Does The Bible Support Slavery? Part 1 (the first shall be last)

“Equipping & Empowering Christians to Restore America’s Biblical Foundation”


American Vision Daily News . April 27, 2006

American Vision responds to the Atheist DVD:
The God Who Wasn’t There

Amazon’s #1 selling independent documentary is taking America by storm. Learn more about American Vision’s plan to respond:

HISTORY: unwrapped
A Radio Ministry of American Vision

Magellan’s Miscalculations

Ferdinand Magellan’s passage across the Pacific Ocean was one of the most grueling voyages of all of sea-faring history. The crossing took nearly four months through an open stretch of ... READ or LISTEN

Thursday, Apr. 27, 2006
Does the Bible Support Slavery?
(Part One)
by Gary DeMar

An argument leveled against the Bible is that it supports slavery. I received a letter from a Biblical Worldview reader who disagreed with my assertion that the type of slavery practiced in the United States was unbiblical because it was “man stealing.” As you can tell from the following paragraph, he is passionate about his beliefs. But is he right?

The Bible does not condemn slavery. The Bible does condemn abortion. Human legislation cannot make legal what God’s law condemns, or make illegal what God’s law allows. When you condemn what God’s law allows, you are a legalist and sin (Deuteronomy 4:3; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19). When you allow what God’s law condemns, you are a lawbreaker and sin (Exodus 20:1-17). When you can’t tell the difference, you can’t think as a Christian.

I responded in a brief note that the slavery practiced in this country prior to 1860 was “man stealing” (kidnapping). West Africans were kidnapped, put on ships, brought to these shores, sold at auction, and placed in forced labor. Admittedly, many slaves were treated decently upon their arrival and during their captivity. But this is beside the point. They were still slaves, in captivity against their will!

The Indentured Servant

Many of this nation’s earliest settlers paid for their passage as indentured servants. Indentured servitude is neither unbiblical nor unconstitutional. A thief who was unable to make restitution could be sold into servitude for his theft (Exodus 22:3b). Even after the abolition of slavery, indentured servitude was retained by the Constitution as a legitimate form of punishment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” (Amendment XIII, Section 1). We should, therefore, distinguish between slave (man stealing) and bondservant (indentured servant). We should also keep in mind that the word “slave” appears only once in the King James Bible (Jer. 2:14a), as does the word “slaves” (Rev. 18:13). The word slavery does not appear anywhere in the King James Version.1

I quoted Exodus 21:16 to support my contention that slavery as practiced in America cannot be supported by an appeal to the Bible: “And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” The letter writer supported his position by claiming that Exodus 21:16 only applies to kidnapping Hebrews (compare Deut. 24:7). Robert L. Dabney, the most articulate defender of Virginia and the South, disagrees: “It need hardly be said that we abhor the injustice, cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade. It is justly condemned by the public law of Christendom. . . . It is condemned by the law of God. Moses placed this among the judicial statutes of the Jews: ‘And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'”2 There is no indication that Exodus 21:16 only has Israelites in mind. If it does, then verse 12 would also only apply to Israelites since its language is similar to that of verse 16:

  • “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death” (21:12).
  • “And he who kidnaps a man whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (21:16).

James B. Jordan offers a good summary of the issues involved: “The Bible punishes all man-stealing with a mandatory death penalty. In Deuteronomy 24:7, the kidnapping of covenant members is particularly forbidden, but in Exodus 21:16, all man-stealing is prohibited. It might be maintained that if we read v. 16 in context of v. 2, it is only Hebrews who are protected and avenged by this law. The text simply says ‘man,’ however, and there is no indication in the immediate context (vv. 12, 14) that ‘man’ is restricted to covenant members.”3

To be continued..

1. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 121.

2. Robert L. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, [And Through Her, of the South] (New York: Negro University Press, [1867] 1969), 288. Reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1977.

3. James B. Jordan, The Law and the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 104.

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Would you like to receive American Vision’s daily articles and news headlines via email each day? To subscribe, simply email us and type “Subscribe” in the subject line.

© 2006 American Vision
P.O. Box 220 | Powder Springs, GA | 30127

Does the Bible Support Slavery?

“Equipping & Empowering Christians to Restore America’s Biblical Foundation”


American Vision Daily News . April 28, 2006

American Vision responds to the Atheist DVD:
The God Who Wasn’t There

Amazon’s #1 selling independent documentary is taking America by storm. Learn more about American Vision’s plan to respond:

HISTORY: unwrapped
A Radio Ministry of American Vision

The Bible & the Oath of Office

While the United States Constitution states that no religious test can be given to a political office holder, every president since George Washington (except Thomas Jefferson) has taken the oath of office with... READ or LISTEN

Friday, Apr. 28, 2006
Does the Bible Support Slavery?
(Part Two) . Part One
by Gary DeMar

Defenders of Southern slavery appeal to Leviticus 25:44-46 to support their pro-slavery position since it describes the enslavement of pagans. Robert L. Dabney bases his argument for slavery on the Leviticus passage without considering a change in its application under the New Covenant.1 Slavery of foreigners was legal in Israel. “These pagans were being purchased out of their covenantal slavery to demonic religion. They were being redeemed (bought back). They were being given an opportunity to hear the gospel and see it in operation in households covenanted to God. They were being given the opportunity to renounce paganism and thereby escape eternal slavery in the lake of fire.”2

The enslavement of pagan nations under the Old Covenant was tied to the jubilee laws described in the same chapter. The jubilee was fulfilled in principle by Jesus (Luke 4) and abolished historically when Israel as a nation ceased to exist with the destruction of its religious and civil governments in A.D. 70. Slavery of heathen nations was tied to the special character of the land of Israel in the same way that distribution of the land of Israelite families was tied to the special redemptive character of the land.

In addition, the Gentiles are given a new status in the New Covenant. The coming of Christ was “a light of revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32; see Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Jesus began His public ministry with the reading of Isaiah 61:1, “to proclaim release to the captives” (Luke 4:18). We know that this release included Gentiles: “And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. . . . And in His name the Gentiles will hope” (Matt. 12:18, 21). Acts shows that many Jewish Christians had not accepted the fact that Gentiles were included in the covenant promises initially reserved for Israelites: “And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles” (Acts 10:45).

With the gospel’s breaking of national Israel’s old wineskin, a new means of foreign evangelism began. New Testament evangelists are to go to foreign lands as servants, not as slave-masters or their economic agents, slave traders. They are to warn men and women to submit to God’s rule voluntarily. . . . Christians are to bring the message of liberation which Jesus announced in Luke 4.3

The history of the enslavement of African blacks has been an impediment to the gospel. Instead of being fishers of men, many in the church supported the notion of being the enslavers of men, in particular, black men, women, and their children. The Bible, including Leviticus 25, does not support enslaving exclusively African blacks. Racism seems to be the motivating factor. Gary North writes: “Slavery as a system came to North America in the early eighteenth century, and it was grounded in the racist prejudices that increased with every shipload of victimized blacks. Racism seems to have been the foundation of slavery rather than the reverse.”4 With the coming of Christ Christians are to preach the gospel to make disciples of the nations; making them “slaves to Christ,” not slaves to other men.

The NT and Slavery

We know that in the New Testament Paul condemns slave traders (kidnappers) in 1 Timothy 1:10. Revelation considers those who traffic in “slaves and human lives” to be immoral and destined for judgment (Rev. 18:13). Nowhere does the New Testament support trafficking in slaves. Paul’s letter to Philemon does not support the notion that the New Testament tolerated chattel slavery. Onesimus was probably a bondservant who owed a debt to Philemon. Paul encourages the runaway Onesimus to return to Philemon and encourages Philemon to release Onesimus upon his arrival. Paul promises to pay Philemon if Onesimus “owes you anything” (Philemon 18). Paul’s mention of a debt seems to indicate that Onesimus was an indentured servant.

Defending the Indefensible

The letter writer (see Part 1) concludes his argument in defense of slavery by quoting Dabney. Dabney, as we saw earlier, abhorred “the injustice, cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade.” Then why did he continue to support the holding of slaves? Dabney writes: “When the property has been acquired by the latest holder, fairly and honestly; when, in the later transfers, a fair equivalent was paid for it, and the last possessor is innocent of fraud in intention and in the actual mode of his acquisition of it, more wrong would be effected by destroying his title, than by leaving the original wrong unredressed. Common sense says, that whatever may have been the original title, a new and valid one has arisen out of the circumstances of the case.”5

Dabney moves his argument away from the Bible to “common sense,” a clear indication that he does not have a biblical argument. While the slave trader may have acquired the slaves through immoral means, Dabney argues, the person who receives the stolen men, women, and children is not bound by the original illegality. In essence, he cannot be held accountable for the initial fraud since he purchased the “merchandise” in good faith. Dabney begs the question. How can the purchase of human beings for the purpose of using them for slave labor be done “fairly and honestly” when Dabney fully admits “that the original slave catcher” who “captured the African was most unrighteous”?

The letter writer attempts to bolster Dabney’s argument by citing a case of fraud perpetrated on him. He writes: “[I]n 1981 a fraud gave me a bad check for $2,000 worth of silver dollars, then sold them to another dealer. When I sued to recover the dollars from that dealer, the court found that, although the criminal had acquired them by fraud, title had been passed to the next owner who had bought in good faith and could not now be disturbed in his possession.”

The key is that the dealer purchased the coins “in good faith.” If he had known that the coins had been stolen, he would have been cited with conspiracy to commit fraud. Those who purchased slaves at auction in the United States knew that the slaves were kidnap victims. The slave owners were not operating “in good faith” since they knew “that the original slave catcher” who “captured the African was most unrighteous.” The coin dealer did not know that the first transaction was fraudulent; slave holders did.

1. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 117-121.

2. North, Tools of Dominion, 145.

3. North, Tools of Dominion, 173.

4. North, Tools of Dominion, 180.

5. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 288-289.

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Would you like to receive American Vision’s daily articles and news headlines via email each day? To subscribe, simply email us and type “Subscribe” in the subject line.

Gasoline Price Gouging

By Thomas E. Brewton

Oil companies are not, as angry consumers believe, generating  higher 
profits by gouging at the gasoline pump.  Demanding that your 
political representatives impose windfall taxes or price controls 
will guarantee even higher pump prices long into the future.

One legacy of New Deal socialism is the now unquestioning assumption 
that the Federal government can and ought to fix whatever problems 
come our way, rather than allowing the ingenuity of millions of 
individuals to find accommodations and solutions.

Liberal Republicans and Democrats have proposed windfall taxes on oil 
companies and have presumed to exercise business judgment by 
instructing oil companies how to invest their money.  Surveying the 
handiwork of Federal bureaus, under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, will convince a disinterested and non-ideological 
observer that the Feds are about as effective as a blind ape 
performing brain surgery with a sledge hammer.

Price controls and windfall taxes can be crippling to consumers as 
well as oil companies.  President Nixon, proclaiming “we are all 
Keynesians [socialists] now,” imposed price controls from 1971 to 
1974.  OPEC responded to Nixon’s price controls with the 1973 oil 
embargo.  Spot market oil prices immediately doubled and began a 
sustained climb to an inflation-adjusted price of $95 per barrel in 
1980 at the end of the Carter administration.  And we had to sit for 
hours in lines at service stations to get a few gallons of fuel.

Because of its recent record-high quarterly profits, ExxonMobil has 
been the maximum-visibility target for angry consumers of all 
political persuasions.  But those record profits, by themselves, do 
not prove gasoline price gouging.

1.  Most of ExxonMobil’s profits are made from international oil and 
gas ventures, not from gasoline sales in the United States.  Those 
profits accrue from consistent investments of billions of dollars 
over many decades, in places like Chad and offshore Angola.

2.  A significant part of ExxonMobil’s profit increases have resulted 
from year-by-year increases in operating efficiency.  Worldwide sales 
increased 72% from 2001 to 2005, while the total number of worldwide 
employees dropped from 98,000 to 84,000.  Additionally, ExxonMobil 
has the industry’s largest and most highly integrated refineries, 
which has made it more efficient than most other major oil companies.

3.  Oil companies like ExxonMobil exhibit what is called operating 
leverage.  A high portion of their operating costs is fixed; that is, 
those costs do not change much if at all when sales rise or fall.

Pumping more oil and gas from existing wells and processing petroleum 
in refineries doesn’t require hiring more employees or running 
additional shifts, in contrast to manufacturing in the automobile 
industry.  Oil company operations run 24/7 with no shutdowns, except 
for periodic maintenance.  Refineries, wells, and pipelines are 
closed systems through which oil, natural gas, and refined products 
flow, with relatively little human intervention.  Because of their 
enormous capital investment and fixed operating costs, refineries are 
particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices, their profits 
bobbing up and down.  Many major oil companies, as a result, have 
sold their refining operations.

Operating leverage means that changes in sales volumes 
disproportionately affect net income.  When world oil prices rise, 
sales volumes go up more than operating costs, and a large portion of 
the price-driven volume increases flow to the bottom line net 
income.  Operating leverage also means that when oil prices fall, 
operating costs don’t decline much, and net profits drop more than 

In 2003 when oil prices increased 78%, ExxonMobil’s net income as a 
percentage of sales jumped 59%.  But in 1999, when oil prices dropped 
8%, ExxonMobil’s net income to sales percentage declined 19%.  Oil 
prices have declined in three of the past ten years.  But 
ExxonMobil’s net income percentage dropped, as much as 87%, in five 
of those ten years.

Angry consumers look only at ExxonMobil’s profits in recent quarters 
and are unaware that, over long time spans, the company is as much 
vulnerable to low oil prices as it is the beneficiary of current high 

Over the past decade, ExxonMobil’s net income as a percentage of 
sales has averaged a relatively modest 7.3%, with the high point in 
2005 at 10%.  This pales in comparison to the operating leverage of 
Microsoft, where software development costs are analogous to oil 
companies’ fixed costs, and duplicating and distribution costs are a 
small fraction of sales prices.  Microsoft’s net income to sales has 
not been less than 25% in the past decade and has gone as high as 41%.

4.  68% of ExxonMobil’s net income over the past five years has been 
plowed back into finding and developing new energy sources, which is 
part of a continuing effort that has been markedly effective over 
many decades.  Liberals in Congress, however, wish to supplant 
management’s authority and require that capital funds be diverted to 
a repeat of the 1970s Federal synfuels fiasco.
Apparently inescapably, liberals suffer the socialistic state-
planning delusion that they merely have to conceive an idea and pass 
a law to make it reality.  In the words of a article, 
“Jimmy Carter’s synfuel project flopped in the 1970s. In the 1980s 
the government poured billions into the black hole of fusion. In the 
1990s solar energy amounted to little more than an expensive toy for 
tree huggers.”

Windfall taxes or price controls will reduce the amount of funds 
available for finding new sources of energy, thereby curtailing 
future supplies of oil and guaranteeing higher gasoline prices here.  
Finding new energy sources has become hugely expensive as off shore 
drilling operations have moved from 600 foot depths fifteen years ago 
to as much as 7,500 feet under water today.  Future production from 
difficult sources like tar sands will require much larger investments 
than past drilling ventures.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to

Eastern University Embraces Homosexual Agenda

April 25, 2006 | 09:24 PM

By Michael Marcavage,

On April 24, Eastern University welcomed a busload of homosexual activists to its campus. The administrators of the private Christian school had their doors wide open to Mel White’s Soulforce Equality Ride, but attempted to close them on Repent America.

Soulforce Equality Ride is a group of 33 young adults who have been traveling across America to predominantly Christian-based schools to promote homosexuality. According to their website, the mission of Equality Ride is to “confront colleges that ban the enrollment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. These bans devalue the life of LGBT people and slam the door on academic freedom. To make public their case for equality, the young activists on the Equality Ride hold vigils, Bible studies, class discussions, community forums, and press conferences.”

Equality Ride is another project of Mel White to further the homosexual agenda. White is a former husband, Christian author and Fuller Seminary professor who abandoned his wife and children to engage in full-time homosexual activism in the name of Christianity. He has also written a book that declares that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior, but rather welcomes the lifestyle. The group distributes a pamphlet written by Mel White that promotes the false teaching that it is possible to be an unrepentant homosexual and on the narrow path. (Matthew 7:13-14)

During Equality Ride’s visit to Eastern, several Christians with Repent America attempted to distribute information to students about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. However, school officials immediately demanded that RA leave the campus, but God had a different plan. After some discussion on the property belonging to God, administrators brought out a table for the information to be placed on, students gathered around, and for six hours many students and some homosexuals with Equality Ride had the opportunity to hear the truth about homosexuality and holy living. At one point, a university Vice President interrupted the discussion and tried to direct the students away from the table provided to RA. This school official told the students that they should be listening to Equality Ride because they are the “invited guests”. The enemy’s attempt to shut down the Word of God failed.


Grievously, many Eastern students had no problem with Equality Ride’s lies by wearing buttons that promoted the group’s agenda (including some administrators) and calling RA’s information offensive because it addressed homosexuality as a sin. Some of the students unashamedly declared that they sin everyday, and therefore, it is possible to be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. Others declared that “we are all children of God” and should embrace our “gay brothers and sisters.” At one point, a student used profanity to express why RA is wrong in directly addressing homosexuality as a sin. Only a few students vocally agreed that it should be addressed as a sin, while most stated that Christians should not judge.

Eastern University is on the verge of apostasy. Please pray that the God-fearing students and teachers would rise up and speak out.

Note: After the posting of this article, a student from Eastern wrote RA calling our campus presentation “bigoted legalism”, stating that he and other students “ended the day praying, singing hymns, and worshipping Yahweh with our fellow Sisters and Brothers in the Equality Ride. It was beautiful. And lovely. And true. As the sun set, I could feel Jesus looking down upon us, all sinners and in need of grace and smiling as we embraced each other regardless of our sin.”

Readers of this article are encouraged to study Romans, Chapter 6.

Please contact Eastern University‘s president:

David Black, President
Eastern University

Eagle Road
St. Davids, Pennsylvania 19087-3696

Telephone: (610) 341-5890

Fascism vs. Ecomonic Liberty

By Thomas E. Brewton


Readers who object to characterizing liberal Republicans and Democrats as fascists simply don’t understand the meaning of the term.



Our debased educational system teaches students to apply the term fascist indiscriminately to any object of loathing.  I am instead using the term to describe the specific characteristics of a class of economic and political thought.


The most basic dividing line between sociopolitical outlooks in the Western world is regulation and control vs. limits and balances, collectivism vs. individualism.  American liberalism is based on the former.  Our Constitution, on the latter, expressed by Jefferson’s aphorism that the best government governs the least.


Fascism is not a unique phenomenon.  It is a logical conclusion to one of the two basic conceptions of social order.  If one believes that, without the guidance of government, most people are incapable of knowing their own best interests and of doing the right thing to further their interests, then he is already moving in the direction of Fascism, albeit with the best of intentions. 


Hence the liberal  social-welfare, nanny-state, summed up by President Clinton’s press secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said that only the Federal government has the power to improve people’s lives.


Liberals believe that individual economic liberty, under the original Constitution, produces a society of greed, one in which there is too great a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, a society in which true freedom therefore cannot exist.  Unequal distribution of income is ipso facto suppression of the poor by the rich.  For liberal icons like Michael Walzer freedom means that every individual, without regard to personal merit or productive work, has free access to all of society’s goods and services. 


To attain that end, liberal government must assume increasingly dictatorial powers to redistribute income and become the provider of people’s basic needs.


It is important to understand that all regulation-and-control forms of government are fundamentally the same, ranging from American liberalism to present-day socialism in France and Germany, as well as the Soviet Union and fascist regimes in Italy and Nazi Germany.  Since the beginning of the 19th century all of these systems have been classified as socialism, and bear the same relationship to socialism as do the many different Protestant denominations to the whole of Christianity.  There are doctrinal differences, but at bottom all varieties of socialism are the same.


Fascism can be traced to the writings of Joseph de Maistre immediately after the French Revolution.  His conception of human nature led to the conclusion that people must be constrained by government to do whatever the authorities decided was in the national interest.


Even de Maistre and French revolutionary philosophers conceded, however, that in England a very different and strikingly fruitful theory of government held sway.  Its root was in the restraints upon monarchial power that English barons imposed upon King John in 1215 with Magna Carta.  There was to be a constitutional form of government that limited royal powers and created structural balances.  The king could not arbitrarily impose taxes nor seize property to fund his campaigns; only the English people represented in Parliament could do so.  Our own Constitution came straight out of that tradition.


De Maistre’s conception led directly to all-powerful government of the sort that prevailed in his day in the feudal system of Czarist Russia.  The will of the sovereign was to be the will of the nation.


Fascism acquired its name in Italy of the 1920s after Mussolini’s Black Shirts marched on Rome, with widespread public support, and seized control of the government.  Contrary to what students are told today, Mussolini and Hitler were immensely popular, just as was our own fascist President Franklin Roosevelt.


While there was plenty of arbitrary and repressive regulation in fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, the vast majority of the people welcomed Mussolini and Hitler as their saviors from the unsettled economic conditions following World War I.  Their popularity arose also from the intense nationalism that characterized Fascism.  Both Mussolini and Hitler repeatedly spoke of the history and traditions of the Italian and German peoples and of their aim to restore former greatness.


Mussolini and Hitler pursued nearly identical economic policies, under the rubric of  state-corporatism, that were aimed at “harmonizing” the competing economic interests of private businesses, labor unions, farmers, and the fascist government.  Italian and German regulatory councils were essentially the same as the New Deal’s NRA industry-group codes of prices, production, and wages and its Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which controlled farm production and prices.


The primary divergence between the New Deal and Italian and German Fascism was their expression of nationalism.  Mussolini and Hitler believed that to protect national interests it was necessary to become as nearly self-sufficient as possible.  The question did not arise in the United States because of its vast store of natural resources and its geographic isolation.


Inherent in the fascist drive toward economic self-sufficiency was the imperative to acquire the natural resources they lacked via territorial conquest.  Amplifying that dynamic was the fascist glorification of Roman and German history and mythology and the belief that the national will was to be realized via militarism, by Bismarck’s “blood and iron.”   Hitler’s variant of fascist nationalism was the racist Holocaust.


In both President Roosevelt’s New Deal manifesto and Italian and German Fascism the populace are divided into economic classes and dealt with as groups, not as individuals.  Mussolini and Hitler were scathingly contemptuous of English individualism.  Individuals had meaning only as constituents of the national state, rather like bricks in a wall. 


President Roosevelt rejected our original constitutional individualism in his January 1944 annual message to Congress: 


“The one supreme objective for the future…can be summed up in one word: Security.…This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of of certain inalienable rights – among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.  They were our rights to life and liberty.  As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.…


“We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…Among these are: the right to a useful and remunerative job…The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.…The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care…The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.  All these rights spell security.”


This is fascist state-corporatism, pure and simple.  Individuals must surrender their Bill-of-Rights protections against the tyranny of the majority and entrust their futures to the President’s socialist Brain Trusters.  As Roosevelt said in his 1933 inaugural speech, ” …if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of the common discipline, because, without such discipline, no progress is made…”




Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776


Email comments to



at our peril…


By Don Laigle


The USSR Sorely Disappoints a Young Leftist


As a language student, I was formed by college into a full-fledged ultraleftist, beguiled by left-leaning European authors to whom I was exposed into eventually believing that “The Truth” was to be found in the USSR, because there they had put behind them all superstitions, including religion, once and for all. A totally atheistic regime based on science and Enlightenment ideas would be light years ahead of the benighted West with its antiquated economic and social system, wouldn’t it? I wanted to be part of the movement to bring this enlightenment to my country.


So after graduation, I went to Russia to continue my study of Russian at the University of Leningrad under the auspices of the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE).


The first thing I learned was that, surprisingly, the Soviet Union was not the workers’ paradise it was billed as. During the first week, a young cinema student I had met told me that he had to be extremely careful talking to westerners. He had had western friends some years earlier and was picked up by the KGB and interrogated for a whole night under a bright light, where he was repeatedly asked: “Why do you associate with foreigners?” He made sure we met only outdoors, in parks, never at his home.


A bright young couple studying acting couldn’t get a visa for foreign travel. The wife was desperate to visit the West. She cried bitterly as she told me that. I couldn’t understand why the goal of sharing the wealth would lead a government to ban travel. If the Left had the right idea, why wouldn’t the government want its people to travel here and introduce those superior ideas to us? Hmm.


I had heard that you had to stand in line for an hour to buy a loaf of bread in Russia, but I was skeptical, attributing that to western media bias. So I went to a supermarket to find out for myself. Sure enough, it took me about an hour to get to the counter after joining the line. I was also surprised to find that no meat was sold there. And that was during one of our side trips, in Moscow, where the best supermarkets were provided as showcases for western visitors!


My closest Russian friends told me they didn’t believe in God and they personally knew no one in the USSR who did. I met a man who was unable to work or get an apartment because he had fallen into disfavor with the government.


The black market was ubiquitous, with fartsovchiki, or black marketeers, lurking everywhere, interrupting sightseeing activities to badger foreigners into selling them their clothes and exchange money at rates of up to 4 rubles to the dollar. Soon none of the 162 American students in our group was exchanging money at the bank, where the exchange rate was 1:1. Yet, our tour guides, who were in reality KGB agents, steadfastly insisted there was no black market in Russia.


So before my return, one of the pillars of my leftist world view, the notion of a superior Soviet system, lay in ruins.


What had gone so terribly wrong with this “enlightened” experiment?


And why had Russia, of all countries, been willing to take this plunge into darkness, at the peril of its citizenry and its culture?


Shame: A Great Motivator of the Left, Both There and Here


Like pre-revolutionary Russian leftist, our Left, led by academicians, is anxious to show the world, especially Europe, that they are as far left as inhumanly possible, ultraleft! No one in 19th century Europe could muster the popular support for communism needed to implement that system there. But in Russia, Lenin pulled off this feat and succeeded in ramming his program through, leaning on methods and ideology developed almost exclusively in Europe. He enabled Russia to out-Europeanize the Europeans! The reason for this success? I think it was partly because the Russian Left was like Avis: they tried harder. And I believe they were driven harder because of shame at the stigma of backwardness that they perceived as having attached itself to them. Likewise, here in America, our Left, driven by the same motives, wants to do precisely that: rid itself of the bumpkin stigma it imagines as having attached itself to America in the world they have imagined for themselves. And they have already gone further than Europe in ways that count, particularly in the social sphere. Nowhere else on the planet is partial birth abortion legalized. Did you know that? Only in America. The Left is running away from its ignominious roots. The Left is ashamed of puritanical America. They dream of having been founded by a libertine Robespierre, not by a bunch of pious zealots. Hence their obsession with rewriting history. And if they succeed, they will learn an ineluctable lesson: freedom is the harshest slave driver.


The similarities between pre-revolutionary Russia and America today are remarkable, and if we understand them, there is a chance we can avoid the mistakes that led to the debacle that was the Soviet Union. But as one who has seen it firsthand and studied its history in a certain depth, I need to say we are perilously close to swapping our beloved American culture for a bogus and dangerous idea!


American intellectuals on the Left sneer at grassroots Americans, our evangelical Christianity, our customs and traditions, our love of our Constitution, our reverence for our Founders and our insistence on puritanical moral standards.


Much of this attitude is linked to a sense of shame at being American and not European.


And many of the reasons for this shame are the same as the reasons why Russian intellectuals in pre-revolutionary Russia were ashamed of their country, and why they too wanted to be fully Europeanized, so much so that they were eventually willing to embark on a foolhardy and murderous adventure mapped out by European socialists that would lead them to ruin. So they scorned the ways of the russophiles like Tolstoy, who saw himself as the advocate of all things traditionally Russian (much like Solzhenitsyn today), including, and especially, the adherence of Russian peasants to naive Christian morality and viewpoints, their love of the soil, hard work, honesty, duty and spirit of sacrifice.


The shame had several origins and they, remarkably, coincide with the origins of our Left’s shame at being American:


1—Russia had a rural predominantly Christian populace that adhered to the old ways many thought of as backward and less educated. American conservatives are also, broadly speaking, concentrated in rural areas, are mostly Christians and are underrepresented on college campuses. (Of course, it needs to be remembered that this reflects their justified suspicion of universities and their indoctrinating function).

2—There was a valid reason as well for shame on both sides: Russia was the last country in Europe to abandon feudalism, which was no less than slavery. Likewise, America was the last civilized Western country to abandon slavery.

3—Both countries succeeded at great cost in throwing off an ignominious yoke: The Tartar Yoke in their case, the British yoke in ours.

4—In both pre-revolutionary Russia and here, there was/is a cultural war over values, and specifically, whether to adopt the ideas of freedom springing from the French revolution, along with the dissolute lifestyles they implied, or whether to stay on the path blazed in the homeland by their forefathers. The Left thinks the culture war is due to cloddish religious fanatics wanting to cram antiquated religious ideas down others’ throats.


My purpose in writing this is to try and take the reader along with me on my ideological escape route from Leftism, so as to help others shed the shackles of that false doctrine that enslaves so many of us. I want you or your loved ones to find the freedom that I found but with less pain.


A Lesson Learned But Not Heeded


After I returned from my trip, my leftist ideology, though dampened, was not yet extinguished. I still clung to the radical social ideas of the 60s and even long after the 60s, remembered that time as liberating because the Left had taken a giant step “forward” on all fronts. You see, I didn’t get it yet.


It wasn’t until I saw first hand the devastating effects of these ideas on the culture around me that I started emerging from my opiate slumber.


The first clues were the kind of people I started meeting everywhere. Some of my employees would come into the office on Mondays looking like they hadn’t slept a wink. I later discovered that at least one was spending all weekend partying with her husband and his pals, taking drugs and swapping spouses. These people were not to be envied. They were getting old fast and had no joy in their lives. My life was not much better. Later I read statistics that since the 60s, there had been a 600% increase in violent crime, a 250% increase in divorce, a 100% increase in fatherlessness. Suddenly, people looked lost. And I felt lost. What was life all about now that we were liberated from God? Yet I had been taught much earlier that freedom was in Christ. Nah… That antiquated notion couldn’t be taken seriously. Could it?


I was ready for a change, but I couldn’t yet bring myself to seriously entertain the notion that the leftward plunge of the 60s—the lack of godliness and morality, the disrespect for the Constitution—was the cause of the malaise, and that only a restoration of our national roots would provide the desperately needed remedy to these ills.


This is all so obvious now I almost want to laugh at my former self. Yet, absent the Messenger who arranged my life so as to open my eyes, I would most assuredly be stuck in that moral swamp even now.


Beguiled Back Home by the Magic of Art


Eisenstein, a renowned Russian film maker, helped further the cause of communism in the world with such masterpieces as the Potemkin, which dramatically portrays heroic men and women in the years prior to the Russian Revolution sacrificing their lives for the high-minded ideals of that revolution. The scene of hundreds of people running down a broad avenue amidst a hail of gunfire, many of them leaving their lives on the street, is one of the most memorable moments in cinematic history. For many it masked the horror of millions murdered under Stalin.


But yet, it was, ironically, the art of cinema and belles lettres from Russia, that mightily helped pull me out of my enslavement in leftist ideology. Chance encounters with films and books from Russia, originally intended only for language study, helped highlight for me the parallels between America today and pre-revolutionary Russia. And more than anything, they enabled me to see Americans in a mirror that was objective and detached. As reflected in the protagonists of these Russian works of literature, I was able, for the first time, to see their American traditional counterparts as admirable heroes, not as the bumpkins portrayed by Hollywood. I honestly am not sure I would have snapped out at all if it hadn’t been for these. That’s why I want so badly to share them with you, because I think if they worked on a recalcitrant “liberal” like me, they almost would work on anyone.


Eighteenth century poet-scientist Lomonosov, the Renaissance man’s Renaissance man, who had to pretend to be a nobleman to gain admittance to the Moscow Slavic Greek Latin Academy, is perhaps my favorite hero. His poems reflect his awe at God’s creation. And he very much embodies the American spirit, in having lifted himself, an underdog, up by his own boot strops. Solzhenitsyn is an invaluable source of insight into pre-revolutionary Russia. I recommend the novel “1914.” Tolstoy is helpful in understanding the 19th century Russian soul, particularly in the novel “Anna Karenina,” an apology for the Christian walk, for which, ironically, Tolstoy was excommunicated by incompetent Orthodox Church leaders, who mistakenly thought the author was peddling filth in his modest portrayal of an adulteress (this reminds me for all the world of spineless church leaders today who don’t want to make waves).


But for a quick, painless but powerful lesson and a charming, romantic look at 19th century Russia that shows how some intellectuals of the time longed to be Europeanized while others clung to Russian culture, nothing even holds a candle to the cinematic masterpiece Nest of Noblefolk (Dvorjanskoe Gnezdo / ?????????? ?????? in Russian), based on a Turgenev story. This film, virtually unknown in the West, may not be at your local Blockbusters just yet, but can be acquired in DVD format (subtitled in English if you choose) for about $20.


Briefly, this is the story of a middle-aged Russian nobleman, Fjodor Ivanovich, the son of a nobleman and a peasant woman. Fjodor has just broken up with his wayward wife and returned from their home in Paris, where she had taken on lovers and left him distraught and angry. In the carriage on the way back to his estate in rural Russia, he ponders the meaning of “native soil” and concludes that to live away from one’s homeland is to be like an uprooted plant.  Back home, he meets up with Lisa, his cousin’s daughter, who was a child when he left but has since grown into a comely maiden.


The flashbacks to the dimly lit soirées hosted at Fjodor’s Paris home by his dissolute wife, portray utter depravity, boredom, nauseating self-indulgence and despair.


The scenes with Fjodor’s conceited oversexed young Russian-born valet, who talks constantly of Paris and of his boredom with the Russian countryside, and the young peasant maidservant who adores him but bores him with talk of medicinal uses of Russian herbs, contrast the meaningless, vain existence of a European city and the purity and wholesomeness of the Russian peasantry. The scenes of the bucolic Russian forest and meadows are exquisite.


Lisa’s family hopes she will accept the hand of Shurin, a rich stuck-up man who hopes to become a minister in the government. Her family is after the prestige and money that would accrue from the union. The first time Fjodor sees Shurin, he sourly remarks to his cousin: “he has the face of a Frenchman.” In a brief verbal exchange between Shurin and Fjodor, the contrast between the russophiles (conservatives) and the europhiles (leftists) becomes obvious. Shurin says he wants Russia to Europeanize “the whole way.” Shurin obviously thinks he is wise. Yet he fails to see his own conceit and the folly of completely rejecting one’s cultural roots. Fjodor retorts that while Europe is a fine place, and he doesn’t hate it, European ways simply don’t fit in Russia.


As Shurin courts Lisa openly, Fjodor courts her in secret. In one scene, we get a glimpse of Lisa’s character as she chats about her upbringing. Although she grew up in the home of self-centered, shallow aristocrats, Lisa was in fact left under the tutelage of her nanny, a Christian woman who taught her how to pray and took her to vespers services. She fondly remembers her childhood impression of the cozy church and its glowing warmth. It is her piety that draws her to the spiritually-minded Fjodor.


The film must be seen to be fully appreciated. For those who love good cinema, please don’t waste another moment. It is authentic to the last detail, steeped in old Russian traditions. It is as much a musical as a cinematic feast, with mysterious, harmonious Slavonic church music and a period folk song beautifully sung as a duet, with Fyodor’s despised wife singing soprano and his beloved Lisa singing alto, accompanied on the clavichord by Shurin, in an almost surrealistic encounter where strict decorum is observed even as Fjodor and Lisa show signs of impending emotional collapse, with Fjodor laughing uncontrollably at one point and Lisa trembling so hard her teacup clicks staccato-like against the saucer as she tries to set it down. Lisa shows Christian love toward the fallen wife, urging Fjodor to forgive her. This scene is immediately followed by a wild and woolly drunken brawl at a country fair with horses running wild and drunken gypsies chasing them in the mud to a gypsy tune performed on double-necked guitars. It is almost reminiscent of a scene from Appalachia. The lines are great, especially Fjodor’s repartee as he verbally trounces the arrogant Shurin and a young aristocratic heckler!


Here is where Fjodor will endear himself to American patriots proud of their frontier heritage. In a brief exchange in his carriage with Shurin, he tells the latter that he is not worthy of Lisa’s hand in marriage. Knowing that the classic aristocratic response to this must be a challenge to a duel, Fjodor preempts Shurin by reminding him that he, Fjodor, is not subject to aristocratic protocol, saying: “Maybe you think you can challenge me to a duel? Forget it. I’m half peasant. I prefer to settle these matters with a club.”


You can trot out the DVD the next time your liberal friends come for a visit. Of course, the question is: will they get the message?


Our friends in Turgenev’s Russia could never have guessed that the europhiles would eventually reject Russian traditions, culture and religion so thoroughly as to create an alien empire that would be remembered as one of the cruelest and most barbaric in all of history, and, nota bene, a thoroughly un-Russian one. 19th century Russia lacked hindsight. But we have that period in history as a mirror in which to view ourselves if we so choose.


Will we be wise enough to do so? And to draw the right conclusions?


Ronald Reagan, the man who did perhaps the most to expose and bring down the evil empire that was the Soviet Union, once said: “We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”


After all, if we let our beloved Republic slip through our fingers, who will be left to save the world from us?




Why Not Euthanasia

Karel F. Gunning



If today we accept the intentional killing of a patient as a solution for one problem, then tomorrow we will find a hundred problems for which killing must be accepted as a solution. During World War II, euthanasia was considered to be a solution for over 100,000 German patients who were killed as unwanted by doctors under Nazi Germany.


In the Netherlands, a government-installed committee headed by the former Attorney Gene­ral, Mr. Remmelink, investigated the extent of euthanasia practiced in 1990 (1). The conclusion of the excellent Remmelink Report (see summary in Table) was that, on a total annual morta­lity of nearly 130,000, a lethal drug was given in ‘only’ 2,300 cases (1.8% of all deaths). As the Dutch government defines euthanasia as “ending a patient’s life at his own explicit request”, there remain many other cases of killing the patient which we would call euthana­sia, and which are not called euthanasia, but which are called “normal medical practice” by the Dutch government. There are 400 cases of assisted suicide and 1000 cases where a lethal drug was given without request. Then there were over 11,000 cases where life saving treat­ment was omitted with the explicit intention of shortening a patient’s life, while only 4,000 cases at the latter’s request. And in nearly 5,000 cases pain treatment was intensified with the implicit intention of shortening life. Together in almost 20,000 cases (15.4% of all deaths) the patient died after a doctor’s decision to hasten death, in almost 11,000 cases at the patient’s own request.


A change in the law since 1994 makes it possible today for a doctor to end a patient’s life without being prosecuted, provided he follows some guidelines: he must consult a colleague (not necessarily a specialist in palliative care); he must write a report answering some 50 questions, and so on. This report is given to the public prosecutor who decides whether to prosecute or not. But this decision is made on the basis of the report. Its author is the doctor himself. According to Dutch law, one cannot be expected to accuse oneself. The chief witness — the patient — is dead at this point. In most cases, the doctor can report as he likes. This means that our patients are no longer protected.


In 1996, a report similar to the Remmelink Report was produced over the year 1995 (2). Compa­ring the two reports (see table), we find that the number of cases where the patient died after a doctor’s decision to hasten death, had increased from almost 20,000 (over 15% of total deaths) to almost 27,000 (nearly 20% of total deaths) of which over 13,000 were done at the patient’s request. Of the cases which should have been reported according to the guideli­nes of the new law, only 41% were actually reported. In fact, the new law protects the doctor, not the patient.



What About The ‘Slippery Slope’?


The first case of euthanasia in Holland where a doctor killed her mother allegedly at the latter’s request, was in 1975. This doctor was sentenced to a two weeks prison term on probation. Twenty years later we got down to 27,000 cases of intentional killing per year. It shows that not only had the numbers increased, but that the mentality toward euthanasia is going down the slippery slope. Of course, if treatment is refrained from or if a high dose of medication is given without the intention to kill but for the patient’s benefit, this is regarded as very good medical practice.


The situation in which euthanasia can be practiced with impunity is also increasing. First, only in cases of unbearable and uncontrollable suffering near the end of life, can euthanasia at the patient’s request exempt a doctor from prosecution. Today, the handicapped, new borns, comatose patients, and even completely healthy but depressed people have been euthanized without punishment by the courts. Some Dutch doctors, hearing about the British successes with palliative care, answered that they did not need to study it, as they could apply euthanasia instead.


What this change in mentality means in practice, is shown by a few examples. An internist, called to see a lady with lung cancer who breathed with great distress, told her that he could help her, but that he would prefer to admit her to his hospital. The patient refused, as she feared to be euthanized. But the doctor told her that he would be on duty during the weekend and would admit her himself. She did go on Saturday. On Sunday night, she was breathing normally. On Monday morning the doctor was off duty. In the afternoon, he came back to the hospital but the patient was dead. A colleague had come in that morning and said, “We need that bed for another case. It makes no difference for her whether she dies today or after a fort night”. So, the patient was euthanized against her explicit will.


I, myself, had a discussion with a colleague about administering morphine. I maintained that large does are needed to kill a patient. At first he denied this, but suddenly said, “You are right. I remember a case of an old man who could die any day. His son came to see me. He was booked for a holiday and did not want to come home for his father’s funeral. He wanted the funeral to be over with before he left. So I went to see the old man and gave him a huge dose of morphine. In the evening I came back to declare death, but the patient was happily sitting on the edge of his bed. At last, he had gotten enough morphine to kill his pain.” My colleague told this story as if it were the most normal thing to do: to kill a patient in order to please the family.



Two Ethical Systems


Nowadays, there are two competing ethical systems. The oldest, which I call humanitarian, is the ethics of the Universal Declaration: the Hippocratic Oath formulated in 400 B.C. by Hippocrates who was no Christian. He believed that the doctor was a powerful man who could decide on life or death. As the patient could not know whether a white powder was meant to kill or cure him, he had to simply trust his doctor. That is why Hippocrates made doctors swear that they would never use their knowledge and experience to kill, either before or after birth; not even at the patient’s own request. In this humanitarian ethic, the well being of the individual is central.


The other ethic I call utilitarian because it is not for the patient’s well being, but the well being of others which prevails. The doctor judges the quality and the sense of a patient’s life whether he is a burden or useful to society, etc. This way of thinking was described in a very clear editorial in California Medicine, September of 1970. It said that medical ethics had been based so far on the notion that all men’s lives had equal value, but that this could no longer be maintained as over population was threatening us and we were no longer prepared to accept every quality of life. Choices would have to be made on the basis of medical evalua­tion. Intentional killing was still abhorrent, so one had to begin with abortion and then go on to voluntary euthanasia. But in the end, we would have death control as well as birth control, and we doctors should prepare ourselves for this new task.


Many people think that legalizing euthanasia will make them autonomous. But, in fact, it is the doctor who is made free to do as he thinks right. In the end, it is not the patient, but the doctor who decides when life should be ended. Is this what we really want? Respect for human life will diminish: violence will increase.


Here is another option. Instead of killing the patient, we can kill the pain. Britain is far ahead of us in dealing with the symptoms of terminal diseases: pain, vomiting, constipation, short­ness of breath, itching, fear of the future, loneliness, and so on. Today, we can help these patients effectively.


The big question is, Will the United Nations maintain the humanitarian ethic of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which recognizes each man’s right to life? Or, Will we accept the utilitarian ethic of death with its elimination of unwanted people? We cannot at the same time defend people’s right to life and allow them to be killed. We need a clear strategy to make sure that our children inherit the kind of world the U.N. has promised to build.



K.F. Gunning, MD – President

World Federation of Doctors Who

Respect Human Life





1    P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden & L. Pijnenborg. 1991.Medische beslissingen rond het levenseinde. SDU – Den Haag.


2    G.van der Wal & P.J. van der Maas. 1996. Euthanasie en andere medische beslissingen rond het levenseinde. SDU – Den Haag.



Summary of Report 1990 (1) and Report 1995 (2)

















Total number of deaths
















Lethal drugs given (total)


2.9 %



3.4 %

Of which assisted suicide


0.3 %



0.3 %

At the patient’s request


1.8 %



2.4 %

Without the patient’s request


0.8 %



0.7 %







Death intended


2.9 %



3.4 %













Intensifying pain-treatment (total)


18.8 %



19.2 %







Death not intended


15.0 %



16.3 %

Partly intended to hasten death


3.8 %



2.9 %

At patient’s explicit request


3.2 %



3.3 %

Without the patient’s request


15.6 %



15.9 %













Non-treatment decisions (total)


17.9 %



20.2 %







Death not intended


9.2 %



6.9 %

Explicit intention to hasten death


8.7 %



13,3 %

At patient’s explicit request


3.1 %



3.8 %

Without patient’s explicit request


14.8 %



16.4 %













Total decisions around end of life


39.5 %



42.8 %

Total decisions intended to hasten death


15.4 %



19.6 %

Total decisions at patient’s request


8.4 %



9.8 %

Total decisions without patient’s request


31.1 %



33.0 %













Reported cases of life-ending


18 %



41 %




The Continuing Threat of Euthanasia

International Conference 1997

Schreeuw om Leven – Ruitersweg 35-37, 1211 KT  Hilversum, The Netherlands

phone +31 35 624-4352, fax +31 35 624-9141, e-mail, internet



The American Way: Mobs in the Streets

By Thomas E. Brewton


Ralph Neas’s “People For The American Way” wants us to follow the path of France‘s revolutionary socialism: let street mobs determine national policy.  Mexican illegals are their acolytes.



The “Who We Are” page of People For The American Way displays a portrait of the organization’s president Ralph Neas, who is quoted: “We’re fighting to maintain and expand 50 years of legal and social justice progress that right-wing leaders are trying to dismantle. We won’t let them turn back the clock on our rights and freedoms.”


Social justice, of course, is code for socialism’s basic remedy for society’s ills, that is, to redistribute income in order to make everyone equally poor and thereby entirely dependent upon the collectivized welfare-state.  This is the “50 years” of progress that actually commenced 75 years ago with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.


The People For The American Way’s ideal society is that of the feckless and clueless multitudes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, who were so enervated by generations of welfare dependency that they knew only to sit down and wait until the government came to feed, clothe, and house them.


How are the liberals to attain this Nirvana?  Our clue is the web page’s headline “Taking Action to Defend Democracy,” which features photographs of street mobs waving placards with their demands.


The essential political innovation of socialism was using propaganda to foment street mobs that intimidate politicians and may even lead to violent revolution.  Evanescent and volatile public opinion is to become the standard for political action.  Established law, history, and tradition are to be cast aside as decadent conservatism.


Forty plus years of pamphleteering by France’s revolutionary philosophers culminated in the July 14, 1789, mobs rampaging through the streets of Paris and hanging government officials and Catholic priests from the lampposts.  This revered and glorious tradition is now on display for the many-thousandth time, with the student and labor union protests against new employment regulations.  It’s the French way to legislate.


If it’s good enough for their socialist forebears, why not for the followers of John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi?  Why not for the Mexican illegals?


In neither case does established law and clearly defined Constitutional principle figure into the process.  It’s just a matter of what liberals think the law ought to be.  It’s just a matter of how much opinion-poll pressure people like Ralph Neas can foment.

Education for Illegal Immigration

By Thomas E. Brewton


Multi-culturalism’s results inflame nativist resentment.



Why has the impact of large-scale immigration since the 1960s been so different from that of the even larger influx of roughly 22 million non-English-speaking immigrants between the Civil War and our 1917 entry into World War I?


The answer is, in a word, education.


Multi-cultural and PC education is a virulent force that sabotages assimilation of immigrants into the political and cultural traditions of the United States. 


In the earlier era the paradigm was the ‘melting pot,’ the idea that disciplined education of immigrants’ children in the public schools would teach them the English language, our history, and our Constitutional traditions, thereby  transforming immigrants into Americans within a generation.  The motto “e pluribus unum” (from many peoples, one nation) was taken seriously.


It worked.  By the outset of World War II, the multitudes of hyphenated Americans were first and foremost Americans, however justifiably proud they were of their ancestral history and traditions.


Now in California we have illegal-immigrant Mexican demonstrators clogging highways to demand their ‘rights,’ while waving Mexican flags and carrying placards declaring that California really belongs to Mexico.  In the most recent gubernatorial race, Arnold Schwartzenegger’s opponent was Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente, a member and active supporter of La Raza, the lobbying group that opposes Americanization of Mexicans and promotes the goal of reclaiming California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as parts of Mexico. 


Having as many as twelve million people living illegally among us as if they were an invading and occupying army quartered at the expense of legitimate citizens is bound to foment fierce opposition.  It’s universal human nature, as the European experience with separatist and subversive Muslim enclaves demonstrates.


American education had long embraced the concept of cultural pluralism, that students should have an understanding of the many different cultural backgrounds and histories of peoples who had joined together to create the United States. 


In the 1960s the educational theory changed into one of ethno-centrism –  the idea that cultural differences should be emphasized – after President Clinton’s Baby-Boomer-anarchist generation turned college campuses into political demonstrations and sit-ins, destroying records and computer centers.  Colleges led the way with black studies, women’s studies, and other ethnic studies departments, along with separate black and Hispanics dormitories. 


Americanization became for students in the 1960s and 70s what spiritual religion had been for Marx a century earlier: the opium of the masses imposed by the power elite to subjugate the poor.  Not just cultural separatism, but anti-Americanism became the standard. 


Those Clinton-generation anti-Americans are, of course, now the faculties and administrators of our school system.  They support illegals’ demands for separate, Spanish-language education, for the same reasons they support atheistic, amoral materialism: as a means to undermine the Constitutional traditions of our nation and clear the way for imposing a ‘good socialistic society.’


Let’s not forget, by the way, that Mexico is a revolutionary-socialist country in which the original collectivist clique of socialists still dominate the political scene.  All the more reason for teachers’ unions and socialist educators to support illegals and Spanish-speaking separatism.


Let’s not forget, also, that were Mexico not a collectivized socialist nation, its people would not be so disproportionately poor and would not have to invade the United States to find a decent living.



Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776


Email comments to