and “If teabaggers are as hot as their Fox News anchors, then I’m here for the gang bang!!!”

Last month, GOP lieutenant governor Rebecca Kleefisch was subjected to similar misogyny for her outreach efforts to private businesses. Liberal WTDY radio host John “Sly” Sylvester accused her of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for group sex).

At an AFSCME rally in Providence, R.I., on Tuesday, an unhinged pro-union supporter picked an unprovoked fight with a citizen journalist taping the event for public-access TV. His eyes bulging, the brawler yelled: “I’ll f**k you in the a**, you faggot!” After several unsuccessful minutes of trying to calm their furious ally down, the solidarity mob finally started chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, union-busting’s got to go” to drown out his intimidating vow to follow the cameraman outside the building. Criminal charges are now pending against him. None of the local media who covered the event thought to mention the disruption in their coverage.

In Columbus, Ohio, supporters of GOP governor John Kasich’s fiscal reforms were confronted with a fulminating union demonstrator who railed: “The Tea Party is a bunch of d**k-sucking corporate butt-lickers who want to crush the working people of this country.”

In Denver, Colo., Leland Robinson, a gay, black tea-party activist and entrepreneur who criticized teachers’ unions at a capitol rally, was told by white labor supporters to “get behind that fence where you belong.” They called the 52-year-old limousine driver “son” and subjected him to this ugly, racially charged taunt: “Do you have any children? That you claim?”

Tea-party favorite and former Godfather’s Pizza president Herman Cain is another outspoken black conservative businessman who has earned the civility mob’s lash. Two weeks ago, a cowardly liberal writer derided Cain as a “monkey in the window,” a “garbage pail kid,” and a “minstrel” who performs for his “masters.” Monkey. Parrot. Puppet. Lawn jockey. Uncle Tom. Aunt Thomasina. Oreo. Coconut. Banana. We minority conservatives have heard it all.

In Washington, D.C., a multi-union protest at the offices of conservative activist group FreedomWorks resulted in one young female employee, Tabitha Hale, getting smacked with a sign by a barbarian wearing a Communications Workers of America T-shirt — and another FreedomWorks employee getting yelled at as a “bad Jew” for opposing public-union monopolies and reckless spending.

In the wake of the Tucson massacre, Obama urged the nation “to do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.” He pushed for “a more civil and honest public discourse.”

As Big Labor–backing (the same outfit that smeared Gen. David Petraeus as a traitor) prepares to march on all 50 state capitols this weekend, where’s the Civility Chief now? AWOL.

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery, 2010). © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.



Listen to the Audio Version

Because apparently it’s now OK to spread lies about him and his policies, make up fake documents showing he was born somewhere else, file harassing frivolous lawsuits against him, have major websites refuse to accept comments that refer to him as “President,” work to derail all his efforts and make his administration a failure, call him a liar on the floor of Congress, call him un-American, disloyal, a Fascist, a Nazi, disparage his family, say horrible things about his mother, hold gun-toting rallies against him, disrupt town-hall meetings, ignore threats against his life by nutbags, make sure schools don’t show his speeches lest he ‘indoctrinate’ them, pass State laws that question his legitimacy and countermand any Federal laws he passes, bend and misrepresent everything he says… and I’ll be right there, spending every dime I can to ruin him, to bring him down. My business is thriving, so I’ll have lots of money to spread around.

And it will all be OK, because Republicans and their media backers have set the precedent for it. They’ve given us permission to do all the above if we want to.”

– Really? Are you from this planet? What do you think has happened every time there has been a Republican president? They get vastly more vitriol with vastly more acceptance by the media, and academia. And spare me the nonsense about spending to bring down the Republicans- the wealthiest billionaires in the world are already trying and only brought about the biggest grassroots Conservative uprising in living memory. Bring it on. Frankly there’s nothing you can do to us that you haven’t done before, but you throw hissy fits when its done to you as your flimsy ideology falls when exposed to facts and logic.

Michelle.. You really have a way with words… your rapier wit and fiendishly clever descriptions make your reader vividly “see” the players..