On October 3, 1970, I joined 150,000 other Christian Americans for a Victory In Vietnam March through Washington, D.C., headed by the Reverend Dr. Carl McIntire. The press coverage was as bigoted and prejudicial as it is now.
I will never forget the huge formation that formed at the Mall area where we headed for one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, down that street and wound up at the Washington Monument. At the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where we turned to the left, there was a large crowd of long-haired dirty smelling protesters with a huge sign condemning us. They were yelling vile obscenities, calling us Nazis, spitting at us and throwing not a few objects at us. I will never forget the prominence of olive skin among them, which befuddled me in those days because they seemed to be somewhat different than the rest of us.
At about the same time, many college student protesters were losing their draft deferments and being sent to fight in Viet Nam. This was unfortunate because the number of fragging incidents increased and there were increased problems with discipline in the field. I doubt that many people then understood the connections between children of Communist Party Members, student protesters, olive skin, and belligerent draftees. According to Nathan Glazer, a Jewish Professor of Social Structure at Harvard University, who authored the book entitled, "Remembering the Answers, The Jewish Role in Student Activism," Basic Books (1970), approximately 94% of those organizing the student protest movement came from that community. This was unfortunate, given the amount of support and lives spent more recently by our country defending Israel. I recommend that you get a copy of this book and read it.
More recently, one of the former Jewish anti-war organizers, David Horowitz, published several books: "The Destructive Generation," "Radical Son," and "Politics of Bad Faith." In these books he detailed how his family was comprised of three generations of Communist Party members. Nathan Glazer also authored a book entitled, "The Social Origins of American Communism" in which he explained how the Jewish community in America has always provided the "shock troops for the Communist Party. Again, this is unfortunate. I recommend that you also get a copies of these books and read them.
And so, if you are a veteran who suffered mental anguish at the hands of protesters when you returned from serving your country, please know that most Americans supported your war, and that the protest movement came from a very small minority of our population who comprised approximately 94% of its organizers. Like the Viet Cong and NVA, they were communist Reds fighting that war right here at home. Some of us are still standing up for you, even though we still get spit at and called vile names by those trying to conceal their past.
Just to give credit where credit is due, I am posting the pictures of two such organizers. They are Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Many of us have sworn to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign “and domestic.” But are you aware that there is fundamental disagreement even among legal scholars as to what can be appropriately called, “Constitutional Law?” For example, do we defend the document itself and its obvious meaning? Or do we defend the fanciful opinions that are based upon legal fictions and the desires of political bosses?
My Constitution Law professor at Gonzaga University School of Law(Conklin), told our entire class: "There is no such thing as Constitutional Law, only Constitutional politics. The Constitution is nothing but a scrap of paper with words on it. Those words mean whatever nine black-robed men say that they mean. And they usually say that they mean whatever their political bosses want them to say that they mean." So, I ask you, do we defend the piece of paper? Or do we defend the men who decided to add to it without any legislative authority? Take for instance, "the right to privacy" that was written into the Constitution where it is never mentioned. Why? Well, the justices wanted to craft an excuse for allowing the killing of babies. Yes they engaged in legal fiction solely so they could justify the killing of 65 million babies since 1973 Roe vs. Wade. Why? Well, you cannot have a sex revolution if its participants would be inconvenienced by “unwanted” babies to support and care for. A baby needs a family, and the sex revolution was destroying family ties. But much more importantly the sex revolution was intended to create social chaos. This was because if you have a population of people with chaotic lives, you have a population that will pay little attention, and will care less about what is being done to them by the government. Yes, babies needed to die in order to facilitate a sex revolution that was needed to destabilize the American people with social chaos----so that we could more easily be robbed and subjugated by tyrants during the ensuing sex party.
Now you may enjoy your sex revolt, but if nine judges can legalize the merciless killings of 65 million innocent babies, they can just as easily approve the killing of anyone else, for any reason they might dream up. Imagine a decision that says it is okay to kill old people because medical care is too wasteful. Imagine the right to kill handicapped people for the same reason. All of these things were done in Nazi Germany, and we already have acknowledged that fascism has taken over the U.S. The right to kill unborn babies can be extended by the same guys to allow Muslims to behead born-again Christians----or anyone else who they want to target. Why? Because the Supreme Court justices have been fictionalizing our Constitution for so long that most people have come to erroneously assume that they are supposed to be writing lies about what the “piece of paper” means.
So, which “Constitution do we defend, and when do we start defending it? We talk about guns being confiscated, but it was the SEX REVOLUTION that created the very social mix that has been producing many, if not most, of the mass killings. So think about it. The Supreme Court created the very situation that now is being touted as good reason for confiscating guns from loyal, law abiding citizens. But we DID NOT DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY DID THAT. Now, in time, I think the same gang of nine will get around to writing into the constitution whatever justification they find handy to outlaw your guns.
So I ask you. Which Constitution? And, when will it be defended?
Posted by Marvin Clark at 11:53 PM