Open Letters to Freethinking Never Trumpers (Part 2)

Josh Klein
Oct 10, 2024
15 min read

By J.R. Klein & Timothy A. Stratton In our previous installment we focused on reasons we do not consider voting for Trump a moral blight nor a danger to our democracy please read part 1 here: (Part 1) This installment will focus on why it is possible that not actively opposing the Harris/Walz agenda could bring historic evil on our neighbors. We invite you to reason together with us as we make our case.

Good Men Doing Nothing

Consider this well-known quote:

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

There are a variety of different versions of this quote going back hundreds of years and attributed to many people throughout history. Although there is much debate about who was the first to advance these words and ideas, they have inspired good people to be active in politics for the sake of loving their neighbors. Consider a few more quotes:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

This one is similar:

It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.

This one is well-worded:

He should not be lulled to repose by the delusion that he does no harm who takes no part in public affairs. He should know that bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing.

While there is debate as to who was the first to articulate this statement, what is typically not debated is that this statement is true. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian and pastor who actively opposed the Nazi regime during World War II. He believed that evil should be confronted and actively opposed, rather than ignored or tolerated. The following quote, although it cannot be found in his official writings, is often attributed to Bonhoeffer as it seems to capture the manner in which he lived (whoever said it, it rings true):

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak.

Not to act is to act.”

With these wise words in mind, it becomes clear that when we have the opportunity and choose to neglect it,

not to vote is to vote!

These words—and definitely Bonhoeffer’s actions—suggest that he believed that it is important to not only speak out against evil, but to actively oppose it. Bonhoeffer exemplified this, and in the name of love laid down his life to oppose an evil government (John 15:13). If this godly example of a man is willing to bring physical violence against an objectively evil government —

after all other peaceful means had been exhausted

— the least we can do is cast peaceful and effective votes down the ballot against an extremely evil agenda. The vast majority of Americans know exactly why the Nazi Party was a threat to our neighbors. As noted above, historically speaking, Marxism has been far worse for humanity, murdering over 100 million people in the 20th Century! We contend that the current leadership of the Democrat Party is a clear and present danger threatening our neighbors today, including the most vulnerable among us. What Makes the current Democrat Party such a threat?

Fascism vs Marxism: A False Dilemma

Marxism is one of the greatest ideological evils to infect planet Earth. This atheistic philosophy promises flourishing but historically only brings poverty, despair, suffering, and death to our fellow humans—our neighbors—around the planet. In our article, A Moral Obligation to Vote for an Immoral Candidate, we pointed out that Marxism has taken on new skin in the 20th and 21st centuries. Without delving into the entire history of the matter, the ideology of Marxism has been adjusted into something called Contemporary Critical Theory (for more on that see Critical Dilemma with Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer) which sees society as ordered by the strata of oppressed-oppressor narratives and sees equity (equality of outcome) as more desirable than equality. This is simply Marxism; elimination of class is only accomplished by forced equity. A rose by any other name. Moreover, in most cases, this ideology conflates the idea of equity with equality, redefining what it means to desire equality. So much has this Marxist laden ideology seeped into our current governmental system that we saw President Biden — with the support of Harris and the entire Democrat Machine — make this statement upon his inauguration in 2021:

“Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.”

An executive branch bent on promoting Marxist principles (based on Frankfurt School philosophies and Contemporary Critical Theories) such as equality of outcome and Critical Theory along with Intersectionality is a danger to our neighbors and to our nation as it sets up a mandatory conflict between those it deems to be “oppressors,” and those it claims are “oppressed.” The threat is much more prevalent than many think and as this ideology sweeps through the corridors of our federal government, we find that words like “justice,” “equality,” and “freedom” receive shifts in their own definitions. This enables those in power to usher in a new kind of government without so much as touching the constitution (this is the true threat to democracy). The moral language of such ideologies creates an insidious undercurrent of support for abjectly evil policies. Ordering our country through the lens of “equity,” “anti-racism,” and the like, will only dismantle further the institutions of marriage and community and will further exacerbate racial tensions. As I (Stratton) recently noted on social media:

“The oppressor/oppressed narrative is Marxist & will lead to a civil war UNLESS America turns back to God. I’m praying & working for the latter.”

This is how supposed scholars like Ibrim X Kendi can say, without batting an eye, that

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Kendi is asserting that the only way to fight racism is with more racism. His view is absurd, unbiblical, sinful, and obviously racist, but these are the types of people the Democrat Party has been platforming and listening to in order to restructure government and restructure society. Before you pass over such statements as uttered by leftist loons whom no one is paying much attention, understand that, not only are people paying attention to them and embracing them, this type of policy is already being enacted in our government and in many academic institutions. Indeed, Biden and Harris have tacitly and actively endorsed this movement within their administration. Indeed, Black Lives Matter (BLM) admitted that they are "trained Marxists." It's these folks who reigned terror across our land in the summer of 2020 who Kamala Harris bailed out of prison! Her Marxist actions are so much louder than her Marxist words. There is a narrative that has been spun on both sides of the aisle that Donald Trump is a fascist dictator that promised to be a dictator on day one, but is this an accurate depiction of the former president? Indeed, if Trump was an aspiring fascist dictator the choices between Marxism or Fascism are untenable and impossible to choose between. This could lead to necessarily sitting out in an election. The evidence that Trump is a fascist is minimal at best and fictional at worst. In relation to the claim Trump vowed to be a dictator on day one it was clearly a joke directed at the fact that he would issue executive orders to close the border and increase drilling for oil. That didn’t stop various news outlets from claiming what he

meant

was that he really would be a dictator starting on day one (this is an example of poor hermeneutics; Christians who have been trained to interpret the Bible correctly also have the tools to decipher Trump’s original intent). For instance,

The Atlantic

ran an article claiming that:

“Donald Trump, the former president of the United States who tried to steal the 2020 election, says he’ll be a dictator on day one of a second term.”

The Atlantic

hid the context of Trump’s quotes behind their pay wall. Most accusations of Trump as fascist dictator are as easily debunked as this. Along with these intentional misrepresentations the media stokes the flames of

Project 25

as a fascist playbook for Trump’s administration. Never mind the fact that Project 25 is a 900-page document that nearly no one has read front to back (except yours truly… yes Josh Klein has read the entire thing), including Trump. The people who think Trump has read or secretly endorsed Project 25 have a higher regard for his intellect and reading level than I do. I don’t think Trump has read very many books. I doubt he’s even read his own. Even if Trump was directly linked to Project 25, is it

really

a direct link to an attempted fascist takeover of the federal government? Consider Project 25 in its own words:

“The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power— including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people” (pg. 44).

Is returning the power of the executive branch, including out of control bureaucratic agencies to the “American people” fascistic? Or perhaps it is Project 25’s insistence at closing federal agencies that hold too much power (in their eyes) like the federal

Department of Education:

“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government” (pg. 319).

Trump, for his part has promised to end the

Department of Education

so he is at least on the same page as Project 25 on that front

But how is this fascistic? A brief study in the most infamous fascistic regime in history would indicate that an aspiring fascist dictator would not seek to loosen his grip on federal education but seek to control it to publish and promote his propaganda. There is a big risk in a fascist dictator allowing fifty different states to maintain and curate their own educational curriculum and standards. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia this is the exact opposite of what Hitler sought to do:

“

Goebbels soon envisioned an empire that would control schools, universities, film, radio, and propaganda. ‘The national education of the German people,’ he wrote, ‘will be placed in my hands.’”

We could go on but this, among other reasons, is why we cannot take the charge of Trump’s supposed fascism seriously. If he is a fascist, he is, indeed, the worst fascist in the history of fascism. On the other hand, there is a clear line of Marxist and Communistic thought woven into the Harris/Walz agenda. Marxism is just as bad (if not worse) as Nazism. Both are evil and opposed to America’s philosophical foundations and the Law of Christ (See, Key Tenets of Marxism VS America’s Philosophical Foundations). We covered the desire for DEI and Critical Race Theory to be a driving force of policy in our previous article entitled, “

A Moral Obligation to Vote for an Immoral Candidate

,” but here, we want to outline why Kamala Harris’s only true policy proposals (to this point) are either accidentally related to communist-style policies at best or actively designed to usher in soviet era governmental policies at worst. In May of 2017 the Venezuelan Supreme Court seized legislative power for itself to effectively cement Nicolás Maduro as dictator and chief. Vox covered the power grab this way:

“Opposition leaders

accused

Maduro of trying to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship and said the court — nominally committed to enforcing the country’s constitution — had instead

shredded

the document by carrying out what amounted to a judicial coup.”

In the late 90s and culminating in the mid-2010s leaders within Venezuelan government sought to “reform” the courts and make them subordinate to elected officials. Control the courts, and you control the nation. Biden recently introduced a term limit proposal which would force the court to be subject to consistent change over time and to a “binding code of conduct” for the supreme court. On their face some might think such reforms seem reasonable, but the amendments open the door to many questions about who then controls the court? What does a code of conduct look like? Is it based upon objective morality or the subjective whims of the majority? Moreover, who enforces it? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to shoot down unconstitutional or political elements within the code of conduct? Many questions abound, and few answers are available. Back to Venezuela. Between 2004 and 2010:

“—the Supreme Court was co-opted

through the change in the system of appointment and removal of justices,

which gave broad discretion to the governing party in the National Assembly” (2004-2010).

In other words, a single party had inordinate power to install and remove justices of the Supreme Court. The reason the American system does not allow for term limits within the constitution is to avoid this sort of planned takeover of the system. Not knowing when a judge will retire or pass away limits the executive’s power over the judicial branch. Rotating justice appointments every 2 years with a maximum of an 18-year term opens the door to packing the courts. Alas, this is not the only similarity in the Biden/Harris administration’s proposal to Venezuela’s history. How did the “reformation” of the courts in Venezuala begin? Again, reading from the same report:

“It began with a decree reorganizing the Judicial Branch and the creation of a Judicial Emergency Commission, to which the Supreme Court of Justice was subordinated, resulting in a purge of judges” (1999-2003).

This is the concern of the nebulous “code of conduct” that Biden proposed for the current US Supreme Court. The targets of such a proposal were specific justices already on the Supreme Court and these justices are of the same political persuasion.

“Biden’s third and final proposed change is a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, who are not bound by the same code of conduct that applies to other federal judges. In the wake of revelations about (among other things) the failures of some of its members –

most notably, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

.”

If a code of conduct is put into place to target specific justices that align ideologically this should raise red flags. But this is not the only policy that points to authoritarian bents in the Harris/Walz administration. Recently, Harris put forward multiple economic proposals which, if taken to their logical ends, are at least communist-lite if not communist in totality. First, Harris proposed a federal ban on “price-gouging” but the proposal is really about price controls, not price gouging. For instance, in times of natural disasters it is already illegal to “price-gouge” in most states. So what sets Harris’s proposal apart? Her proposal is not about instances of price-gouging but is a price-controlled proposal to help “fight inflation.” The difference is in kind. The type of price-gouging that is already illegal focuses on the manipulation of prices due to limitations on resources because of a natural disaster. The value of the dollar has not changed so the gouging of the customer results in dishonest profits. However, Harris’s plan is a

reaction

to the value of the dollar changing not a reaction to a temporary disruption of goods. This is price control. As the Soviet revolution rose in Russia in the early 1910s hyperinflation was destroying the Russian economy. To bring inflation down the Russian government would institute price controls. The same exact

style

proposal Harris is planning currently, and it resulted in food shortages and ultimately the Bolshevik revolution which ushered in Communism. Stalin instituted strict price controls in the 1920s and these controls (though they varied) continued as along as the USSR existed culminating in a combination of food shortages and inflationary economic disaster in the 1990s.

“By artificially fixing prices and repressing inflation, the Soviet system of price controls created persistent shortages of food and consumer goods. The price control system was established after Stalin decided to do away with the New Economic Policy in 1928 and remained in place as long as the Soviet Union existed.”

Using price controls to fight inflation invariably lead to lack of product, destruction of the private grocer industry, and the nationalization of grocery provision. The response by some that recognize this policy as a failure on the left is simply to say “it would never pass” but the fact that it is a policy position at all should be troubling. Still, many people are quick to point out that even if Harris proposes some socialist style policies, she is not proposing outright Marxism whereby the federal government takes control of the means of production. However, we would argue that her economic policy

proposals

are meant to do just that (accidentally or otherwise). Beyond price controls Harris recently proposed a hike in corporate tax rates as well as a wealth tax on

unrealized capital gains

(meaning taxing assets or “worth” even before the selling of assets) of corporations making over one billion in revenue. Nearly 7,000 corporations in the United States are estimated to be worth over 1 billion dollars. Why should we care that the richest companies may be taxed on revenue that they have not realized? Bob Byrne puts it succinctly:

“The kicker is the 25% tax on unrealized gains for the ultra-wealthy. While this only impacts a handful of people, and the measure is highly unlikely to pass, even the concept is worrisome. The taxing of unrealized gains, no matter what the level of wealth, will drive assets, jobs and companies away from the United States.”

Not even communist China taxes unrealized capital gains. So what is the goal of such tax theories? According to Harris and her platform, it is the greed of corporate America that leads to economic issues. This tax increase punishes corporate America and lionizes government interventionism.

“This policy could dramatically distort investment behavior, especially when it comes to small caps, startups and early-stage companies. These businesses are often the engines of growth and innovation within the economy, but they rely on investments from those willing to take risks for the promise of future returns. Knowing that their unrealized gains will be taxed, investors would be less inclined to invest in growth-oriented businesses, which tend to see greater levels of volatility year-over-year than larger, more established companies. The consequence? A slower rate of innovation and a reduced growth in productivity.”

And where small caps fail to emerge government agencies would step in to seize the means of production. Some might call unrealized gain taxes a backdoor to transitioning an economy from the private sector to the public sector. But don’t take our word for it. Recently a corporate billionaire indicated as much:

Even avid leftist Mark Cuban indicated that such a proposal would “wreck the stock market” but he insists that Harris would never do what she is proposing to do. Then why would Harris float it as a policy? And how are we supposed to trust Harris’s policy positions on the matter when she has shifted nearly all her policies for expedience since 2020? However, even if this “won’t happen” or “won’t pass” should it not be enough to recognize that this Marxist policy is the Harris/Walz administrations preferred policy? Others guffaw at the hand wringing on the policy because people like ourselves, middle-lower class, find the policy abhorrent. “

Why do you care what happens to billionaires,”

the say sarcastically, “

you’re not one anyway. This will affect such a small number of people, plus, they have the money for it.”

Except, they don’t. They *might* have the assets for it. And these Billionaires help to pay the wages of millions upon millions of workers. What happens when the CEO of Kroger, Wal-Mart, and the like choose to liquidate their assets so they can be taxed on actual gains and live out the rest of their lives on some remote island somewhere? A policy like this could and possibly will achieve such an aim, and as one can tell from the above X post even the threat of such legislation could lead to these sorts of reactions. What happens then? Well, the government is here to help. Welcome to a new era of state-run commodities since the current players left the game and there is no incentive for new players to pick up the slack. These policies have consequences and almost invariably the consequences lead to, whether intended or not, communist style government takeover where the government seizes the means of production and, ultimately, private property ceases to exist. There’s more that could be said about these actual policies however, rhetoric itself can be a strong indicator of desired direction of a campaign. Suffice it to say, the policies of Harris/Walz are not their only connections to Marxian thought, their campaign rhetoric also bears striking similarities. We will explore those next.

To read Part 1 of this series click:

HERE

To Read Part 3 click:

HERE

Stay tuned for our next installment and stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Klein & Stratton

Notes

For more about the debate regarding the sources of these well-known quotes, see the following: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/ We can learn much from the 12,000 silent pastors who did not speak out during the rise of the Nazi Party. They failed their neighbors and the world morally. I, for one, will not make that same mistake. Speak up and use the platform God has given you to influence others for the good of your neighbors. For more about the great objective evil of Marxism, we recommend Phil Bair’s book “Marx Attacks” https://a.co/d/383yohP Courtois, Stéphane, and Mark Kramer.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

. Harvard University Press, 2004. Shenvi, Neil, et al.

Critical Dilemma Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer ; Foreword by Carl R. Trueman

. Harvest House Publishers, 2023. Some might respond that Biden, Harris, and Walz have never claimed to be Marxists. Some might say that they deny being Marxists. However, that’s like me (Stratton) denying that I am a Christian, but saying that I believe that Jesus is the second person of the Triune God, that I love Jesus and am committed to living according to the Law of Christ. Well, that’s what it means to be a Christian, even if I say I am not a Christian. We are judging Harris and Walz by their policies and other past statements. That’s why we know they are infected by Marxism. To be clear, Marxism has seen many iterations over the last 200 years. It seems to us that Harris/Walz have embraced both ideological Marxism (known as Cultural Marxism) and tenets of Classical Marxism as well whereby class is eliminated through revolution spurred on by the proletariat and the means of production is seized by the state and private ownership of property and business is either scarce or impossible. https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/#:~:text=The%20President's%20Order%20emphasized%20the,we%20have%20to%20build%20a For a list of new definitions see here: https://www.aecf.org/blog/racial-justice-definitions https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist Deuteronomy 16:19; Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:2–3; Proverbs 24:23; James 2:1,9 https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/state-departments-racial-equity-diplomat-meets-with-ibram-x-kendi/https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/trump-dictator-day-one-00130310 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf