DONATE

Showing posts with label Socialist Transformation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialist Transformation. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2019

Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals & How They Are Being Applied Today


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

Many Conservatives who pay attention to how government and politics affects their lives are aware of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Those same Conservatives are aware of prominent Dems living the Rules for Radicals (cough ahem – Crooked Hillary, Deep State Obama, among others).

Alinsky’s Rules are a Socialist agenda to transform America AWAY from its Founding Principles and Christian heritage. Take from the Ocensor article cross posted here about how much the present Dem Agenda smacks of old uncle Saul.

JRH 9/23/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 
**********************
Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals & How They Are Being Applied Today


Sep 23, 2019

Many of us have heard of Saul Alinsky, his rules for radicals, the left scoffs at our looking to this, but is there any truth that this is being applied to the US political landscape today, and if it is, who is applying it?

To understand what these rules are we have to look at what he asked for and what was his goal. Alinsky was a socialist who lived in the 1900s in the US, graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in Psychology. He went on and worked for the State of Illinois for a short time, then went on to be a community organizer, writer, political activist.


He is looked to as an author of socialist ideology, something that many on the left aspire to follow, and much of his “Rules for Radicals,” published a year before his death is seen as a guideline of how to bring about a social change in America to set it up for socialist rule.

So what is this “Rules for Radicals” and what did it advocate? The whole document was set up to show how to bring a nation to its knees so a socialist change could come to the land and would bring about socialism to the state. Here are the items and what they were set up for:

1)   Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

2)   Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3)   Debt  Increase the debt to an unsustainable level.  That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4)   Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5)   Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Water, Electrical power, Housing and neighborhood demographics, and Income).

6)   Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.  (Common Core?)

7)   Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8)   Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take Tax from the wealthy with the support of the poor.

So how does this list apply today? I would say if you look at the actions of the last president, then of the left today, with people like AOC, Sanders, along with her squad and many from the left you see this in full effect today. So let’s look at each item and see if it is in workings today.

·       Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

                                                     i.               We saw two activists within the Democratic party, one that was very much of an activist in her school days, one that went from activist and community organizer to the White House, Clinton and Obama pushed from their times in the White House to put in place socialized medical care, Clinton failed when she was the first lady, Obama partially succeeded, but has much of what he pushed now being stripped by Trump.

                                                 ii.               Even though Trump has pushed back on this, today you see the whole Democrat party pushing for universal healthcare, the more left-leaning or outright socialist the candidates are, who is running for president, we see idea’s being presented from strengthening of Obamacare to outright shutting down private healthcare insurance and putting in a Canadian style social healthcare, where the state controls all.

                                             iii.               We now hear that healthcare is a fundamental human right, this is used as a means of pushing that there should be no choice in this, the government, as a guarantor of our rights should be the one to take charge of our health care, it should never be in the hands of private business or individuals. The far-left socialist, Sanders and Warran are pushing this; when asked if our healthcare insurance will be taken, both are equal in their moves to deflect from the question and never answer.

                                              iv.               By demanding that universal healthcare is given to all, including illegals, the left is demanding that our nation be changed to what they demand, if you are not willing to change the structure of our government the left labels and then attacks, as they do with everything.

·       Poverty – with the way the economy is going under Trump this is getting harder and harder to exploit, so instead of trying to exploit poverty, instead the left pushes to scare people to think it is coming, or to openly wish for a great recession, such as Bill Mahr did.


1.       We have seen that some within the left want to see a recession, turn to any paper, turn on the news, you are now bombarded with stories of a recession coming our way. The fact that our economy is the strongest it has been in years, that is a considerable inconvenience for the left, they know then the only way to push this today is not to say people are worse off, instead, bad times are coming, when they do, it is all Trump’s and the Right’s fault, so you need to come to us today so we can protect you against this when it happens.

2.     The second thing you see is the left turning to very radical ideas that will radically transform our economy and is guaranteed to bring about complete and total poverty, thus you have the Green New Deal. When the left is unable to feed off the fear of people of things turning sour, they then look for ways to bring about an economic downturn. The dream of the left is to see our economy fail, the benefit for them is two-fold: First, they get rid of the arch-enemy who they see as standing in their way for the idea of a socialist paradise. That would be the conservative right and Trump.


·       Debt – Debt is not bad, but when it is used to push a nation to the point of poverty, it is. We saw with Obama claims that we needed more than one trillion dollar stimulus to bring back the economy of the US, but the question has to be asked if this was supposed to help our economy, why then did Obama pass this on to businesses outside our nation and to other countries?

                                                     i.               One of the ways to bring people and nation to poverty is to rack up their debt. We had two trillion dollar stimulus given to Obama, but instead of our economy thriving, unemployment going down with this, instead, our economy got worse, our unemployment figures continued to rise.

                                                 ii.               Under Obama, we saw our deficit double, and one has to ask, what was accomplished? Our growth never exceeded 2%, he told us jobs were not coming back, he fell back on his socialist ideals when he demanded that more and more of our lives and our dependence be given to the state.

                                             iii.               While the debt is growing under Trump, and I would love to see a reverse of this, we also have to understand, with all these trillions that Obama was given, our national defense was left in shatters, Trump had little choice but to pick up the budget just to build back up a tattered force, many of our jets were unable to fly, it got so bad the Navy was raiding museums to get spare parts. Trump’s moves were never to set this nation in debt; he is moving to pick up the economy to cover spending, an increase in the economy means there are more funds available to be taxed.


·       Take Away Our 2nd Amendment – no party has done more to try to restrict our right to bear arms, something that is part of the American fabric in life, it is a right granted to all Americans, although I now see this right slowly being stripped frequently on almost a daily basis. The left knows a well-armed population is not so quickly forced to go with government programs and forced ideology, take away the guns you take away the ability to resist.

                                      i.               While I can’t say for certain that these school shootings are far too convenient, but I must ask if you are so concerned about school shootings, why aren’t you willing to secure the schools that house our children so this does not happen? As terrible as this sounds, I am at the point that I believe the left thinks these children being lost are worth the sacrifice if they can take our guns in the end. That is why the left refuses to act to protect our schools if we do that, then they will see no more shootings to use as a backdrop to press their taking of our guns.


·       Welfare – no place is the dependence the left wants on display than in our inner cities. The grand experiment by Johnson has laid our cities to waste; families are not in multiple generations where not a soul has worked, their dependence of the state is total. When you create a whole class that is dependent on the state, you have an almost entire class of people who are easily controlled.

                                                     i.               The inner cities in America, parts that are where the primary population of our African American demographic lives, you have a whole group that is told they need to vote as they are told, it is best for them, even though little can be shown to back this up.

                                                 ii.               Today the growth of African American’s leaving the Democratic party is quickly bringing the far left to the point of panic, so what did they do? They moved on from these people, still demand that they support them, all while turning on them and moving their support for illegals that have no say in government affairs. This is why there is such a strong move now to give illegals the right to vote.


·       Education – the plan here was to use our school’s as a means not to teach, instead, indoctrinate. I must say, no place is it evident that this is being applied in America today than in our whole mess of an education system. We send our children to school to get an education so they can better their lives, yet starting now in grade schools are children are under a constant barrage of liberal ideology.

                                                     i.               No place are these ideas in its entirety shown more than in schools. You have young people that are poor, they are going through school, so the concept of social handouts is very appealing to them, they care not about taxes, they aren’t paying any, instead they are living off the graces of the taxpayer, thus they feel in many cases they are entitled to these handouts.

                                                 ii.               We also see the lack of freedom of speech, of different ideas, this is something these young people think is unacceptable. Thus you have riots and using the heckler’s veto when they wish to shut up opposing views. As was with Russia in their revolution, China too, the leaders or activist go for the youth, they are less able to see what this will lead to in the future, only care about the present.


·       Religion – Religion or faith, it gives hope to a people, that is why socialism, in every nation it has been implemented in, religion was either controlled by the state or was stomped out, or at least the effort was to do this. If you have a people without hope, they need to look to someone or something for hope; if you put the government in place to give this hope, they will turn to it.

                                      i.               The colleges, the stronghold of this movement are also moving to push this. If you look at the teachings of evolution, global warming, you don’t see a science, where all can be questioned, it is OK to challenge theories to see if they stand up to the questions presented. Instead, you are attacked by zealots, with every bit as much zeal as you see from other faiths when you question their core doctrines. The left has moved to replace religion with science, they seem to fail to understand, they are two separate things, but when you do this, you still accomplish what you were seeking to do, taking away hope outside of what socialist is trying to present.


·       Class Warfare – To control the masses, as was seen in Germany, Russia, China, and other nations, you need to create an enemy, for the socialist, it is the elites, the ones driving the economy. They push that somehow these people are gifted, they have earned nothing, gotten what they have due to their taking it from the less fortunate, but is this the case? Let’s look at that:

                                                     i.               We have heard it said that people with too much money should be forced to hand it over to people that have little or none, this is the groundwork of socialism, but is really good practice. You have Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and others, tech giants that have amassed unheard-of wealth, but did they steal? No, they created a product, one that had a need, they used this need to create wealth, no one was stolen from, people paid for this, this was passed on to these people that created these items.

                                                 ii.               Socialist countries start off by stripping the wealthy of their wealth, this may seem like a good thing, but when this is the class creating jobs, handing down wealth to people under them due to this creation, what happens to jobs when they are taken out of the equation? Suggest you look to Venezuela and see what happens. A large oil producer, a wealthy nation, but the standards of the nations around it, now is in utter poverty, the people are in the streets looking for some means of survival. All they have done is stopped upwards mobility and made all people poor.

We may not think that Alinsky’s playbook is in play, sites like Snopes go out of their way to try to discredit where the practice of this is shown, but it is very much in play, it is just being done in secret. What they fail to state is that communism or socialism is exactly what Alinsky was pushing.

We are all in a big chest match, pieces are being moved, many times not in a way that we suspect, but the results will be the same, either we move to counter this or sit and watch it happen.
___________________________
Site owned and operated by Benton Media Corp.



Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Overcome Political Realism with Grassroots Conservatism

Face of Obama - Impeach Him
IMPEACH OBAMA!

John R. Houk
© July 22, 2017

Brent Smith has written an article that is correctly critical of Speaker John Boehner and the GOP Establishment leadership for brushing off calls for President Barack Hussein Obama’s impeachment.

Too many Republicans from both Conservatives and GOP Establishment withstand calls for impeachment out of what I can call political realism. The thinking runs something like this: Even if the House of Representatives currently under a GOP majority serves articles of impeachment with a simple majority, the Constitution states that two-thirds of the members of the Senate are needed to convict and remove from Office. (See Standards for Impeachment) That 2/3 today is sixty Senators. Realists believe even with a majority win in the 2014 election it would be doubtful that there would be 60 Republican Senators. And it is a decent guess that if a miracle occurs and the Senate session beginning after the 2014 reaches at least 60 Senators, that are probably enough RINOs to thwart a conviction of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Despite the logical arguments of the political Realists I say PHOOEY!

Admittedly I felt Barack Obama had a Socialist Transformative agenda to end the Constitutional America as we know it which includes throwing Biblical Christian values into irrelevance from the beginning of the rise of his popularity in the 2008 election cycle. NONETHELESS, for we Americans that want to see accountability from an elected official rather than see how political realism plays out. Beginning impeachment proceedings NOW we the people will see just who in the House stands for accountability and who stands for political realism. The 2014 election cycle will then give constituents an actual voice about their Representative in the House. If constituents vote for a candidate or incumbent that maintains the political realist status quo, then they deserve the future Left Wing despotism that will gain deeper roots resulting from Obama transformatism (See Time [Leftist Vision], Education Brainwashing, OBAMA FORCED A CHANGE NOT WANTED and The Godless Left And Social Justice).

If a majority of the House votes to impeach the President, at this point it would probably be the 2015 Senate installed in January that decides to keep or boot President Barack Hussein Obama out of Office. I am praying if a GOP led Senate fails to remove Obama from Office, then more voters will wake-up to the dysfunction of reality politics by insuring a Conservative GOP election of President and a super majority in both the House and Senate in 2016. Impeachment proceedings will make this the true political reality. In this case there is a difference between verified reality and predictive realism.

Ben Smith’s article calling for Obama’s impeachment is a growing Conservative grassroots movement to counter the squeamishness of political realism.

JRH 7/22/14 (Hat Tip: MinutemenNews.com)
*****************************
No to Impeachment – Yes to Lawsuit

July 21, 2014

Recently, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, little Johnny Boehner, proclaimed that, “Every member of Congress swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So did Pres. Obama. But too often over the past five years, the president has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from the forcing statutes he is sworn to uphold – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.”

“That’s why, later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel president Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.”

Boehner’s statement was in direct response to Obama’s “So Sue Me” statement to Congress. In other words, Obama will do whatever he darn well pleases, and if you don’t like it – tough toenails for you.

He didn’t, nor does anyone else using that phrase, mean to actually sue him. Maybe he did.

Boehner says he’s disappointed in “the president’s flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend…”

He’s disappointed? That’s it? Not outraged at the president who is breaking the law on a regular basis, and consistently acting anti-constitutionally?

There is a method of redress you know, Johnny. It’s written right in that Constitution you swore to defend but probably haven’t read. It’s called impeachment and I guarantee if this were Bush thumbing his nose at a Democrat Congress, articles would have been drawn up long ago – and rightly so. I would certainly support it, whoever is in office.

No official is above the Constitution. No – not even Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan).

So why file a lawsuit? Why not impeachment? A few reasons, in my opinion.

First, little Johnny would feel the need to garner “public support” for impeachment which is not required and wholly unnecessary. But we all know he is too cowardly to actually “do his job” without first getting approval. There was almost no support to impeach Nixon before the process began – neither public nor congressional.

Second: assuming Congress has legal “standing” or authority in the eyes of the court to even file a lawsuit – it would drag on potentially for years and accomplish exactly nothing – except for spineless Republicans to claim their at least “trying” to stop this “lawless” president. It’s great cover for the lily livered establishment, and they know it.

I haven’t heard this theory, but I’ll just throw it out there. Finally and most importantly is the built-in excuse of no longer having to answer any questions.

Let me put it a better way. You know – whenever there is a major court case or major lawsuit being litigated – what do the parties always say when asked about the case? “I’m sorry, I can’t discuss that, I can’t comment on an ongoing case. I’d like to comment – but I can’t.”

Wow! What better way for both sides to just give the finger to all of us demanding that something be done about Obama.

Reporter: “Mr. Boehner – what are you going to do to stop the president’s open border lawlessness?” Boehner: I’m sorry, but that’s part of an ongoing lawsuit. You know I can’t discuss it. Sure wish I could though.”

Voilà! Problem solved for the establishment! No more questions – no more scrutiny!

Also, once a lawsuit is filed, Congress can wash its hands of it. Their attorneys, being well paid by us rubes, will handle the heavy lifting, as it were. Spineless congressional leaders get a free pass – they don’t have to do anything or say anything.

It’s a win-win!
____________________________
Overcome Political Realism with Grassroots Conservatism
John R. Houk
© July 22, 2017
___________________________
No to Impeachment – Yes to Lawsuit


The Common Constitutionalist is unique in that it offers not just conservative commentary and analysis from myself and others, but a blend of politics, history, arts, science and humor. Who ever said conservatives aren’t funny? Yeah, I know…most people. He is a contributing writer for Political Outcast and Godfather Politics.

Take a look at some of the more popular political articles such as: Newt is Not a Conservative or Manifesto, Then and Now. Perhaps a history article such as: The Great Depression.

Although I’m not a scientist, an artist, nor a photographer, all these topics interest me. Here are a few of the most viewed examples: The Hulk Protein, Rare Photos, Rolling Stones, Don’t Try This at Home

Friday, April 30, 2010

My Thoughts on Voight’s Open Letter to America



John R. Houk
© April 30, 2010


On April 11, 2010 actor Jon Voight appeared on the FOX News Channel’s named after its host - Huckabee. A YouTube post captured Voight reading an open letter to the American people.



The essence of the letter is a powerful message that I am certain the Left and the Obama Administration would find appalling. Essentially the letter was a portrait of Obama’s Alinsky Socialist/Marxist training. This training was to utilize aggressive grassroots community organizing to terminate America’s Capitalistic paradigm by transforming America into an Alinsky version of a Socialist/Marxist society.

The open letter insinuates Obama’s agenda is to gut the Founding Fathers’ American Revolutionary experiment in personal Liberty and replace it with a diluted America that internationally ceases to be a Super Power and nationally embrace the European vision of a Socialistic-Democracy based on a multicultural egalitarian diversity. My thinking is this means Liberty and Freedom becomes State Managed forcing a State definition of what is an incitement to violence which could harm the common good. Thus the common good becomes an excuse to stifle Free Speech and hinder a cultural heritage that might threaten the State’s version of maintaining a peaceful coexistence.

This would be an existence in which citizens could be liable to criminal prosecution for thoughts, speech, religion or creeds that the State defines as a threat to diverse multiculturalism and the peaceful coexistence of the common good.

In humble opinion Voight’s open letter to the American people is a warning that Obama’s “Change” is a cultural transformation in which the State is ordained by the people to a State which the people are managed by the State.

Certainly my Slanted Right vision might be extrapolating more than what Jon Voight was attempting to get across; nonetheless this is the agenda I believe President Barack Hussein Obama intends for a “Changed” America.

JRH 4/30/10 (Hat Tip: Resist Net)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Source of Anti-Government Revealed – Barack Hussein Obama



Gribbit from Ohio expresses his displeasure with the President Barack Hussein Obama socialist transformation of America. After Gribbit’s venom is spiked toward BHO he aptly provides relevant statistics comparing the popularity of the Obama Administration with the GW Bush Administration.

Unfortunately the convenience of cross posting Gribbit’s is forbidden due to anti-copy and paste software on his sight. So go to Gribbit’s article to share his feelings: The Source of Anti-Government Revealed – Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 4/20/10

Saturday, March 20, 2010

BHO Healthcare Reform and Socialist Transformation



John R. Houk
© March 20, 2010


I have written little on President Barack Hussein Obama’s healthcare agenda. There is a reason for that. I am the rare Conservative (Neocon) that believes health insurance should exist in some kind universal format.

GASP!

That’s right I am for universal insurance. This is an extremely anathema concept among Conservatives particularly among the blogosphere. This is so anathema that I am certain I cannot provide a credible defense for such a position; hence I have avoided the issue.

BHO’s health insurance agenda is actually something I support. The problem I have with the BHO health insurance agenda is the emphasis on socialism rather than mandated affordability that a market economy could more effectively manage than the government. And yet … I support the current legislation for the special interest groups representing the Insurance has so influenced Republicans that NO health insurance reform on a market paradigm has ever been seriously proposed EXCEPT as a response to the socialistic Democratic Party willingness to tackle reform.

The two times that health insurance reform has been seriously approached have been under Democratic Party Administrations – Clinton and BHO. When Clinton was shot down, did the Republicans even make an attempt to reform health insurance? NO!

As much as I believe that BHO stands for a socialist transformation of America that will change the original intent of the Founding Fathers and eliminate Christianity as the foundation of American culture and morality, I have to support the BHO health insurance reform bill if for no any reason other than personal experience. My economic status is that of one on a disability income married with three grandchildren living at home or disappears into State foster care. After years of plugged arteries to the heart and diabetes (and all that entails), health insurance was at first unavailable. Then after receiving formal State recognition of being disabled (that did not happen overnight), I had inadequate insurance. The coverage did not meet the demands of the bills. This brief personal history is the reason I am very much for health insurance reform.

If Conservatives in Office in the executive or legislative branch would have been diligent to enact a socialist reformation that would be a market economy and affordable; I would have been all for it. Unfortunately the Conservatives failed. I believe that failure was the result of a very powerful Insurance Lobby who had the perception of making more money under the status quo than under a serious affordable and effective reform.

I am willing to live with a socialist intervention in health insurance reform than no reform whatsoever.

Having sending the blood of my fellow Conservatives to the boiling point I have to say that I fear the socialistic health insurance reformation is part of the BHO agenda to transform America into to a socialistic secular humanist nation that emphasizes the civilization killer of multicultural diversity over melting pot unity.

BHO has roots in Marxist utopianism as represented by Italy’s Antonio Gramsci and America’s Saul Alinsky. Both men advocated a Marxist transformation in gradual long term steps that would not shock society with the ends that are imagined. Gramsci was an outright Communist. Alinsky never formally joined any formally open Marxist organizations in America. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals offers the socialist/Marxist end without formally declaring Marxism. Alinsky’s method was to deceive Americans by utilizing respected individuals in a community while demonizing a person that the masses could easily be convinced to be the object of the masses “angst.” [More on this in later posts]

BHO is as close to being an ideal disciple as one can be without actually meeting their master. BHO has been a director in Alinsky’s legacy of community organizing which is a euphemism for a gradual Marxist transformation of American society. My concern is not that socialistic medicine or universal healthcare due to reformed insurance is wrong, rather my concern is that the BHO health insurance reform is the foundation leg to speed up the transformative process envisioned by Saul Alinsky.

I desire BHO’s reform to be initiated; however I pray that a Conservative retaking of Congress and ultimately the White House will bring healthcare reform back toward American Judeo-Christian values.

JRH 3/20/10