American History GodvsSocialismCover__64626_zoom

Published on October 28th, 2011 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon


God versus Socialism: The planks we walk to our doom

People have no idea how much freedom we’ve lost, how far we’ve gone.

It is no stretch to say that America is not what it used to be. Many lovers of our country will readily identify with the sentiment. What needs to be pushed, however, is a reminder about how and in what ways we have changed. The program we have followed and where we have ended up needs commentary.

Not so long ago, Christians and conservatives in this country defined themselves politically by opposing the great threat of Communism. We hear hardly anything of this today. The idea that Communism was a real threat not so long ago, yet is almost forgotten today, presents a classic example of the American public’s short memory. Mention Marxism in a conversation today and you will almost definitely be hearing crickets in a short time. No one cares: it’s history. The wall fell, we won, move on.

Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, but it fell in our direction. No one talks about this. The Soviet Union fell, but Marxism and Socialism have long flooded all of Western and Eastern Civilization. America is no exception. Marxism is history, yes, and yet the influences of Marxism and various ideas of socialism have never been more dangerous than now, when it stands ready to expand further into every office of government, and when we are yet asleep to it.

So let me briefly state my problems with America as it has come to be. First, we pride ourselves on free-market economics and private ownership of property, but these ideas have been phantoms as long as there has been property tax, which is little more than rent paid to government. If you disbelieve that, then try to go a year or two without paying your property tax, and you will learn who your landlord is. You will be fined, jailed, or “your” property will have a lien filed against it, or it will be confiscated. We don’t own so much as rent from the government. That we have a free-market is likewise ridiculous to defend in the light of recent events. If the Federal Reserve can “print” money at will, and the U. S. Treasury can buy stakes in bank shares, then the market is not free of either State manipulation or intervention.

[get_product id="433" align="right" size="small"]

Second, we have a heavy progressive (or “graduated”) income tax. For the few who may not know, “graduated” means that those who make more money should not only pay more tax based on equal percentage of tax, but should also bear the added burden of an increased percentage. Greater wealth is disproportionately taxed, which penalizes and discourages financial success. The graduated system is unfair, arbitrary, and unbiblical. The United States instituted the graduated income tax by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. It has been increased—again disproportionately—many times since.

Third, we have strong anti-family laws, including inheritance tax. In other words, when you die and leave wealth to your children or other designees, the government grabs anywhere from 18–55% of the amount for itself. This is a denial of the sacredness of the family as a unit, and the rights of families to determine the use of their own wealth. It is also a double tax on property, and a blatant attempt to again penalize wealth. It diminishes successful families’ strength in that it detracts from parents’ ability to advance their children’s future. Thus, it is an attack on the traditional family structure and leadership in society in general.

Fourth, following almost immediately on America’s 1913 imposition of income tax, was America’s less obvious 1913 Inflation Tax, which came in the form of the Federal Reserve. America’s first central bank was proposed by Alexander Hamilton and created in 1791. It was closed twenty years later and continued off and on due to mass opposition until the covert form emerged into law in 1913. . . . With recent events, the fall of many banks has left primarily only a few big banks standing. This “crisis” and the mindless and immoral actions of Congress to go along with the various “bailouts” have pushed our central bank closer to an exclusive monopoly.

Fifth, we have many, massive, subsidized government programs. These are all transfers of wealth based on factors other than the market. There are too many to name here, but farm subsidies come to mind: farmers are paid in various ways in order to manipulate crop prices across the board. Ethanol alone has been subsidized to the tune of $10 billion. This diverts corn from other markets into an otherwise market-doomed purpose (ethanol would never brew in a free market); not only does the public get hit with the $10B, it also suffers a rise in the price of meat and other products that require otherwise market-rate corn. These billions are a miniscule part of the overall government subsidy equation, which from 1995–2010 equals about $262 billion.(1)

Sixth, and finally for now, we have compulsory public education regulated at federal, state, and local levels. “Compulsory,” because even if we home school or privately school our children, we are still compelled to pay taxes for public schooling. “Public,” because the taxes are used to fund government-run schools. This tax-funded schooling is presented as free, of course, but it is only free to those who don’t pay property taxes. Our government spends about $700 billion per year on public education, just for primary and secondary levels. The State determines whether, when, and what you will teach your kids. If people want to participate in this system, that is fine with me, but do not compel me to pay for it. This is a robbery of freedom. Also, when schools function legally as “in place of the parents,” the State has again usurped the role of the family.

[get_product id="1211" align="left" size="small"]

Why the Concern?

The concern over these particular aspects of modern America—and believe me there are many others—is that they are all innovations imposed upon America in direct contrast to the original American way of life. More to the point is the historical source of these points of discussion:

I have lifted them all from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The reason these points are un-American and anti-biblical is that their source was anti-American and anti-Christian in principle.

What I have described above cover roughly seven of the ten “planks” of the Communist Manifesto. I could probably work to show others, but have neither the time nor necessity. The relevant points are these (1, 2, 3, 5, 7/9, 10):

(1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.

(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state . . .

(9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries . . .

(10) Free education for all children in public schools.

The historical connections are clear, too. For example, the springs of the graduated income tax in America flow directly from Marxism. The connection is direct and unmistakable. The first group in American history to advocate the graduated income tax was the Socialist Labor Party, a dedicated collection of Marxists founded originally as the “Workingman’s Party of America” in the People’s Republic of New Jersey in 1876. Their 1887 platform unashamedly declared “we strive for the acquisition of political power.”(2) Among their many “Social Demands” is “Progressive income tax and tax on inheritances; but smaller incomes to be exempt.”

The short-lived Populist Party followed in 1892. Their platform decried “a vast conspiracy against mankind” to demonetize silver and monopolize gold in the hands of a few, among other things. The document contains classic Marxist verbiage, accusing “bondholders” of wanting to “decrease the value of . . . human labor,” and to “fatten usurers, bankrupt enterprise, and enslave industry.”(3) The party died out quickly but had a lasting impact, much of its platform being picked up by the Democratic Party the following election year.

It was then in 1896 that William Jennings Bryan gave that most famous political speech in American history: the “Cross of Gold” speech. Bryan adapted ideas of the former Marxist groups to please American ears and persuade American hearts. Already two years prior he had argued in favor if the income tax, and was now calling it “a just law” and further pushing for the inflation of the money supply. The success of his speech derives from his successful weaving of Marxism and Christian language. Lines like “[tarrif] protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands,” echoed to the religious mind unreligiously bent on envy of other people’s wealth. He called his crusade a “righteous cause” and “holy.” It was brilliant political propaganda. Unequally yoking Marx and Christ (2 Cor. 6:14–18), Bryan argued that the gold standard would be a crucifixion of the “producing masses” and the “toiling masses.” The famous concluding lines leveraged the suffering of Christ for the Marxist agenda: “you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Christians by millions bought into the rhetoric. Tens of millions still do.

[get_product id="433" align="right" size="small"]

And lest we forget the fundamentally anti-religious nature of this plank of Socialism in the country, the Socialist Party platform of 1887 demanded “Separation of all public affairs from religion; church property to be subject to taxation” (note the irony here: the church cannot get involved in public affairs, but the public treasury should benefit from the church’s property). What the Socialist Party could not accomplish with its explicitly anti-church platform, Bryan and his Democrats accomplished by appropriating biblical language to say the same thing.

Likewise, the socialization of education stems directly from the work of early socialists in America. The “Father of the Common Schools” was Massachusetts lawyer and politician Horace Mann (1796–1858). He predates Marx, and thus is not dependent on him, nor was Mann an atheist like Marx, but an enthusiastic churchgoer. His theology, however, was suspect, as he embraced Unitarianism in its early days when it was mission-minded—presenting itself as the culmination of Protestantism and ready to lead the direction of the natural order. Mann rejected orthodox Calvinism and believed strongly in the “perfectibility of man.”(4) This naturalistic belief was, however, couched in religious language: public education would eliminate ignorance, poverty, and crime. In his system, the State replaced both the church and the family: “Society, in its collective capacity, is a real, not a nominal sponsor and god-father for all its children” (classic political salvation).(5) Rushdoony summarizes, “Mann’s work was two-fold, first to secularize education, and, second, to make it the province of the state rather than the community and the parents.”(6) The story of the socialization of education, then, is the product of unbiblical theology. It results in an unbiblical view of education and society that abolishes the role of church and family.

Fall and Recovery

Why do I rehearse these aspects of American history specifically, and why should they bother you so much? Simple. These changes in the American system directly reflect the famous Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. We have witnessed a gradual progression into a Marxist America, all the while boasting ourselves champions of freedom. Well, the “land of the free, and the home of the brave” has become, in fact, the “land of the Fed, and the home of the slave.” We no longer live in the America that fought for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in the America which will fight tooth and nail for government funding and special-interest politics. America today is more Marxist than anything, and a large portion of the voting public wishes to make it even more so.

[get_product id="214" align="left" size="small"]

I say these things realizing that many will pelt me with tomatoes and bricks, call me un-American, an America-hater, and most definitely unpatriotic. But here’s the catch: it is only because I absolutely love and adore the America of the Pilgrims, the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers, etc., that I point out how much we have lost. This is not the same country. It has been flooded with socialism. Envy, greed, and subsequent lust for political power have raped lady liberty, ravaged our land, and stolen the inheritance of the American Dream. It is not patriotism to keep saying “America, America,” when the America of our fathers is all but gone. It is ridiculous to sing “America the Beautiful” when socialists and statists have marred the cheeks of her once-free and optimistic smile. The America that remains is but a shell filled with Prussian and European-style Socialism, wrapped in red, white, and blue. This is not true patriotism.

No, the true patriot loves freedom, family, and property. The word “patriot” literally means “of the fathers.” A true patriot, therefore, conserves the good his fathers built and passed down. He loves vast horizons untaxed by cold marble institutions in distant Capitols, unfettered by radicals in black robes. A true patriot loves the land, and his Father is God not “the State,” and not “the People”; his land is protected by law, respect for law, and as a last resort, the right to defend, not progressively taxed away by politicians wanting to “spread the wealth around,” neither rented from the State as a privilege to live under its almighty watch.

Is there a way to stop, even reverse the godless trend of the past 150 years? As pessimistic as this all may sound, change is possible. It begins with mentally and spiritually reclaiming our founding principles of individual freedom and enterprise. We must make up our own minds and hearts that these principles are worth defending. And unlike those spineless Congresspersons who, after voting “no” on the bailout, sickeningly caved and voted “yes” after some of the loot was thrown to their pet projects and districts. We must never compromise our principles.

Once we secure these convictions, we must pass them to the next generation. This means maintaining a strong biblical view of the family and of education. Education should be compulsory (in the sense that Deuteronomy and Ephesians command us to educate our children), but this is compulsory before God and not the civil State; and education should be costly (in personal time, money, and effort), but no one should ever be forced to pay for someone else’s education. This seemingly simple tax for public education violates nearly every sacred boundary known to man, especially when the content of that education begins and ends with blasphemy. Unless we recover education as a distinctly family- and church-oriented mandate, we will continue to watch society slide into secularism.

Further steps include continual effort to secure public debates and discussion in churches and public forums. Debates should center on America’s Christian history and the necessity of Christianity as the foundation of social order. Marx consciously erased this foundation, claiming it was but an abstraction of the real problems of mankind. He said that any objections to his system from a religious standpoint “are not deserving of a serious examination.”(7) But he was too self-consciously opposed to Christianity for his dismissal to carry any truth. Christian freedom, God-given rights, and law-protected family and property all posed the ultimate threat to his man-centered takeover of the world (and thus of other men). His program of abolishing property, abolishing the traditional family, socializing education, and socializing sex were all contrived precisely as anti-biblical ideas. It was the institution of his system that Marx saw, not as the product of, but as the means to abolishing religion itself.(8) He saw his program as the economic and social counterpart to Darwin’s work in nature: an explanation of social order that does not require God.

[get_product id="1292" align="right" size="small"]

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Marx’s success was the fact the he only succeeded because Christians refused to get involved to begin with. Marx always kept this in mind and exploited it. Reporting on the socialist Hague Congress of 1872, Marx made this unfortunately true remark:

One day the worker will have to seize political supremacy to establish the new organization of labor; he will have to overthrow the old policy which supports the old institutions if he wants to escape the fate of the early Christians who, neglecting and despising politics, never saw their kingdom on earth.(9)

This “neglecting and despising” of politics by Christians has continued in modern American history, and America has since followed the anti-Christian program of Marx and abandoned that of the Bible. This blind following has included many Christians. The reversal of this trend will require bringing these issues into the open as worldview issues. The church must allow and encourage political and economic discussion, and the public must be made to know that we have the answers. The transformation will not happen overnight, but it can happen.Endnotes:

  1. This number has been updated from the figures available for the book in 2009.()
  2. “The Socialist Labor Party of North America Platform,” 1887;, accessed October 16, 2008.()
  3. “National People’s Party Platform”;, accessed October 16, 2008.()
  4. Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education: Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Education (Philipsburg, NJ: Prebyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963), 19.()
  5. Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 24.()
  6. R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 27.()
  7. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1959), 26.()
  8. Karl Marx, “Capital, Book I,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels On Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 136.()
  9. Karl Marx, “On the Hague Congress,” Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 50 vol. (New York: International Publishers, 1988), 23:255.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Joel McDurmon, Ph.D. in Theology from Pretoria University, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored seven books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision's staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.

36 Responses to God versus Socialism: The planks we walk to our doom

  1. Jon says:


    Great article, but what can be done about it? What can I do right here and right now to help change things? I know raising a Christian family, etc. But is there any way in which I should be directly involved in the political process?

  2. kk says:

    A wonderful article,Joel,yet one of many that sadden me,anger me and make me constantly think what needs to be done to turn things around and right the ship called the United States of America back on its course to our Founding Fathers’ principles and ideas.Well,let’s just start by voting a true conservative candidate who has our country’ best interests in her heart,not a establishment Republican,a RINO,who is a part of our country’s problems.Such a true conservative is Michele Bachmann,whose consistent and one of the most conservative voting records there is, tells us all about her stance on issues.There should be no doubt that she stands for everything that our great country was found on by our Founding Fathers.Bachmann 2012.

  3. william says:

    I’d suggest incorporating the “judeo-christian” term into your writings, for further effect on a wider “VALUES AND MORALITY” based group.

  4. dan says:

    WE are slowly but surely coming to a recognition of what some have seen
    for many years – America: Not the Freest Nation at
    reveals the facts that we are regressing nationally not only spiritually, but as
    a result as a free nation

  5. Reva-lution says:

    For those discussing the FED here, take a look at this article:

    I do not see how we can defend this corrupt organization any longer, as it was warned against by our Founders & now the fulfillment has come to pass–we are at the final economic cliff and about to fall off the edge. The FED is working toward the NWO by re-distributing American wealth globally, which is why we are witnessing the massive poverty and decreased standard of living in this country. A renewed gold standard may not be the answer, but we must address this quickly. IMHO, Ron Paul is the only hope we have if we want government to respond in a way that restores our sovereignty and prosperity, instead of the current path to communism.

    • Brother of the King says:

      A renewed gold standard IS the answer. There is no other answer. I agree the Fed should not be doing those things: it’s only destroying our economy. It should quit regulating interest rates, printing money, manipulating currency exchange rates, etc., etc. And we should privatize it. But destroying it will not help anything. Look at the panic of 1837.

      The problem is, Ron Paul isn’t really a conservative. When Michelle Bachman said we should have a national marriage amendment to the constitution, he immediately blasted off about how we shouldn’t mix religion with politics and why supposedly that’s a “job left to the states”. He is primarily concerned with destroying the Fed and “getting the troops back home”. He just joins in with the rest of the conservatives and votes with them to appear conservative. He voted for the repeal of the DADT. And his foreign policy ideas turn him into the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century. He holds almost the same ideas toward terrorism that Chamberlain held against Naziism.

      He claims that he fears the federal government more than he fears Islamic terrorism. Well, if he would really listen to the Founding Fathers like he claims to, here is what one Founding Father had to say about it: “Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Neville Chamberlain? Seriously?? Playing World Policeman has no Constitutional authority, supports recruitment of enemy combatants, and results in ever widening resentment and hatred toward the United States. Stretching our military thin across 150+ countries, while forcing our warfighters into extended and repeated tours of duty in war zones (with the attendant higher rates of suicide, divorce, injuries and casualties), leads to a weaker national defense – not stronger.

        Here’s what our active duty military personnel think of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy:×833.jpg

        But you’re right about Ron Paul not really being a [modern] conservative. Today’s conservatives are mostly neocon warmongers who couldn’t care less about Constitutional restrictions on the federal government or its trampling of civil rights.

        BTW, you neglected to mention that Dr. Paul voted for DADT in 1993 and supported it until he learned that it was being used in a way not authorized by Congress. Thus his vote to repeal it in 2010.

        As for the Founding Father you quote, I doubt Gouverneur Morris would recognize the police state that the United States has become:

        Warrantless wiretaps
        Extraordinary rendition
        Secret prisons
        Assassination of citizens without Due Process
        Illegal wars
        Secret arrests
        Indefinite detention of citizens
        False flag attacks
        Gun confiscation
        Et Cetera

        After 25 years in the DoD, I know exactly what Dr. Paul is referring to and I agree with him. The FedGov is a far greater threat to our liberty, not even counting the needless death, displacement and destruction it has caused both here and around the world.

      • Brother of the King says:

        Don’t believe me? Here is what he said about the death of OBL:

        In the quote in this article, Ron Paul not only reveals his liberal isolationist approach to foreign policy, he also shows another one of his liberal sides: regard for international law. Nowhere, nowhere does the Bible ever even say one bit about any sort of international law other the Law of God. While conservatives have historically always honored agreements with other nations, it is completely a liberal idea to think that there is some sort of “international law” besides God’s Law governing all nations.

      • Brother of the King says:

        And, if the DoD didn’t exist, and our defense wasn’t as organized as it is now, we would never have defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Instead the Cold War would have turned into a Hot War, and we would have been on the losing end of it. The Soviets would have still discovered the A-Bomb, but we would have not. Then, with a couple of strokes they could have destroyed us completely.

        Ron Paul is constantly claiming that all other Republicans who don’t support him are “neocon warmongers”. I’ve heard him say it dozens of times. But just because they don’t support his anti-war, isolationist foreign policy ideas (which he shares with the Democrats), doesn’t mean that they’re warmongers and imperialists. You might as well call Reagan a “neocon warmonger”, for his support for increased defense spending. Yet, it was Reagan, with his support for increased defense spending, that gave the Soviet Union the final push over the brink. A year after his presidency, the Soviet Union was no more.

        Also, let’s look at Winston Churchill, the greatest prime minister Britain has ever had. When he saw the rising threat of Hitler in Europe, what did he say? He was the only one in the House of Commons to say: WAR! What did the rest of the members of the House of Commons say about Hitler? Something similar to what Ron Paul said about Iran in one of the first Republican presidential debates this year: “They don’t even have enough money and food to feed and clothe themselves, so how could they get enough oil and other military resources to fight us?”

        Also, let’s compare Reagan to a president who shared much of Ron Paul’s views on war and foreign policy: Harry Truman. Harry Truman was reluctant to get engaged in the Korean War. He did, anyway, and appointed one of the greatest generals of WWII (he was a Christian, at that) to lead the fight in Korea: Douglas MacArthur. When MacArthur took almost all of Korea, he asked Truman for permission to go into China. Truman said, “No, we don’t want a third world war.”
        Is that what Churchill said about the second world war that was looming in his time? Thanks to Truman’s retreatist and limited-war foreign policy, Communism survived for another 40 years and still continues on in some parts of the world today. MacArthur publicly disagreed with Truman and resigned from his position.

        Now don’t get me wrong, I am not for going around the world and taking over other nations just for imperialism. There are politicians in both major parties today who are like that. But just because we are going into other nations to destroy our enemies, doesn’t mean that we are warmongers and imperialists.

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Murder of OBL = unbelievably stupid (read EPIC FAIL) action that needlessly lost possibly the single most important source of strategic and tactical Intel on Al-Qaeda in the world.

        Calling Ron Paul a “Liberal isolationist” = proof that you understand neither liberty nor the advice of our Founders. Please explain how sanctioning and invading sovereign nations that neither threatened nor posed a threat to us, and killing or displacing hundreds of thousands of their non-combatant citizens, is not isolationist in the extreme.

        The FedGov is obligated to follow international laws based upon treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

        “And, if the DoD didn’t exist…” Not sure how this is relevant or why you are lecturing this West Point graduate on the value of our DoD. There is a big difference between Defense and Militarism.

        “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” This is not an “anti-war, isolationist foreign policy”, it is the wise counsel of Thomas Jefferson.

        You are aware, aren’t you, that in 2001 Ron Paul authored the first bill in Congress to grant authority for the capture or killing of OBL?

        You are aware, aren’t you, that in 2002 Ron Paul made the first motion in Congress to declare war on Iraq? The Constitution requires a formal declaration before the U.S. can legally enter a war. Chairman Henry Hyde rejected the motion, calling the Constitution “anachronistic”, and punted responsibility to Dear Leader.

        “…just because we are going into other nations to destroy our enemies, doesn’t mean that we are warmongers and imperialists.” So if the Chinese government decides that people they consider terrorists are hiding in the U.S., you won’t mind if they invade and bomb us to get to them, right?

      • Brother of the King says:

        Forgive me, I did not know that you are a West Point graduate. Yet, I will still honorably disagree with you.

        My first question to Ron Paul is, if he authored the first bills to kill OBL and declare war on Iraq, why is he so much opposed to both today?

        My second question Ron Paul is, if he has no problem “international laws” per se, then what is the problem with the “international laws” made by the UN, NATO, and other organizations? After all, when we joined the UN, we basically signed a treaty agreeing to accept all UN resolutions as laws in the US. So, what is the problem with that? Now, I don’t agree with our participation in the UN, but how can Ron Paul justify his opposition to it?

        You ask if I’d like to see the Chinese army go into the US and start killing people it considers enemies. Let me remind you that America wasn’t the only one of OBL’s targets. OBL bombed India, France, Norway, and many other countries around the world. Thus, he wasn’t just our enemy. I wouldn’t mind the Chinese army doing that, if the federal government became as corrupt as many of the governments in the Middle East.

        Also, which foreign nations are we invading right now? We are in a “cold war” with Iran and Pakistan. We helped the rebels in Lybia take down Khaddafi. We need to keep a close eye on Pakistan, as there is really good evidence that they helped OBL. If you look on the map, the mansion where he lived was only several miles away from the Pakistani “West Point”. Fat chance that the Pakistani government didn’t know anything about him. Yet, Ron Paul says he would have “talked it over” with the Pakistani government in order to get rid of him.

        You say there’s a big difference between defense between defense and militarism. The problem is, Ron Paul’s version of “defense” is “wait for them (the terrorists and their allies) till they come to our borders, and then nab them.” The majority of today’s Republicans, including me, believe that that will not work. After all, they already came to our borders once, at 9/11. Did we capture them? No. We need to go and get them before they get us. If we don’t do that, we’ll be fighting them on our soil, and it will be the first war fought on our soil since the Civil War. Instead, wouldn’t it be better if keep the war off our land as much as possible?

        Lastly, Ron Paul does not understand the real reason behind the hatred and animosity that Al-Qaeda and other Muslim groups have against us. He listens to the propaganda that they yell out and just repeats what they say, “They’re mad at us, cause we’re over there.” No, they’re mad at us, because their religion tells them that all non-Muslims should either be converted to Islam, subjugated under Islamic rule, or die. And the reason why they target the US the most, is because we’re the ones most vehemently opposed to their religion and the Sharia law. Here’s an article about that: . Also, you might want to read this: .

      • Robert Davidson says:

        My first question to Ron Paul is…

        We wouldn’t invade England to get a terrorist without prior coordination with the government. The same principle holds for Pakistan. In this case, the government was shielding OBL – no doubt because he was a cash cow via our $1B/yr financial support to Pakistan since 2002. Nevertheless, Pakistan is our “ally”. Also, numerous other terrorists have been captured and tried as criminals – as they should be since they are not national soldiers. Finally, as already mentioned, OBL was an extremely valuable source of intelligence. These were among Ron Paul’s reasons for opposing the raid and OBL’s murder.

        RP motioned to declare war on Iraq in order to force open debate. Had there been legitimate reasons and the opportunity to vote, he would have voted to declare war. He/we didn’t learn the true reasons until after the fact – thus his current opposition on multiple counts: undeclared (illegal) war and the deception that has cost us thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of casualties and trillions of dollars.

        My second question [to] Ron Paul is…

        I suppose the short answer is that he will follow the law even if he dislikes the law. And, he respects national sovereignty while striving for “entangling alliances with none.” His views on the UN:

        You ask if I’d like to see the Chinese army…

        None of those countries you listed invaded and bombed another sovereign nation to kill OBL and his buddies. IMO, and from personal experience, our FedGov is as corrupt as any third-world dictatorship – only more sophisticated about its crimes. I love our country but not its government. Most of our federal leadership should be treated as terrorists, taken captive by the Chinese and thrown into prison after a fair trial finds them guilty.

        Also, which foreign nations are we invading…

        Our foreign policy toward Iran is idiotic and dangerous. There is no evidence they have a nuclear weapon or will any time soon. Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in centuries. They have no delivery capability. Israel has several hundred nukes and could obliterate Iran in minutes. Dialogue works best as demonstrated by our success with the Soviets, who actually had the capability to destroy the U.S.

        We have no idea who the Libyan rebels are except that they will probably make things worse than they were under Gaddafi since they have vowed to implement Sharia law. Not surprising – our meddling usually backfires.

        Here is my fellow alumnus, Gen. Wesley Clark, illustrating that 9/11 was used as an excuse for a string of invasions:

        You say there’s a big difference…between defense and militarism…

        Ron Paul’s version of defense is exactly what our Founders intended. The Bush Pre-Emptive War doctrine flouts the Just War theory, Christian responsibility to neighbors, and the limits of a Constitutional Republic. Our aggressive militarism has weakened our defense and made us a pariah nation instead of the example we used to be. Playing Empire is going to end very badly for us.

        Lastly, Ron Paul does not understand…

        He most certainly does. More than once I’ve heard him recount the history of our conflicts with Muslims since the founding of our country. As I’ve indicated elsewhere, Ron Paul has repeated CIA intelligence reports – not Muslim propaganda. We were warned by OBL to remove our soldiers from what Muslims consider holy land. The CIA reported that the primary cause of the attack on 9/11 was our continued military presence in Saudi Arabia coupled with disregard for his warnings to leave and the consequences if we didn’t.

      • Robert Davidson says:

        I responded to each of your points last night but I see that my post has since been deleted. Maybe it was too long. The short reply is simply that your questions and assertions indicate a shallow analysis of Ron Paul’s positions.

        There is plenty of material online he has personally authored that you might find quite enlightening if you take the time to investigate. Here are a couple of good resources:

        Judge Andrew Napolitano calls Ron Paul “the Thomas Jefferson of our day”, and I agree.

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Well, that’s a little weird. As soon as I posted my short reply, the one I posted the night before appeared. Maybe it was just under review.

    • Cromwell says:

      And just what are these arguments you refer to, this website is blocked by my filter for “Racist/Hate” reasons.

      Here is a good run-down of Federal Reserve Myths

      One of the ironies of the conspiratorial arguments against the Fed, that bankers(mostly Jewish) conspired together to consolidate wealth for “globalist’ purposes, etc. etc. ect……Where the exact arguments against the prior system(No Fed) and the powerful NY Banks and financiers like JP Morgan. The exact same “jewish banker” anti-semitic conspiracy theories existed just applied to JP Morgan and company instead of “End the Fed”

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Your filter apparently needs some adjustment since that site only references military opinions of Ron Paul and links to information about him.


        Sorry, but I have no idea why you’re bringing up myths about the Federal Reserve. At least five of our past Presidents have warned us about the dangers of a central bank. Ron Paul is doing the same and his arguments have nothing to do with myths but with the very real inflation, economic bubbles, special treatment for private banks and corporations, and unemployment that can be traced directly to Federal Reserve policies.

      • Cromwell says:

        Populist pamphleteer, Mary Lease, commenting when JP Morgan worked with Grover Cleveland issuing Gold bonds and temporarily SAVED the Gold Standard from the Gold Run out of the United States in 1895, acting as defacto Fed in effect:

        Mary Lease accused Cleveland of being an “Agent” of “Jewish Bankers and British gold.” The New York World described the syndicate(Morgan/Rothschild) as a pack of “bloodsucking Jews and aliens.”

        A fascinating history and read on this stuff is “House of Morgan” by Ron Chernow. There is a long section on the Panic of 1893 and the GOLD RUN out of the United States and what he did to save the dollar. Followed with the Panic of 1907 which was the final panic that nearly destroyed the US and lead to the Fed Reserve being created.

      • Cromwell says:

        Robert – I was referring to the ‘iamthewitness’ website. Could care less about the modern day Mary Lease populist, Ron Paul and his spin and lies about supposed ‘military donations’ in which he has people who aren’t in the military put down military as their occupation.

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Never heard of the ‘iamthewitness’ website.

        Again, myths have nothing to do with the very real damages caused by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve.

        You have proof that “Ron Paul and his spin and lies about supposed ‘military donations’ in which he has people who aren’t in the military put down military as their occupation”? Please do show us and then forward your proof to the MSM. They would love to sink his candidacy and that’s just the sort of fraud they’re looking for.

        Of course, you might want to first consider that Dr. Paul announced those military donations last month during an appearance at the National Press Club. The Christian Science Monitor then investigated his claim with a campaign finance watchdog group, the Center for Responsive Politics. Guess what they discovered?

  6. Norm says:

    Hello Joel -

    I’ve been a long-time follower of American Vision, and have studied many of thier offered resources. I’ve also read your entire book on this subject, and some others, and want to tell you that you’re right on target here!

    You may want to collaborate with another fine gentleman, Evangelist Ted Weiland. He has been studying these problems from a Biblical point of view for many years. He has recently published a primer titled “The Bible vs. the U.S. Constitution”. He has succinctly identified “that sacred founding document” (the Constitution) as our national idol! Through the use of pertinent scriptures, he makes a very persuasive argument. So much of our nation’s sin can be seen to be rooted in that document’s genesis.

    If you haven’t already, please visit his website:
    Of particular note is his series of articles:

    And, Joel, I’d be pleased to send you a printed version, or you can ask Pastor Weiland, and I know he’d be pleased to mail you a copy (or anyone else for that reason).

    May the God of Israel bless you as you seek to serve Him & raise His standard.

  7. Alex Alexander says:

    You’ve hit the nail on the head, Joel!
    The nub of the issue is (as you write) this: “Unless we recover education as a distinctly family- and church-oriented mandate, we will continue to watch society slide into secularism.”
    With all the evidence staring us in the face, it’s still so, so hard to get church leaders and pastors to “wake-up and smell the coffee”.
    It’s as bad (and probably worse) over here in the UK. Yet, there are signs of hope emerging, with Christian families increasingly turning to home-education.
    But it’s going to be a long march through history before we see cultural transformation…
    Alex A

  8. Your Tour Guide says:

    Nothing political ever happens by coincidence. During the last election cycle I felt a
    growing sense of unease everyone time I got on the yahoo internet link page. Without fail, there was the stylized graphics picture of Obama looking off into the distance.

    It finally hit me why it creeped me out so much. The pose and graphics looked
    exactly like what I would see in my grandparent’s Time or Look magazines when I
    was 6 or 7. Only it was Lenin in the picture. With Nikita Kruschev standing in front
    of the huge poster, reviewing the tanks, troops, and tractors from the raised speaker’s stand.

    Most of the persons that I told about what the picture reminded me of basically
    told me I was crazy. When I posted my thoughts about it on a political blog site, there were 4 or 5 other individuals who had thought the exact same thing. One person nailed it “cold war era Soviet propoganda.”

    Last week it hit me what else was wrong with the picture. It had to do with
    the splotchy graphics. What they reminded me of was what I witnessed in college
    in mid 70s dorm rooms: the Che poster. It was everywhere anybody was trying to
    be tragically hip, and utterly clueless. Same splotchy graphics.

    The obama twofer picture: Lenin’s pose, Che’s graphics. Coincidence? Not.

    When I was 6 or 7 the red threat had us ducking under our desks for
    drills in case of nuclear attack. The red threat had moms knocking snow out of our
    hand if we attempted to eat it. They were afraid that it might be radioactive. That
    wasn’t what scared me as a child about the communists. What scared me then ( and still does) was what my dad told me.

    “They rewrite history. Anybody they don’t like might be in the newspaper or
    a book one day, and then they won’t mention them anymore. They’ll even remove them from pictures they used to be in.” Sound familiar with the current media?

    • Fizzlecat says:

      Right on target and powerfully stated! So many of the “educated professionals” that I work with are totally clueless as to what is going on, and they look at you like you’ve grown another set of eyes. It’s really discouraging. Others, Christians in particular, seem to enjoy having their heads in the sand, not wanting to admit that our beloved nation is going down the tubes. I contrast video of the Occupy Wallstreet crowd with a Hillsong worship video. There is no comparison. Why would crowds like OWS be lifted up and others in positive prayerful worship be trashed by so-called common sense Americans?? It’s crazy. God Himself has the answer in the book of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who but bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Is. 5:20. I pray His people will indeed wake up and be more aggressive at fighting this dismal tide.

  9. Tired Old Man says:

    Joel, both parts were outstanding. I appreciate your time and effort.

    One comment: you state that “America today is more Marxist than anything, and a large portion of the voting public wishes to make it even more so”. Once the majority of the electorate discovered that they could vote money from somebody else’s pocket into their own, the tidal wave of statism and socialism has accelerated.

    Never underestimate the cupidity of the majority.

  10. Mark says:


    Great article. What I really liked is that you did not mention Satan in those areas where you talk about evil and corruption. Imagine that…..Evil exists in the hearts of men? And I thought Satan manufactured it at the South Pole…..And all the church can offer up as solutions is Christ is coming soon or explain how bad it’s gonna get because of Satan. Polishing the brass on the Titanic type of ideals.

  11. Cromwell says:

    Third, we have strong anti-family laws, including inheritance tax. In other words, when you die and leave wealth to your children or other designees, the government grabs anywhere from 18–55% of the amount for itself.

    For informational purposes, currently this only happens if your estate is worth $5 million or more, this exempts most. Those above can afford good lawyers and accountants to effectively nullify it, the tax itself is a red meat for the envious class warfare base of the Democratic base.

    btw: you forgot the 2nd National bank signed into law by James Madison followed by the “House of Morgan” which served as “Lender of last resort” until it helped establish the decentralized version of the first 2 National banks(Federal Reserve) in 1913, as Stewardship over the global economic, financial and maritime order was passed from Great Britain to the United States.

    Speaking of Marxist Communism, you also forget that in the 1970′s it was the Soviet Union who wanted a Gold Standard, for good reason since they had come into possesion of much of the world’s Gold supply from Spain along with the many Gold mines Russia has. Not wanting the effective ‘central bankers’ to be Soviet Russia and the United States overall inability to control the production and flow of Gold is why Nixon dropped the last tie to Gold during this time. wisely not leaving the nations economic future in the hands of the Soviets.

    France under Charles de Gaulle advocated for a full return to the Gold Standard at the time, the Soviets liked the idea since it benefited them:

    It was not clear, given the limited gold production, where under a gold-based system the world would obtain the reserves needed to support an expanding volume of trade and investment. Rueff suggested raising the price of gold, but this ignored the danger that doing so once might create expectations that governments would do so again, encouraging gold hoarding and other destabilizing consequences. Raising the price of gold would reward countries — such as, not entirely coincidentally, France — that had done the most to undermine the system by converting their dollars. Raising the gold price would also create a windfall for the Soviet Union and South Africa. Predictably, Pravda applauses de Gaulle’s comments attacking the dollar.

    • Joel McDurmon Joel McDurmon says:

      Some bad people want good things. Therefore, the good things are bad. Brilliant.

      • Cromwell says:

        Its not good, for the United States and the cause of Freedom at the time, was the point.

        Desiring not to be under the thumb of the Soviets and their Gold miners, could be described as brilliant I suppose though.

      • Brother of the King says:

        Cromwell, while I agree with you on a lot of points you’ve made in comments on previous articles, I have to disagree with you on this one. First, how does controlling the majority of gold in the world give a country the power to control all gold in the world? Second, the reason why the Soviets started using gold was because they realized (unlike today’s progressivists in America and other countries) that all other forms of “currency” aren’t really currency (with the exception of silver, maybe), because they can change value sporadically or can be easily manipulated by counterfeiters. And since they wanted to prop up their already-failing economy in some way, they went for a gold standard. But that still doesn’t mean it fits their ideology. It’s like an evolutionist who believes that killing is wrong. He is inconsistent with his ideology of natural selection and survival of the fittest, but he has to be, because otherwise there would be no end to the destruction.

        Lastly, look at the Creation in Genesis. God specifically mentions gold and calls it good when He mentions it. I think there is a big reason for that.

      • Jeff S says:

        @ BotK

        Since gold is scarce, it is one of the easiest commodities to manipulate. Also take a look at the “Black Friday Gold Scandal” of 1869.

        Also Bryan wanted Bimetallisim and Free Silver to add liquidity to the money supply. Republicans in the west supported this also because of the mines where they served.

        It’s not what backs the currency, it’s the quantity.
        Thanks Cromwell for pointing out your facts.

      • Cromwell says:


        Let me start off with, I do not think there is a perfect monetary system, like anything in the world. The one we currently have, works on paper except it doesn’t account for Nations like China, which refuse to float their currency against ours……with Gold, we have to think about where will all the Gold come from to back modern Economic Activity. There are practical reasons that Gold is a risky today, with America’s $14.5 Trillion GDP and over $200 Trillion in hard assets, to back to Gold…(I think what backs the dollar today is more valuable than Gold also, which is why the Dollar is still the safe haven of choice, not Gold, when things start to collapse), Milton Friedman explained long ago how and why Gold caused the Great Depression and why the Bank of England had to severe ties during it. For a long time, England through its empire was able to control the Production and Flow of Gold, which is key in growing economies. They lost this ability after WW1. The largest Gold Miners in the world, by far, are Russia and South Africa today.

        I’m convinced that a reversion to the gold standard could likeley be a step backwards to 19th century mercantilism, and—worse—a relinquishment of sovereignty over the US dollar to foreign interests. I do not trust the worldwide producers in the gold market—Russians and South Africans, for example—to act only on the basis of their unfettered economic self-interest when it comes to supplying the USA with the gold it would need to support its growing economy. I strongly suspect, in my bleak view of human nature and history, that international politics, subterfuge, and blackmail would become key risk factors to a gold-backed US dollar. In short, when it comes to guardianship of the US dollar’s value, I trust foreign gold mine owners far, far less than I trust US citizens appointed by the US government—a.k.a. the Fed Board of Governors. We have more control over the Fed than we have over the foreign interests in control of most of the world’s the gold supply.

        Anyway, these are the reasons gold was gradually broke away from the last century by England/US Anglo Finance.

        Also, the Ocean has the largest Gold deposits in the world. Its estimated we are a generation or so worth of Nano-Technology away from Gold being mass produced and worth pennies.

        I could entertain Fixed Exchange Rate system, over our Float/Market based system we currently have and would be more impressed if people came up with something other than gold.

  12. Lee says:

    By God’s Grace may He have mercy on us and bring repentance.

  13. aCultureWarrior says:

    Speaking of spineless congressmen:

    While I realize that your forte’ is economics McD (it’s “all in the family”), destroying our culture was the main goal of the communist agenda:

    You keep balancing the checkbook McD, and we’ll if that brings our immoral culture back around.

  14. Scott says:

    Wonderful article Joel! A lot of information and well worth the read. Its the classic frog in the pot scenario. And for those of us who don’t study history as much as I should, its tough to see how much freedom we have actually lost. Among the many factors that have lead to this, one aspect I’ve observed is that most people don’t notice the loss of freedom because we’ve moved primarily to a city based culture where people content them selves with their iPhones and DVRs running constantly. As long as we have free and unfettered entertainment, then they are happy. In days when people actually worked their own land, used their firearms for everyday practical purposes, and most people were entrepreneurs(farmers, merchants, etc), these losses of freedom would have been felt more. But in the insulation of cities and entertainment based lifestyle, there is little notice of what is really going on.

Back to Top ↑