What Are the Threats against America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns threats in America that go “beyond the familiar divide between Democrats and Republicans.” According to Ben Shapiro in his article published at The Daily Signal, there are “two ideological movements – one on the far left, one emerging on the populist right.” The two movements “share a willingness to undermine the principles that have long defined the American experiment.” After opening his article with the quoted information, he explained as follows. 

On one side stands the Democratic Socialists of America, whose influence within the Democratic Party has grown dramatically. This is no longer simply a debate over tax rates or entitlement programs. The party’s activist wing has become increasingly hostile to the ideas that have undergirded th3e country for 250 years: freedom of speech, religious liberty, private property, free markets and the belief that America is an exceptional nation worth preserving.

The political consequences are no longer hypothetical. Democrats have a realistic chance to regain control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Competitive Senate races across North Carolina, Ohio, Maine, Texas, Alaska, and Iowa underscore how narrow the margins have become. If Democrats were to reclaim both the House and Senate, the ramifications would extend far beyond the next two years.

The federal judiciary is the clearest example.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are both in their late 70s. Should vacancies arise while Democrats control the Senate, the ideological balance of the court could shift for a generation. A new liberal majority would influence constitutional interpretation on everything from executive authority and religious liberty to economic regulation and the administrative state. At the same time, Democrats would accelerate confirmations throughout the federal judiciary, leaving an imprint that would outlast any single administration.

Those stakes make recent developments on the right especially consequential.

Tucker Carlson has spent recent weeks floating the idea of launching a third political party, arguing that Republicans and Democrats are effectively indistinguishable on issues of war, spending and finance. He portrays America’s two-party system as little more than a single political establishment masquerading as democracy.

That argument ignores the most significant policy differences in American politics. Republicans and Democrats remain sharply divided over taxation, judicial appointments, regulation, free markets, energy policy, and the proper role of government. Pretending those distinctions no longer exist requires overlooking the very issues that define modern elections….

[Carlson’s] current rhetoric politically [is] significant even if no third party ever appears on the ballot. Republicans already face the historical disadvantages of defending Congress during a president’s midterm. Voices on the right openly rooting for Republican defeats only increase the likelihood that Democrats, increasingly influenced by their progressive wing, will gain power.

Following the nation’s semiquincentennial, the debate should return to first principles rather than political personalities.

For 250 years, America’s strength has rested on enduring ideas: constitutional government, individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, religious freedom and peace through strength. Those principles have survived wars, economic crises and political upheaval because each generation chose to defend them rather than discard them.

The greatest challenge facing the country may not come from a single ideological movement but from competing factions that, despite their differences, are increasingly willing to abandon those foundational principles. If the United States is to thrive to its 300^th anniversary, its 500^th and beyond, it will depend not on charismatic personalities or political factions but on whether Americans remain committed to the ideals that made the republic possible.

 

Will America Become a Communist Country?

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Arthur Goldberg discussed how he “worked … to enhance American democracy” in the 1960s by engaging “in nonviolent actions to end racial segregation in America.” Then he compared the “nonviolent actions” of his generation to so-called protests of the last decade. 

By contrast, the agitators of the last decade want only to destroy property, hurt people, and seek to dismantle government itself….

As a mature person in 2025, I and others of my generation recognize how these efforts by so-called progressives (more appropriately called radical leftists) destabilize American democracy. We are heartened, however, by the Trump administration’s executive orders, administrative responses, and legal actions. They seek to restore traditional American values and overcome so-called wokeism within our culture….

This attitude, reflective of hundreds of similar statements by radical leftists, reflects a previously discredited Marxist-Leninist ideology. We were warned, however, by someone in a position to know how such thinking could ultimately infiltrate America.

In a TV interview 40 years ago, former KGB agent Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov (who had earlier defected to the West) explained the plan of committed Marxists-Leninists to gradually subvert America’s political system.

Prior thereto, Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964 and its premier from 1958 to 1964, prophesied that communism would eventually take over America without firing a shot. How? By pitting us against one another, that is, blue states against red states, blacks against whites, poor against rich, and the nonreligious against the religious.

Again, quoting Khrushchev, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism until they awaken one day to find they have communism.” In other words, to have America enter a doom spiral, destroying itself “from within.”

Bezmenov’s TV interview elaborated on Khrushchev’s prophesy by setting forth four basic stages of ideological subversion and brainwashing.

The first stage, “demoralization” is a process of reeducating generations of students to change their way of thinking. He believed this development would successfully occur in the U.S. when the 1960s and ‘70s student radicals came to power and assumed roles as educators and business leaders. According to Bezmenov, these individuals would throw out classical education and weaken belief in traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. They would indoctrinate future students (i.e., future leaders) with Marxist-Leninists values (such as destroying free speech and replacing it with politically correct speech codes.)

The truth of this prophecy is evidenced by simply witnessing (1) what passes for education today in our high schools and colleges, where virulent anti-Americanism has become embedded both within the educational system and in students’ values; and (2) the infusions of cash by major business entities and foundations to leftist social-political movements such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa…..

Stage two, “destabilization” is a process of weakening the essential structural elements of a nation by targeting changes in the economy and international relations such as infusing diversity, equity, and inclusion as part of the fabric of society or by providing billions of dollars to foreign adversaries such as Iran and Afghanistan.

The third stage utilizes “crisis” to achieve the ends of the revolution, whether it be a pandemic or the killing of an unarmed black man. During this time, “a violent change of power, structure, and the economy” takes hold. It also accelerates the process of redistributing wealth.

And finally, Bezmenov referred to stage four as “normalization” or what we may call the new normal. By this time, America has basically been taken over and lives under a new ideology and reality.

He warned us this is what will happen to America unless it guards against people who desire to bring on times of crisis….

Today we are in a fight for the heart and soul of our nation. The Trump administration and conservative governors grasp the impending danger posed by adherents of the radical left. They’ve taken to heart the importance of acting upon the words of Reagan in his farewell address: “If we lose our values, we lose America. The good news is that it is not too late … to restore a sense of national pride and return to embracing the core values that our Founders instilled in the fabric of America.”

Communists have been working for most of my lifetime – since the end of World War II – to take control of America. They make great strides in reaching their goal during Democrat administration and sometimes during Republican administrations. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan recognized the dangers facing America and fought back. Now Donald Trump has taken up the gauntlet in his fight to Make America Great Again. He recognizes the dangers that face America and works to claw back American principles and liberties.

Capitalism or Communism

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the difference between capitalism and communism.  The man who currently occupies the White House made a statement in Argentina that shows he knows little of this difference – or else does not care about it.  He was asked a question about nonprofit community organizations and the funding of same.  This is how he replied:  

                “So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate….

                “Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.  You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory.  You should just decide what works.”

                I believe the man who currently occupies the White House was hedging his bets.  He could not come right out and condemn communism because he was in Cuba.  In fact, he actually praised the socialist system run by Castro family in Cuba, particularly the “free access to basic education and health care” while at the same time acknowledging that Havana “looks like it did in the 1950s” due to the economy “not working”.

                The occupier of the White House could not praise capitalism because he does not believe in it.  He has said over and over again that the United States is wrong.  He even encouraged Castro in his criticism of the United States: “President Castro has also addressed what he views as shortcomings in the United States around basic needs for people in poverty and inequality and race relations and we welcome that constructive dialogue as well….  Because we believe that when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect that we can both learn and make the lives of our people better.”

                Here is a short lesson on the differences between capitalism and communism for the man who occupies the White House as well as anyone else who may be interested.

                “Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.  Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.  In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.”

                “In political and social sciences, communism  (from Latin communis, “common, universal”) is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.”

                Under capitalism, private ownership – as well as competition – is encouraged.  Under communism, common ownership is a must.  Under capitalism, men and women are free to become anything they desire.  Under communism, everyone is encouraged to work together for the good of the masses – except those who become rich and powerful off the work people.

                That is the short and simple comparison:  capitalism encourages freedom and growth while communism restricts freedom and growth.  Which do you think is the better system?