The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC

1. Teaching With Documents:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Background
In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of “equal protection of the laws” expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government–as well as the public at large–debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution’s prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?
In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word “sex” was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word “sex” in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.
Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than “affirmative action.”
As West defines the term, affirmative action “refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them” from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?
The EEOC, as an independent regulatory body, plays a major role in dealing with this issue. Since its creation in 1964, Congress has gradually extended EEOC powers to include investigatory authority, creating conciliation programs, filing lawsuits, and conducting voluntary assistance programs. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention the words affirmative action, it did authorize the bureaucracy to makes rules to help end discrimination. The EEOC has done so.
Today the regulatory authority of the EEOC includes enforcing a range of federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. According to the EEOC’s own Web site, these include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and its amendments, that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability in both the public and private sector, excluding the federal government; the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides for monetary damages in case of intentional discrimination; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees with disabilities. Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 forbade gender discrimination in education programs, including athletics that received federal dollars. In the late 1970s Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This made it illegal for employers to exclude pregnancy and childbirth from their sick leave and health benefits plans.
Presidents also weighed in, employing a series of executive orders. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered all executive agencies to require federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This marked the first use of the phrase “affirmative action.” In 1969 an executive order required that every level of federal service offer equal opportunities for women and established a program to implement that action. President Richard Nixon’s Department of Labor adopted a plan requiring federal contractors to assess their employees to identify gender and race and to set goals to end any under-representation of women and minorities. By the 1990s Democratic and Republican administrations had taken a variety of actions that resulted in 160 different affirmative action federal programs. State and local governments were following suit.
The courts also addressed affirmative action. In addition to dealing with race, color, creed, and age, from the 1970s forward, the court dealt with gender questions. It voided arbitrary weight and height requirements (Dothard v. Rawlinson), erased mandatory pregnancy leaves (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur), allowed public employers to use carefully constructed affirmative action plans to remedy specific past discrimination that resulted in women and minorities being under-represented in the workplace (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County), and upheld state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination.
By the late 1970s all branches of the federal government and most state governments had taken at least some action to fulfill the promise of equal protection under the law. The EEOC served as the agent of implementation and complaint. Its activism divided liberals and conservatives, illuminating their differing views about the proper scope of government. In general, the political liberals embraced the creation of the EEOC as the birth of a federal regulatory authority that could promote the goal of equality by designing policies to help the historically disadvantaged, including women and minorities. In contrast, political conservatives saw the EEOC as a violation of their belief in fewer government regulations and fewer federal policies. To them, creating a strong economy, free from government intervention, would produce gains that would benefit the historically disadvantaged. Even the nonideological segment of the American population asked: What should government do, if anything, to ensure equal protection under the law?
In fiscal year 1997, the EEOC collected $111 million dollars in financial benefits for people who filed claims of discrimination. Its recent successful efforts include a $34 million settlement in a sexual harassment case with Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, resulting in the company’s adoption of changes to its sexual harassment prevention policy . Working with state and local programs, the EEOC processes 48,000 claims annually.

Gramsci’s attack on the family

| Home – Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Prophecies | Directives from Heaven | Order Form | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Bible | Radio Program |

Italian communist Antonio Gramsci’s plan for destroying Western faith and culture

Why American culture and family are in disarray…

“Your country and your world must embark upon a constant vigil of prayer. The family that will pray will stay together.
“Mothers must teach their children the true Faith. Fathers must fulfill their mission as fathers to their children. The example in many homes is poor and will not be tolerated by the Eternal Father. Measure for measure, you shall reap what you have sown.
“Parents must give to their children the knowledge of the Commandments of the Father. No excuse is accepted for casting aside these Commandments.
“Discipline your souls, My children, your spirit! Discipline your human body. Do not allow yourselves to be swallowed up in the mire of destruction.” – Our Lady of the Roses, March 18, 1975

Statement by Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.

ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY
Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges, and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY.  And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting!  In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history.

When Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table and declared, ‘We shall destroy you from within’ during the infamous “Kitchen Debate” – he knew what he was talking about.

[Comparing the culture of the 50’s to that of 1998] violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared – from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide – a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 – serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%…

Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years.” [i]

While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family.  A myriad of today’s social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage.  Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today’s culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:

• US House Testimony on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals, H.R. 4090.  April 11, 2002, 109 citations or references - consequences of welfare practices on the family unit, and exploration of the 1996 welfare reform bill’s requirements for strengthening families and marriage (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/4-11-02/records/billwood.htm)
• US House Testimony on Teen Pregnancy prevention PRWORA, Public Law 104-193 (Hearing 107-48). November 15, 2001, 43 citations and references –   effects of fatherlessness and divorce on teen pregnancy. (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/11-15-01/Record/wmwood.htm)
• US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38).  June 28, 2001, 83 citations or references – Social consequences of failed divorce and child custody policies (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm) – Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.
• US House Testimony on The ”Hyde-Woolsey” child support bill, HR 1488 (Hearing 106-107, pages 94-103).  March 16, 2000, 75 Citations. – Concerning problems with nearly every state’s child support guidelines.

Along with this testimony, I have written legal briefs for the Federal District Court on the unconstitutionality of Ohio’s custody laws, a legal brief opposing psychology in the courtroom, and am developing an extensive historical review of the rise of our current “family” law system.  During several years of research, a disturbing common thread continues to appear, tracing it back to its origins, it led to one Antonio Gramsci.

THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL
In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia.  While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture.  His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.

Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world.

Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time.  His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy.  His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people.  Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth.  His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.

“… Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies.  These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc.” [ii]

Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world.  A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.

Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law.  In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture.  This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.

Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple… Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.”  He repackaged Marxism in terms of a… “cultural war”…

“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.  To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy… to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children.  It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny.  Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists.  They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.”

…[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools…  As deputy commissioner in Hungary… his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools… it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family.  Hungarian children learned… free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure.  Children were urged to deride and ignore… parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.  If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public… schools.

…Under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans.  The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace.

Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States…  He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed.  “Make love, not war!” was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America.  His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture.  By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the… young of America…

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society.  They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution.  If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women?  The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye… Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex.  Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [iii]

Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today’s “feminist” movement. [iv] Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation.  Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure.  And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.

America’s socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family.  Socialists have openly adopted the “counter hegemony” taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture.  “[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state…  When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.” [v] This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today.  As noted by William Gregg in the New American:

Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:

• “The visible impact of feminism.”
• “The effects of affirmative action.”
• “The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media.”
• “The acceptance of cultural pluralism.”
• “The transformation of family life,” including “rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media.”
• “The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on.”
• “The virtual abolition of capital punishment.”
• “The legalization of abortion.”
• “The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns.”

Significantly, Walzer admitted… these victories were imposed upon our society by “liberal elites,” rather than… “by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party.”  These changes “reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large,” noted Walzer…  [T]he left focused on “winning the Gramscian war of position.”

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] “the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man’s consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry.  It is these institutions that shape and articulate ‘public opinion,’ the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity.  Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base — the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism — but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture.”

Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding… the triumph of Marxism were… those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty — such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism.  But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the “indispensable supports” of free society — religion and morality.  In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, “The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” [vi]

Gramsci’s Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy “Western” civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!”

FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union.

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union.  Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country.  The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened.  Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children.  All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention.  America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction.  It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down.  Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform.  Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate.  On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation’s primary socio-political goals.

“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America.  The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare.  When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s.  Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family… with fierce hatred, and set out… to destroy it…  [O]ne of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children… by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it…  The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation…  At the same time a law was passed which made divorce [very quick]… at the request of either partner in a marriage…

[Marriage became a game where it] was not… unusual… for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.    [T]he peasants… bitterly complained: ‘Abortions cover our villages with shame.  Formerly we did not even hear of them.’

Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation.  They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children…  The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.

…Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.

…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other…  The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support.  Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the ‘burgeois customs’ of Europe and America.

Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. [viii]

The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies.  What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America.  Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code.  This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform.  “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [ix]

ADOPTING THE FAILED SOVIET ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY

No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system.

Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.”  America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law  was founded upon. [x] These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters.  The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.

No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system.  For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:

“Few members of the American legal community are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has had, for some period of time, what can be described as a no-fault divorce legal system…  [A]t a meeting with a group of Soviet lawyers in 1972, one of them asked, “Is it for a long time that you (California) have that system?”  When informed of the January 1, 1970 effective date of the California law she remarked, “I think it is the influence of our law…  [T]here are a number of similarities between Soviet and California divorce laws that suggest a “borrowing” or a remarkable coincidence.” (pg 32)

“For the Bolsheviks, with their Marxist disdain for reli­gion, the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities over the family was an outrage.  Since the family represented the major institution through which the traditions of the past were transmitted from generation to generation, the new re­gime had to destroy the old bourgeois notions of the family and the home.  There was also a very urgent practical reason for disassociating family relations from the influence of the religious authorities…  [T]he first task of the new regime in relation to the family was to break the power of the church and the husband.”  (pg 33)

“Birth alone was declared the basis of family ties, and all legal discrimi­nation against illegitimate children was abolished…  Early Soviet policy was intended to at­tack these evils [of “patriarchy”] and to transfer the care, education and main­tenance of children from home to society.  This would mean the end of the family’s socialization functions, and would remove the child from the conservative atmosphere of the patriarchal family to a setting that could be entirely con­trolled by the regime.”  (pg 34)

The Soviet press reported in the mid-thirties that promiscu­ity flourished… juvenile delinquency mounted, and statistical studies showed that the major source of delin­quents was the broken or inattentive home… Additional public homes for children were established, and propaganda cam­paigns sought to persuade the public that a strong family was the most communistically inspired one. (pg 38, 39)

There was also the matter of seven to nine million fatherless and homeless children, according to Russian estimates of the early twenties.  In derogation of Marxist ideology, the state had been unable to assist single mothers, and there existed almost no children’s homes, nurseries or kindergartens.  Because of more pressing tasks and limited personnel and material resources the state had not been able to fulfill the conditions Engels had specified for extrafamilial facilities. (pg 40)

More seriously, anti-family policies were leading to a situation where many children in the first Soviet urban generation simply lacked the kind of socializing experience to fit them intellectually or emotionally to the new society the regime was attempting to build, with its emphasis upon self-discipline and control, perseverance, steadiness, punctuality and accuracy.  While the family influence had been under­mined, extrafamilial agencies had failed to provide a workable substitute, leaving the child prey to the noxious and deviant influences of “the street.”  (pg 41) [xi]

The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;

“Family law in socialist Romania was modeled after Soviet family legislation…  [I]t sought to undermine the influence of religion on family life.  [Previously] the church was the center of community life, and marriage, divorce, and recording of births were matters for religious authorities.  Under communism these events became affairs of the state, and legislation designed to wipe out the accumulated traditions and ancient codes was enacted.  The communist regime required marriage to be legalized in a civil ceremony at the local registry prior to, or preferably instead of, the customary church wedding.

Because of the more liberal procedures, the divorce rate grew dramatically, tripling by 1960, and the number of abortions also increased rapidly.  Concern for population reproduction and future labor supplies prompted the state to revise the Romanian Family Code to foster more stable personal relationships and strengthen the family. At the end of 1966, abortion was virtually outlawed, and a new divorce decree made the dissolution of marriage exceedingly difficult.

INDOCTRINATING LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO DESTROY AMERICA
Gramsci wrote, “The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals.  A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”

“The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony.” [xii]

Today’s Gramscian Marxists have numerous “oppositional groups” headed by lawyers and promoted by judges and bureacrats.  They advance such “counter-hegemonic” (culturally corrosive and culturally destructive) positions as homosexuality, abortion, the complete FRAUD of the non-existent “separation of church and state,” the (it only applies to destroying marriage and relationships) Violence Against Women Act, “outcome based education,” and the fictitious “global warming.”  They passionately HATE the initiatives that undermine their attempts to destroy America such as Title IX reform, Faith based initiatives, the 300 million for marriage, vouchers and accountability for education reform, and the Ten commandments along with ANY other reference to a moral Judeo-Christian code, and private property rights.

High profile court rulings openly display this Gramscian Marxist theory in practice: the attack on the pledge of allegiance, the ACLU suing Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandments, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling.  At the root of all of these rulings and many others is a violation of the judge’s oath to uphold the constitution.  That constitution says that we have a Republican form of government, NOT a socialist or communist form.

CONCLUSION
Today’s Marxist Communists operate in law, government, religion, media, entertainment and education.  They use Orwellian NewSpeak with words such as  “tolerance” which actually means intolerance of things that prevent the destruction of all social structures and societal “norms”.  Gramscians preach the religion of division, class warfare and social warfare while spouting their hatred of anything traditional, conservative, moral, or values centered – their battle cry is “the personal is the political.”  They want all of Western culture completely destroyed and centralized government control erected in the place of the structure they seek to tear apart and discard.  The fruits of the culture war they have engaged on America can be seen in the corrosive remnants of broken families, broken children, filled prisons, and a host of other ills underwritten by America’s taxpayers.

Those who deeply care about this country and our constitution must fearlessly engage in this culture war–; the war for America’s heart and soul.  It’s not too late yet.  There is still a critical mass and majority of Americans who are not ready for the horrors of the type of communism or national socialism that Gramscians promote.  No form of Marxism or communism (even its most radical form of National Socialism) has ever survived without totalitarian control.  If the support were there for these Marxist Communists and National Socialists, history has shown that they would not hesitate to attempt a forceful or violent overthrow of American government.

The Rise of the Welfare State 1964 to 1974

The Rise of the Welfare State 1964 to 1974

Many Christian leaders and elected men in the United States have not learned to connect the dots.  They complain about abortion and the gays. They are afraid to tackle the real issue – divorce and women in debt, this debt is forcing mothers into the workforce, no one is home raising children.  The divorce rate in the United States is over 50 per cent, and even higher in some areas. Young girls of driving age are encourage to buy a car and go into debt. Why not, all the older women now have cars and are in debt.   Fathers have been eliminated from most families.  In the United States, 85 per cent of all gay men were raised in fatherless homes.
Before the Civil rights bill of 1964, the family was one unit. The man one half , the women the other half of that marriage. The Bible says when a man and women get married, they be come one flesh..A young man looking for a wife, was really looking for his other half. The civil rights bill of 1964 made men and women hole persons,.Question, can a ship have two captains, answer NO, the ship can only go one direction. Same thing with the family I do not think God intended Men and women to compete with each other for a job.. That was the result of the 1964 bill. Since 1964 the family has been torn apart,.Divorce has skyrocket, Women no longer stay at home and take care of children. Since 1974 women have killed 45 million babies.,All of this must stop, the family must be restored back to before 1964.
God intended men and fathers to support their families.  Men have been systemically removed from the family and home by divorce and courts.                                During the 1960’s Earl Warren and the Supreme Court gave criminals the more rights then the victim. This tied the hands of law enforcement.
In 1974, President Nixon announced over television that he was changing the economy of the United States from an industrial to a service economy.   At that point, our factories, steel mills, and mining began to be shut down; and later in 1980s and 1990s farming and logging. These industries provided jobs to men and fathers to support their families. President Nixon also open the trade door with China.
After the end of the Second World War, the United States under the Marshall Plan (1946 to 1970). This country and our industries took on the job of rebuilding the 110 major    cities in Europe and Asia that were destroyed during that War. These American men and some women worked 12 hours a day, six to seven days a week supplying the world with goods and materials, i.e., “The Berlin Airlift.”  The workforce in the United States between 1900 to 1970 was 80 per cent male, 20 per cent female.  ALL THIS WAS ABOUT TO CHANGE!
Starting in 1970, the Federal Government began to regulate the private sector, FASCISM– No capital owned, but all capital controlled by the state.   Affirmative action –companies were forced to hire non-productive  people creating a huge bureaucracy.  Women were given minority status.  A woman was no longer tied to her husband; in reality she could do as she pleased. Government became her new daddy.
Before 1970, the average family own one house and one car. The husband drove that car to work, and it parked eight, 10, 12 hours a day so he could feed and support his family. The wife on the other hand stayed at home and took care of their home and children. These women were called mothers and homemakers.
Starting 1957, government public schools and the auto manufacturers began to teach young girls in high school how to drive cars, donated by General Motors. Women driving cars did not catch on big until 1972. More and more women were becoming hooked on driving.  This created a problem, as cars were not cheap. The average father and husband could not afford two cars and a home.
So guess what happened; government created paper-pushing jobs to carry out their regulations created by the growing bureaucracies.  And since women were taught typing and shorthand in the public schools, they got these paper-pushing jobs.
With the changing the economy of the United States from an industrial to a service economy; factories, steel mills, and mining were shut down, and later in 1980’s and 1990’s farming and logging. These industries provided jobs to men and fathers to support their families.

Say for instance before 1964 their were 80 million families, The family was one economic unit.  The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 made every person an economic unit.  These economics units became the responsibility of the state.
The family unit had one house, one car, one set dishes and silverware, one set of snow tires for the car.
The new economic unit ( person) because of divorce, had to have their own house , their own car, their own set of dishes and silverware, and their set of snow tires for their car. The new economic had to have their own job. Marriage went to hell.  Last year 2005 the number unwed mothers reach an all time high thirty-four percent, there were 1.5 million babies without a father.  We were the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Laws pass by congress take about 10 years to filter down to the general public.

From 1972 to 1985 America’s workforce doubled from 70 million people to 135 million people. This rise in workforce was predominately women, mothers, and housewives. During that same period productivity dropped from 100 per cent to 50 per cent..Inflation rose sharply ,because of the rise in money supply to pay these new salaries.
Imagine you own a company, 10 men and 10 women. You pay all of your employees 10 dollars per hour. The job of your employees was to carry rocks in a backpack from point A to point B, the men can easily carry 60 pounds of rocks and work an 8 hour day, the women on the hand can only carry 30 pounds of rocks and work an 8 hour day. Since they are all paid 10 dollars per hour, how long will the men continue 60 lbs. When the women are only carrying 30 lbs.. The men will go down to the level of the women, and I as the employer can do nothing about it. DISCRIMINATION;   This is what happen to the military and Americas workforce.

Since a lot of mothers were leaving the home, no one was home rearing children.  Government assumed that roll of caretaker.  Government became the provider and husband to a big majority of women, created by the courts and divorce.
Now that women were in the workforce, they could afford to buy their own cars and support themselves.   Divorce rates started to rise, and the women who fell through the cracks, government picked up (the welfare state).  Divorce became common place.  A woman did not need a man anymore except for building her a house, maintaining her car, and being a companion.   The family started to die.  In 1963, prayer was taken out of schools, and the birth control pill was introduced to society.  Now a woman could have sex whenever she pleased, and if she got pregnant and did not want that baby, she could get an abortion, legalized in 1974 by Roe vs. Wade.  Abortion and gay marriages are the direct result of taking men and fathers out of the home.
In 1972 I said , for every women who enters the workforce ,another  women would have to follow, because of the inflation created by the first women. At that time I did not understand economics.   That’s say 10 families live on a city block ,  all there homes are all alike .  The women all stay at home raising her children, the men all work at the same plant, doing the same job.  All the men get paid the same salary. One day one of the women says, I think I will get a job, now that family can buy two cars, they have more money dining, etc.  Question can the rest of the families compete?                                                         Congress also pushed another nail in the coffin with Affirmative Action.  Women under the 1964 Civil Rights Bill were considered a minority, and as a minority had preference on all jobs. Now, white men and black men were forced to compete with their wives or some other men’s wives for jobs.   All the laws were on her side, and the man was still legally responsible for his family.  How can a woman be a minority when women are the majority with 55 per cent of the population in this country?
In 1974, Congress also pushed a bill called the, “1974 Housing and Urban Affairs Sex Discrimination Ban.”  Like the Senate Bill, House Bill 15361 would outlaw sex discrimination by lending institutions for almost all mortgage transactions. Banks would have to consider “without prejudice” the combined income of the husband and wife seeking a mortgage loan.  Before 1974, banks normally only took the salary of the head of household to figure how much money that family could afford.  Because of that law, the price of housing quadrupled between 1974 and 1980. There was another problem because of that law – divorce.  Previous to this, most women found jobs after high school in banks, lawyers’ offices, etc.  They were taught typing and shorthand. They worked till they got married and pregnant.  Women had the right to quit their jobs to stay home to raise their children.  The husband assumed all responsibilities of that family.
After this 1974 bad law, the price of housing was based on two salaries. The problem was, the wife could quit her job if she felt like it.  This led the husband to the reality of how to pay a mortgage based on two incomes with only one income.  Some men were paid enough money; most men were not.  Salaries in the private sector were low. This led to another problem.   The husband was force to work two jobs, i.e., the word “workaholic.”   Since the husband was never home; his wife was bored and lonely and she, in some cases, applied for divorce.  In most cases, in the courts, the women got the gold mine and husband got the  shaft.
Starting 1972 women were entering the workforce in large numbers, that was the year they burnt their bras. The workforce in 1970 was 70 million people, 80% men and 20% women..Government in 1972 started adjusted unemployment records to reflect the new employment figures . If a women was laid off ,she was eligible for unemployment and since being out of work, government reflected her in employment records. Americas workforce was sky rocking, but government kept on showing high unemployment. The Labor department was lying about there records.
Before 1970, women almost never went into debt,90% of all debt was held by men. When a man married a women, the man’s responsibility was to supply his wife with a home and all the things needed to run that home. In 1972 women bought in to the feminist lesbian idea that women should not trust men. Women should have their own money, their own jobs and their own cars. Once a women got used to driving her own car, she could no longer walk. She was no longer depended on her husband. This is the first time in the history of the world, women went into debt. Question; how can society stop abortions and make sure mothers stay at home to raise there children, when all women are in debt.      What is the purpose of Debt?   Answer   CONTROL.  Once a person is in debt ,he or she is a slave to the bankers and government, and can be controlled. Now since there is no one home raising children the government assumed that ROLE.
Supply and Demand; On gasoline, when demand goes up, supply stays the same, the price must go up. The last refinery built in this country was in 1976, women started driving in1972. Gasoline in1970 was .32 cents a gallon, by 1974 gas was .68 cents a gallon, 2005 gas is $2.25 per gallon
We have more government employees consuming wealth than we have in the private sector producing wealth.
In 1972, thirty some states had a Con Con when they rewrote their State Constitutions.  In most cases these constitutions were for the worse, and we lost  allot of our rights.
The women’s movement of the 1960’s made the life of men much easier, He no longer has to kill himself  working to support a family. The women’s movement free up men from dying at and early age. Men were allow to become lazy and melancholy , men are much better off thanks to affirmative action .Can the genie ever be put back in the box. Thank God for the Welfare state and government thanks for their protection. We no longer must take responsibility for our lives and our failures.
Fred Hammel 505 7th av. W, Kalispell .MT. 406-257-0078, fredh@aboutmontana.net
Other related subject and problems created by the Federal Government , Title nine and ten . In the early 70s government started pushing organize sports i.e. little league baseball, football, there was some male adult coaching the team and if the boys wanted to join they had to be winners. Then they push girls to play with the boys, if the parents did not like there sons playing with girls the answer was don’t play. No more sandlot sports.
History  teaches  us  nations
People  go  from  bondage  to  spiritual  faith
from  spiritual  faith  to  great  courage
from  courage  to  liberty
from  liberty  to  abundance
from  abundance  to  selfishness
from  selfishness to  complacency
from  complacency  to  apathy
from  apathy  to  dependency From dependency back to bondage