Saturday, June 30, 2018

I was thinking like Dinesh D'Souza before Dinesh D'Souza

The following commentary was published on November 3, 2013.  Compare this narrative with that of Dinesh D'Souza in the video that follows (at bottom of page).
 
Have you ever wondered what an Alinskyism is?
by Norman E. Hooben
Saul Alinsky was is probably the most influential character in American politics during the last half a century. Without getting into his life story suffice it to say that he has injected more hatred for the American way of life into the Democratic Party than any one person. Even Hillary Clinton admired this man so much that she wrote her college thesis about him. Saul Alinsky is famous in the world of liberal academia because his methods fall in line for the ultimate destruction of this Republic. For it was the Communists who took on his tactics to get control of the American educational system...just look at who controls Harvard (John Harvard would be appalled), Yale, Georgetown, UCLA, et.al. ...and the politicians they develop.
Alinsky wrote a little red book titled, "Rules For Radicals" and we can list some of them here. But before we do, I can summarize most of the book with one sentence, "Tell them one thing but do the opposite." Most Alinskyites (Alinsky followers) have been doing this since FDR (and before), Johnson did, as did Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. Take FDR for example...during his campaign he was against everything his opponent was for and yet almost all of FDR's policies were that of the guy that lost.
All of the politicians I've mentioned have the ability to preach a good sermon while expressing their patriotism and yet not one of them has ever done one good thing for the Republic for which we (the people) stand. Everything gets progressively worse over the long run (huh, is that why they like to call themselves progressives), especially the national debt and the dwindling loss of freedoms (i.e. by instituting numerous rules and regulations either by fiat, dictates by unelected government agencies, Executive Orders, and occasionally by an actual law passed by both Houses and signed by the president. I might add in this parenthetical space that it would not be illegal to disobey an EO for the president does not have the authority to make laws. You as a citizen have the responsibilty to obey laws and EO's are not laws.)
Now before Obama came onto the national scene the most influential Alinskyite was Bill Clinton who's major agenda was is one world government. He spoke of his new world order on many occasions and most of his legislative wishes were to enhance that outcome; the new world order! While the Clintons were raised in an America that they knew was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and understood that fact while at the same time despising anything to do with organized religions, their Alinsky-like influence on the American voter was accepted because they preached a good sermon. Obama however, was not raised in the traditional American household or neighborhood. His entire life has been influenced by Communists (of which he was a member of the New American Party), Marxists, and Islamists. Obviously he was groomed for the position he now holds and he got their by making use of Alinskyisms...say one thing but do the opposite. The Judeo/Christian definition of that would be a lie. The Clintons understood that. The Islamic or Muslim definition of that would be....aah lets see, anything you want it to mean as long as the desired outcome fits your agenda. And that's exactly what Obama is doing here: ↓ see video ↓


Obama is preaching a good sermon but does not believe a word of it. Remember, Obama does not have a conscience so lying with every other breath does not bother him in the least...he's after one thing; his agenda! Although his agenda includes a one world government absent of all organized religions except Islam. He's even friends with the guy that wants to place the flag of Islam over the White House, but that's another story. Meanwhile I promised I'd list some of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals...here they are:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
By the way, even reporters have trouble getting the point across to a complacent society of voters as evidenced by the following:
Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush’s effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty. ~ See Obama Continues Bush's Sellout Policy
If Corsi would emphasize the point by outright telling his readers that Obama lied instead of using such words as, "a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty"... "Placing the program under the radar of public opinion." Does the average reader voter really comprehend the enormity of such words as "a public relations makeover" or " deflect concerns" ? Why doesn't he come right out and say, "Obama is lying."? And that, my friends, sums up an Alinskyism, say a bunch of words that sound good and nobody will ever know what they really mean once you've said them...confusing huh!

 
 
The following video was published on August 12, 2017. Compare what is said by Dinesh D'Souza to what I said above.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

How dare you call them criminals...but, but, but they are! They are! They are! They are!

Thinking out loud…
Regarding the sanctuary cities throughout the United States and the so-called sanctuary states of California and Massachusetts should not the mayors and governors of these places be charged with some kind of criminal behavior? We can dismiss the fact they have not upheld their oath of office but we cannot not overlook the outright disobedience of the highest law of the land; the United States Constitution. If for one moment these criminal politicians think that by quoting the 10th Amendment, that they have the right to do as they please with matters of immigration they forget that they gave up that right in the year 1808. In fact the Founding Fathers gave the states twenty years to decide…twenty-one if you count the year it was written (Just in case you not sure what I’m talking about...the Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788.) Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
That quote clearly states that after the year 1808 only the Congress can deal with matters of migration and not the states…and any fool can tell you ‘cities’ is never mentioned in the Constitution.
Keeping in mind that I referred to these politicians as criminals there’s another area of the Constitution that seems to be overlooked by many.
Article 4, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Think about that for a moment. If the United States is represented by the people we vote into power then it stands to reason that people like Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and all the rest of them are supposed to be protecting us from the invasion that’s taken place at our borders…but no, they are encouraging the invasion and that in itself is treason…reason enough to call them criminals. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Friday, June 22, 2018

TIME Magazine...a picture is worth a million votes (even though it's a lie!)

By Norman E. Hooben

Just as I stated some years ago that John Harvard would be appalled at what happened to the school that he founded based on Godly principles which has now turned into a Communist re-education campus, so to Henry Luce must be turning over in his grave knowing that his once highly respected TIME Magazine has been taken over by the Communists.  This of course would be refuted by the Democrats even though it fulfills the Communist’s long range plans1 to take over the American news media.  Also, it goes without saying that the Democrat Party (…and just to be fair, part of the Republican Party) has Communists in their leadership positions. (By the way, I do not care for the present system of political parties in America.  Instead, I prefer the President John Adams school of thought; none!  We would be much better off with just one American political party where the people controlled our destiny and not two private clubs such as the D’s and the R’s, but we would have to get rid of all the Communists and Socialists first.)
Meanwhile, TIME Magazine has further enhanced its Communist dominated writers and editors viewpoints by hoping to indoctrinate the average American with libelous imagery on their front cover.  They do this knowing that a portion of the voting population will see the cover picture without bothering to read the truth behind the story and thus remember the lie come voting season.


1 The Communist Takeover Of America ~ 45 Declared Goals ~

Sunday, June 10, 2018

The Modern Civil War ...PS: Jack Minzey Rest In Peace


Jack Minzey
I got out of the prediction business when I was so far off it was laughable…the civil war I forecasted for a stated time period came and went without notice and when I ran across it several years later I deleted the entire commentary for fear of being ridiculed as some kind of conspiracy theorist nut case.  Now that I’m older and supposedly wiser I had second thoughts about the conflict in question.  War as I was thinking at the time was a shoot-‘em-up war with people dying on both sides but with my favorite team coming out the winner.  Now none of that happened but the war did in fact begin…and we’re currently in the midst of it right now…without the cannons, bullets, and bombs.  Sometimes it takes someone with an academic pedigree greater than mine to define just exactly what a civil war is; Professor Jack Minzey would be just that! ~ Norman E. Hooben
 
The following from: Modern Civil War Without Guns — So Far! by Jack Minzey
More than a month ago now, Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises that he has written over the years.

Jack went to be with the Lord, on Sunday, 8 April 2018.

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.  His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability.

This is the last of his works.

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The
Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting; at least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party.  You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country.  But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship; your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the
White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White
House has ‘discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him.  That's how the game is played.  That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary; the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding:  Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you're not a member.  If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, if you aren't in the club, and Trump isn’t in the club, he brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them.  They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt; we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government
 
https://straightlinelogic.com/2018/06/04/modern-civil-war-without-guns-so-far-by-jack-minzey/