Critical Race Theory: What it is and how to Fight it

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

Christopher F. Rufo

The End of Basic Education: Biden Issues Universal Public School Critical Race Theory Order

The Biden Department of Education has quietly proposed a new rule prioritizing the use of federal tax dollars for K-12 schools that replace traditional education with “culturally responsive teaching and learning” – more commonly referred to as critical race theory. This is the most significant move by the federal government to redefine the nature of state-funded public schools in U.S. history.

Although the current effort to push public schools receiving federal funding to adopt a detailed indoctrination agenda may feel new and overwhelming for parents, the truth is that the Biden attempt is simply the last phase in a decades-long effort to control local schools and press the progressive agenda on our children. With the power of taxpayer-funded purse strings, the federal government sends a message to public schools that if they want financial aid they must “teach” critical race theory and prioritize its ideologically anti-American, anti-traditional agenda over traditional education.

Under Obama, public schools were thrust into the controversial world of Common Core, a series of federal mandates that included “awareness education” involving a progressive view of race, gender, and so-called “equity” (not to be confused with “equality”).

Under Biden, a far more aggressive level of federal control over our nation’s K-12 classrooms will replace history (and objective truth) with identity politics and a warped view of American civics and institutions. In many cases, teachers are told to hide the racially divisive curriculum from parents. In others, students are encouraged to report the words and views of their parents and caretakers as examples of institutional racism. The initial goal is the indoctrination of young minds, but the long view is to aggregate power behind an alien political worldview that fed the dehumanizing machines of the Soviet Union and communist China.

At its core, critical race theory is the false idea that the United States is a fundamentally racist country and that all of our nation’s institutions – the law, culture, business, economy, education – are designed to maintain white supremacy. Politicians and pundits market critical race theory as inclusive teaching, one that promotes understanding and tolerance. When the truth is exposed, they try to repackage it in a series of euphemisms, including anti-racism, equity, or culturally responsive teaching. But the “scholars,” like Ibram X. Kendi and the 1619 Project behind the related anti-racist rhetoric proposed in the rule – the true believers – admit the truth.

Critical race theory curriculum tells students that they fall into one of two categories – the oppressed or the oppressor – based solely on the color of their skin. It tells students that if they are white then they are privileged and racist, and makes them affirm this ideology through classroom discussion and assignments. Some school districts take it even a step further and physically segregate students based on their race for lessons, reducing them to nothing more than a set of racial stereotypes.

This is not healthy. It erases decades of progress. And it pits our children against each other, teaching them to hate one another. Parents must stay alert because this week’s proposed rule is just the beginning. Senate and House Democrats have already introduced bills, including the Civics Secures Democracy Act, which would require schools to promote critical race theory in exchange for more federal money.

The go-for-broke approach of the Biden administration to upend bulwarks of the American constitutional republic, from Supreme Court-packing to open borders to emptying the public treasury to ensuring federal control of elections, reveals the true agenda: the consolidation of power. And nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in its drive to replace history, reading, and writing with noxious doctrine designed to replace both parental control and constitutional rule of law.

Kimberly Hermann is General Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta-based constitutional public interest law firm and policy center. Kim is committed to promoting individual liberty, the rule of law, and accountability in government. She advances these principles through litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts.

An Eloquent Objection to Critical Race Theory (from a Parent)

Nehemiah Leftwich, writing on Facebook:

It has been a long time indeed since I have found myself exclaiming “BRAVO” so loudly and so frequently as I did when reading this post by a friend here on Facebook, a post which consists almost entirely of a letter from a disappointed and thoroughly disaffected parent to New York’s exclusive private school, Brearley, at which his daughter had previously been enrolled. Rarely have I encountered so brilliant an exposition and argument. In fact, I believe Mr. Gutmann’s letter should be committed to memory and shared as widely as possible.

As my friend wrote:

“This is what moral courage looks like. Bravo.

“Please read this letter. It was written by a father who took his daughter out of her expensive NYC private school because of what happened due to Critical Race Theory.”
***********************

April 13, 2021

Dear Fellow Brearley Parents,

Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten. In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult. I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child’s education is irreparable.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley’s antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed.

I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died.

I object to the charge of systemic racism in this country, and at our school. Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. Systemic racism is unequivocally not a small number of isolated incidences over a period of decades. Ask any girl, of any race, if they have ever experienced insults from friends, have ever felt slighted by teachers or have ever suffered the occasional injustice from a school at which they have spent up to 13 years of their life, and you are bound to hear grievances, some petty, some not. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country’s history and adds no understanding to any of today’s societal issues. If anything, longstanding and widespread policies such as affirmative action, point in precisely the opposite direction.

I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand. Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearley’s oft-stated assertion that the school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies.

I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of racism.

I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearley’s caliber.

I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Instead, the school would foster an environment of intellectual openness and freedom of thought. And if Brearley really cared about “inclusiveness,” the school would return to the concepts encapsulated in the motto “One Brearley,” instead of teaching the extraordinarily divisive idea that there are only, and always, two groups in this country: victims and oppressors.

l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests.

I object to, as we have been told time and time again over the past year, that the school’s first priority is the safety of our children. For goodness sake, Brearley is a school, not a hospital! The number one priority of a school has always been, and always will be, education. Brearley’s misguided priorities exemplify both the safety culture and “cover-your-ass” culture that together have proved so toxic to our society and have so damaged the mental health and resiliency of two generations of children, and counting.

I object to the gutting of the history, civics, and classical literature curriculums. I object to the censorship of books that have been taught for generations because they contain dated language potentially offensive to the thin-skinned and hypersensitive (something that has already happened in my daughter’s 4th grade class). I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist.

We have today in our country, from both political parties, and at all levels of government, the most unwise and unvirtuous leaders in our nation’s history. Schools like Brearley are supposed to be the training grounds for those leaders. Our nation will not survive a generation of leadership even more poorly educated than we have now, nor will we survive a generation of students taught to hate its own country and despise its history.

Lastly, I object, with as strong a sentiment as possible, that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think. I object that the school is now fostering an environment where our daughters, and our daughters’ teachers, are afraid to speak their minds in class for fear of “consequences.” I object that Brearley is trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality, and bullying parents to adopt that false morality at home. I object that Brearley is fostering a divisive community where families of different races, which until recently were part of the same community, are now segregated into two. These are the reasons why we can no longer send our daughter to Brearley.

Over the past several months, I have personally spoken to many Brearley parents as well as parents of children at peer institutions. It is abundantly clear that the majority of parents believe that Brearley’s antiracism policies are misguided, divisive, counterproductive and cancerous. Many believe, as I do, that these policies will ultimately destroy what was until recently, a wonderful educational institution. But as I am sure will come as no surprise to you, given the insidious cancel culture that has of late permeated our society, most parents are too fearful to speak up.

But speak up you must. There is strength in numbers and I assure you, the numbers are there. Contact the administration and the Board of Trustees and demand an end to the destructive and anti-intellectual claptrap known as antiracism. And if changes are not forthcoming then demand new leadership. For the sake of our community, our city, our country and most of all, our children, silence is no longer an option.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gutmann

How Critical Race Theory Destroys Individualism and Freedom

The way you think determines whether you embrace freedom and liberty — or eschew them.

At least subconsciously, we all have a theory of human nature. One widespread, yet false, theory of human nature: We’re determined by other people. Either we’re conditioned by their behavioral reinforcements, or we’re simply the product of other factors over which we have no control.

Critical race theory is the dominant view today among our intellectuals — and that viewpoint has “trickled down” to the business world, the political world and — I’m suspecting — a third to half of the ordinary population. Critical race theory means that you can’t help but act according to your racial makeup. If you’re black or brown, you’re oppressed, whether you think so or not; if you’re white (and male, heterosexual and Christian in particular), then you’re an oppressor, whether you think so or not. The basic point: You can’t help it. It’s your nature.

The specifics of critical race theory, while toxic, aren’t as bad as the underlying premise: That you cannot do anything about your destiny as a white or black/brown person. It’s programmed by your DNA, and by social conditioning — neither of which you can ever escape. That’s what leads to the blowing up of our Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights is for people who ARE free to achieve, thrive, fail, suffer, triumph or pursue happiness. A Bill of Rights is for people who make choices. Critical race theorists believe we have NO choices.

Tragically, there are no choices in the world being shaped by today’s shameless politicians and corporate fascists serving those politicians. As totalitarianism spreads from mandatory masks and vaccines to other areas of life (as is happening on social media and elsewhere), the only choice will be NO choice. If you’re one race and gender, you can’t help but be an oppressor, we’re told. If you’re unsuccessful, you’re not a threat. But if you are successful, then it’s because you oppressed others to get there. Based on what facts? Facts aren’t necessary. Your race and gender tell the whole story.

THIS is the evil viewpoint obliterating our freedom, the same way that Hitler’s similarly anti-choice views led, inevitably, to the totalitarianism and fascism of his toxic state. You’re not only obliged to hold this viewpoint and refrain from dissenting; you’re obliged to STATE the prevailing views, even if you don’t mean them. If you don’t state them, then you’re a criminal (first morally, then legally). This is the meaning of “Silence Kills.” They’re basically saying: “Agree with me, and say so; otherwise, you’re a murderer.” This is how all dictatorships work, especially the more sophisticated and toxic ones. It’s proceeding in America exactly as it did in Maoist China, Hitler’s Nazi Germany and elsewhere. It’s stunning in its predictability and ugly elegance.

If you really believe that people — including yourself — are the product of genetic or cultural characteristics over which you have no control, then choice is irrelevant. And once choice is irrelevant, freedom is irrelevant too. In fact, freedom gets in the way.

The alternative to critical race theory or anything else like it? To use Ayn Rand’s beautiful phrase, “Man is a being of self-made soul.”

While there are many things about your life, body and brain that you don’t directly control, you are, fundamentally, what you make of yourself. Nothing will ever change that. It’s just the way it is. Of course, what you make of yourself can’t be given a fair shake unless you’re free. Today, everyone is losing their freedom. This includes the alleged victims as well as the alleged victimizers. When the statists are all done, we will ALL be wards of the state, hostage to the false and toxic idea that we never had the capability to shape ourselves … when we most certainly did, all along.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Say Goodbye to the America We Knew and Loved

My generation believed in the United States. We believed in its respect for the individual, in its Constitution, in its status as the only benign superpower in history. In other words, we believed in American exceptionalism. “Traditional American values are worthy of a passionate defense,” said author and TV commentator Monica Crowley. Referring to these values as “the American project,” Charles Murray, author of Coming Apart, defined it as the continuing effort “to demonstrate that human beings can be left free as individuals and families to live their lives as they see fit, coming together voluntarily to solve their joint problems.” If you boil it down, what makes our society unique in world history is the respect accorded the rights of the individual citizen. The Constitution was written as a restraint on the power of the government to interfere in our lives.

All that seems to be changing. As we move into 2021, to borrow from Shakespeare, something is rotten. It is difficult to pinpoint the origin or the exact nature of America’s disintegration. It developed a head of steam when a man who hates this country, Barack Obama, was elected president. For eight years, we watched his concentrated assault on our values. Obama and his fellow Democrats have introduced some new concepts into our vernacular: democratic socialism, identity politics, social justice, diversity, inclusion, political correctness, Critical Race Theory, cancel culture. They were intended for the express purpose of destroying everything that is laudable about America.

If you wanted to destroy the USA, how would you do it? “America will never be destroyed from the outside,” said Abraham Lincoln. “If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev said the same thing in 1961. “We do not have to destroy America with missiles,” he said. “America will destroy itself from within.” Were they correct?

In February 2019, astute Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson made this observation: “[t]he political debate between the right and the left seems to be moving forward in a manner that indicates the fundamental robustness of the institutions of democracy in the U.S.” Peterson’s observation is no longer accurate — our democratic institutions are anything but robust. The political debate is flirting with civil war as progressives in Congress and on social media gang up to censor conservative viewpoints. Citizens have no confidence in their elected representatives, the legal system, the media, or each other. Public officials encourage disrespect for the laws they are sworn to defend. Our cities are being torn apart with rioting, looting, and arson as mayors and governors encourage the breakdown of civil order.

There is no doubt that our government does not run the way it was intended. Congress seems incapable of doing the country’s business. What has it accomplished in the last four years aside from the ridiculous impeachment of the president and sending our tax money to countries that call us names? Using the coronavirus as an excuse, government is trying to insinuate itself into every facet of our lives. As we allow the government to tell us when we can leave our homes, when we can go to work, and under what circumstances we can run our businesses, we relinquish more and more of our independence.

The worst shortcoming of our government is its failure to maintain election integrity. According to the US News & World Report, U.S. elections from July 2012 through December 2018 rated “lower than any other long-established democracies and affluent societies.” The source is a 2019 report published by the Electoral Integrity Project, an independent project based out of Harvard University. This revelation should make all Americans clamor for improvement.

The 2020 presidential election has brought us even lower on the ladder. We have more than a thousand sworn affidavits attesting to massive voter fraud: suspension of signature verification, violation of state election rules, non-verification of mail-in ballots, backdating of ballots, double-voting, dead people voting, hiding ballots under the table, refusal to allow poll-watching, and vote-switching by machine systems. “People are going on the record under oath and risking being canceled, doxed, and even accosted, to tell what they have seen about this election process,” said Rep. Michael Cloud. “The apparent lack of action from the Justice Department regarding a number of anomalies, statistical improbabilities, and sworn accusations of fraud is troubling.” It may be troubling, but it is consistent with partisan activities of the DOJ, the FBI, and the IRS. FBI Director James Comey’s refusal to indict Hillary Clinton, Obama’s weaponization of the IRS against conservative groups, and inaction from the Durham investigation have destroyed the public’s confidence in our justice system.

In spite of the media’s efforts to hide the truth, the public knows what is going on. Actor James Woods tweeted, “70,000,000 Americans are outraged about this befouled election.” “We don’t accept this fraudulent result.” Whenever the president tries to expose the fraud, the media poison the airwaves with the same mendacious phrase: “Trump’s baseless allegations.” It makes my skin crawl every time I see this lie repeated by CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The media are no longer free to express conservative viewpoints and have abdicated their role as the republic’s watchdog.

What kind of nation are we bequeathing to our children? Unless we wake up soon, it won’t be pretty. Perhaps Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, was correct when he predicted “a dictatorship without tears … a kind of painless concentration camp so that people will have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.”

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of eight books including Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America and In Lies We Trust: How Politicians and the Media Are Deceiving the American Public. He is a regular contributor to Newsmax, the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Townhall, BizPac Review, and other online news magazines.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/waving_goodbye_to_the_america_we_all_knew_and_loved.html#ixzz6imXVhIv6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If it’s Biden, Expect Wholesale Rejection of American Core Values

With this presidential election, American history is hanging in the balance, but not as in the past, where we perceived the implementation of unwanted policies if the wrong candidate should win. In this post-election scenario, a Biden administration is much worse than “unwanted” or “wrong-headed” policies.  To this writer, we are facing a collapse of natural rights as depicted in the Bill of Rights, the curtailing of individual mobility — upward socio-economic mobility and literally restricted travel mobility (to protect the environment under Green New Deal restrictions). If we have a new administration, we are also facing forced vaccinations and curtailment of property rights on an unimagined scale.

Critical Race Theory will be required in curricula in colleges and high schools.  Whites will be strongly pressured thereby to accept that there is endemic structural racism in our institutions, irrespective of what any individuals might think or feel, because of the inherent white privilege in American and Western civilization.  There will be national gun policy, national nutrition policy, national electric and gas controls (not state regulatory agencies), and national gun confiscation (a few types of guns at first, then all guns).  National health care (private doctors only for the very rich) will be pressed upon us.  In foreign policy, there will be re-instatement of the dangerous Iran P5+1 deal, and that in turn will connect with a renewal of the two-state “solution” (that has already failed five times) and a gradual infusion of anti-Semitism masquerading as “fairness for the Palestinians.”

Education will become even more of a monolith.  The charade of Common Core (setting standards of achievement and testing but pretending not to encroach on state control of education as required by the Tenth Amendment) will unabashedly override the Tenth Amendment, and nationwide teaching and curricular requirements will be put in place. 

The centrality of natural rights in our way of life has already begun to unravel.  The rights advocated by the Leftocrats are not rights at all, but preferential laws that advance the lives of some of our citizens at the expense of others under the false rubric of “advancing equality.”  Also, environmental rights means controls over so many areas of our lives that we, in essence, become controlled mannequins, supposedly for our own good.  And “Palestinian rights” in the Middle East is just thinly disguised anti-Semitism.

rights defined and listed in our Constitution are natural rights.  These are “natural” in the sense that they are God-given to the individual.  Just as God gave us nature by creating it, in similar manner, God gave us rights as individuals as part of our “natural” inheritance.  These rights are thus protected against encroachments by government.  Natural rights cannot be removed by passage of law because our Founders understood that law forces us to acknowledge and respect individual rights that exist independent of and prior to law itself.  Governments can prevent certain behaviors and promote others, but government cannot withdraw our natural rights.  To do so is tyranny. There are no specific “protected classes” under natural rights because all citizens are a protected class against encroachment and oppression by government.  A government that fails to recognize that is inherently tyrannical. 

However, the Leftocratic Platform of 2020 seeks to implement a host of “rights.”  This listing is to place a natural rights aura around the various rights enumerated as though they have a high dignity that resonates with our Bill of Rights.  Actually, they are saying rights in addition to natural rights accrue to certain protected classes of persons within our society.

Here is a sample from the Leftocrat platform of the perverse thinking about rights that actually not only fails to protect our rights, but diminishes existing natural rights: “Democrats are committed to standing up to racism and bigotry in our laws, in our culture, in our politics, and in our society, and recognize that race-neutral [gender-neutral is also included] policies are not sufficient to rectify race-based [gender-based] disparities.” 

The selfish, sycophantic authors of the above words know they are advancing a purely demagogic, vote-seeking — not a principled —agenda.  They recognize in the above quotation that there are race-neutral policies now in place that under a natural rights understanding are the only legitimate policies. 

My grandparents came from Russia, where there were laws restricting where they could live, what occupations they could engage in, and how far they could advance in the areas of employment in which they were allowed to participate.  In the USA, when they arrived, there were still individual employers who did not want to hire them because of race.  There were still places that would not sell them real estate.  But the natural rights philosophy of the country, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. was rights-neutral and sufficient to make the transition possible. This was not because they were white or straight, but because they could enjoy the liberty inherent in the American way of life.  This liberty is what the Leftocrats seek to dilute or destroy.

Did they need special treatment to prove that America is really a place that accepts and welcomes people?  Should subsidized housing in better neighborhoods have been provided to make their transition easier?  Should they have been guaranteed a minimum income?  Should they have been told they had automatic admission to college and free tuition?  What about my father, who as a young man dropped out of school after 8th grade (free public high schools 9–12 existed even in the 1920s) because his mother had died and he was no longer motivated to achieve?  He went to work before there were labor laws and put in 70- to 80-hour work weeks for years to put a roof over his head, buy food, enjoy an occasional movie or book, or take a girl out for a soda.

What about my grandfather who emigrated here and had six kids?  Is it up to the government to make it up to me as a second-generation citizen that as a young worker and parent, he had so many trials and struggles?  Should the government say to me that because your grandfather was discriminated against in hiring, because he had poor English and few skills, and your father had to work so many excessively long hours for minimal survival, society should make that up to me?  Should I be compensated in some way for the struggles of my grandparents or my own struggles?  Frankly, such a proposition is idiotic.  I am grateful to my grandparents and parents for their fortitude and endurance.  I am grateful for their love.  I am grateful that the U.S. allowed my grandparents to emigrate to this special country.

The Leftocratic platform is not progressive and enlightened.  It is a poorly written, boring, and wicked program projecting tyranny.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig, American Thinker