tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21001569570579480712024-03-13T19:36:55.689-04:00Stay Mad!Excerpts and thoughts from a new book just published.
Bringing to the forefront events and circumstances leading to the election of a marxist. What to look for and how to spot an agenda. Researched common sense opinions that drive the libs crazy. After reading this book, you'll never 'not vote' again!
Click the Lulu button below and download this book today for only $10! Enjoy!Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-64345609069373752872011-05-03T10:17:00.000-04:002011-05-03T10:17:58.587-04:00Thwart the globalists through awareness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thwarting globalists<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Here’s the reality no matter which way you want to slice it, no matter who steps up to try it: The rest of the world is not ready to globalize. The rip in the idea is that America (although in researching this book, gets me depressed some), mainstream America, does not wish to relinquish the Liberties necessary to create equality with the rest of the world. The rest of the world will not release the grip of power they have on their own peoples to bring them equal with us. George Soros’ own writing declares that America is the biggest obstacle to globalization. Well, here’s a quote: <i>“To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy. A global society does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The only way that is being looked at as a method of global government is the socialism model. That way the people at the top, coming up with the ideas to such end, will have almost unlimited power.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I guess that makes sense because <i>true</i> Conservatives want everyone to do as well as they possibly can. It just wouldn’t occur to them to <i>rule the world</i>. If it did, then they are not true conservatives. No matter what they would say. The free market people want others to be free to choose. As in, <i>free will</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Let the <i>power</i> be spread around. Not the wealth. Let people be inspired to aspire, not relegated to regulations. </span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(Oh, that’s <i>good</i>!) <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">Let people do for themselves and their families the <i>best that they are able to do</i>. Realize at the same time that some are able to do more than others are. All are free to try. Just imagine where the nation would be if the prevailing agenda was not to tear this country down? What if the agenda were as conservative as it is liberal now? You would see television ads with little or no <i>skin</i>. Hollywood movies would be more wholesome. Drug addiction would be shunned and not celebrated. Kids would come out of college smart…Well; you could play this one for hours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This could all happen. It would have to be a covert change. It would change slowly, over a generation of pushing in the opposite direction. Changes in the media, and what they report. Change the civil society by deterring crime through stiff sentences, closing the border and protecting it. Just in general, be <i>confident</i> in Conservatism no matter what anyone says about it. </span> <div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br clear="all" /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"> <div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Economy/Crisis_Capitalism_Soros.html<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></div></div><!--EndFragment--> </div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-77556141176271777382011-05-03T09:45:00.000-04:002011-05-03T09:45:15.734-04:00Steps to totalitarianism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-align: center;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Steps to Totalitarianism<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Liberalism</span></u></i></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It starts out with things like <i>save the whales, save the dolphins, save the frogs, save the tigers, save the chimps, save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. </i>All are worthy (and real. Google search “save the…”) causes as are ecological and humanitarian causes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Liberalism progresses into socialism by briefly passing through the <i>Progressive</i> lens. Progressivism takes liberalism into action for change based on the emotion of liberalism. The progressives are a little more rigid and preach soft collectivism. Progressive is the stage where all of the <i>desensitizing </i>takes place. Desensitized to what? Socialist ideas. The movement is growing in the shadows. Still connected to liberals who want to live and let live in peace, the progressives have so damaged the other side that it’s a knee-jerk reaction to vote Democrat - never realizing what is happening inside the Democrat party. So the liberals get dragged into voting for Progressives <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While the Progressives have their eye further down the field. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Socialism<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">After Progressives have desensitized people to the idea of collectivism, it begins to show a little more ankle. The language changes slightly, and by using Western style words like <i>Democracy</i>, and <i>equity, </i>and by adding the word <i>justice</i> as a suffix to their popular causes, the meaning and direction of the movement changes course. Suddenly things like social justice, or economic justice becomes accepted by people who are still sleeping. Now we have <i>social justice, economic justice, water justice, food justice, housing justice, environmental justice, ecological justice, carbon justice, </i>really, it’s endless.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So what is there about democracy that isn’t fair? Isn’t it the will of the people? Majority rule? I’ll deal with that very shortly. What is there about “justice” that anyone can argue with? In this case the only way the word justice can fit is from the point of view of someone who has made a series of bad choices in their life and now doesn’t want to take responsibility. Mostly, I’m referring to economic or social justice. All the others have jumped onto the phrase to appeal to other liberals who <i>know-what-they’re-talking-about</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the long run, giving people free stuff isn’t helping them at all, is it? It is simply creating dependence. This is what is done with pets, making them dependent. When this is done with people, it ensures their loyalty when the vote comes around.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So, when the vote comes around, what do candidates say to procure that vote? They will promise to continue to pay benefits for people who, at this point it can easily be said, vote for a living. Now we have the richest <i>poor</i> people on the planet. How did that happen? It happened because the participation in this socialism is not voluntary by all. Participation is <i>enforced</i> through the progressive income tax. The higher the income, the higher the percentage of tax you pay. Why? Because it’s fair. Patriotic even.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s easier to control a population where large numbers of the people are dependent on government. Once the population is under government control, you have full on…..<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Communism</span></u></i></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Now that the population is controlled, industry gets absorbed into government. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Maxine Waters, D California during hearings of oil companies.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Waters told the president of a major oil company to “guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.” <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So that’s the oil companies. What about the rest of them? What do you think all the bailouts were for? Ya got ‘chur Auto bailouts - two of the three major manufacturers, ya got ‘chur insurance companies - AIG, ya got ‘chur Freddie mac and Fanny May - government mortgage holders. Now the population is controlled through confiscatory taxes and regulations and many of the big industries are owned by the government, what’s next? All they really have to do is wait. Pretty soon, the people riding in the cart outnumber the people pulling the cart. Achievement is discouraged, success is disparaged, and the pullers of the cart get dispirited and give up. Soon everyone is in the cart, and all that’s left to do is disseminate resources. Everyone gets equal portions of everything. This can be read in the preamble to their Communist Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So let’s review:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 1.05pt; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When you take apart the means used to promote the goals of communism, you first find <i>liberalism</i> which is an emotional ideology. The next degree is <i>progressivism</i>, which takes liberalism into action for change based on the emotion of liberalism. The next step is <i>socialism</i>. Socialism would work just fine on a <i>voluntary</i> basis. The problem is human beings are individuals! Socialism is collectivism, and lazy humans will follow the path of least resistance, which means they will try to get away with less work. It also means less of a full life. Less <i>juice</i>. Fewer fulfillments. And this is accomplished by using logical words like democracy, and democratic this or that. The final step (or <i>final solution</i>) is Communism. State run everything. State distributed everything. Everyone is totally one hundred percent dependent on the <i>state</i>. Totalitarianism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br clear="all" /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/may/maxine-waters-wants-socialize-oil-companies<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .5in;"><br />
</div></div></div><!--EndFragment--> </div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-72774662021286948432011-04-03T13:26:00.000-04:002011-04-03T13:26:34.239-04:00What happened in Iran in '09?<b><i><u> Yearning for freedom</u><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">In Iran there are hundreds of thousands (close to a million or so) in the street to protest rigged elections of June 2009. They <i>yearn</i> for freedom. The people protested in <i>silence</i> at times, so the regime couldn’t use what they say against them in the media, or have an excuse to use force to quell violence. It turned out they didn’t need an excuse and when the state began using force to break up the gatherings, it turned violent. At that point the state ended up shooting Neda. Neda Agha Soltan was a fiery young 27 year old in Iran who became <i>activist</i> only after the 2009 election debacle. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">She was beautiful as you can see by the picture. She was often rebellious and defied the regulations against lipstick and high heel shoes at the university. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">She was the subject of a shaky cell phone video that went <i>viral </i>(around the world via the internet in minutes). This was the moment that could have broken Iran’s leadership according to the HBO documentary <i>For Neda</i>. If there had been pressure from other heads of state, the people of Iran would have moved their liberty ball for at least a <i>first down</i>. Instead, when President Obama was asked to comment about the event, he commented that it was <i>"tragic", </i>and <i>"there’s something fundamentally unjust"</i> about what happened. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Well…that was powerful…good effort…look at him go…</div><div align="center"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MLBrlqH7dro/TZirvXr-jAI/AAAAAAAAABo/zb7abN525RE/s1600/Neda_Agha-Soltan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" r6="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MLBrlqH7dro/TZirvXr-jAI/AAAAAAAAABo/zb7abN525RE/s640/Neda_Agha-Soltan.jpg" width="518" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Neda’s name means <i>the voice</i> and there isn’t anyone in Iran who doesn’t know her name. She definitely gave a voice to the opposition in Iran. There were people, after her death, so moved by the symbolism behind the event that there was a movement which manufactured and distributed thousands of masks with the image of Neda. It’s a spooky image to see that many gathered in the streets each with the same face. Some who were wearing the masks were also holding signs asking <i>"Where is <b><u>my</u> voice?"</b></i><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"></span></span><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T-zNDIBeId8/TZisSy2_fLI/AAAAAAAAABs/3QERIJAGVeI/s1600/Neda_6a840.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="398" r6="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T-zNDIBeId8/TZisSy2_fLI/AAAAAAAAABs/3QERIJAGVeI/s640/Neda_6a840.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zDz90PxX4D0/TZismwgGf-I/AAAAAAAAABw/U1aVOaYCOHw/s1600/Neda+masks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" r6="true" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zDz90PxX4D0/TZismwgGf-I/AAAAAAAAABw/U1aVOaYCOHw/s640/Neda+masks.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Neda’s family was offered pensions and benefits if they would admit that the demonstrators were the ones who shot Neda and not the government. They refused and now, as a result, her grave has been desecrated, having the headstone vandalized and toppled and gunfire tearing at her epitaph.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The reason I’m going to all the trouble to single out this story from Iran is to point out the level of control that regimes are capable of. That’s what it’s all about - <i>control</i>. There was a viable candidate, <i>Mir Hossein Mousavi</i>, opposing <i>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad</i>, the incumbent. So who voted for <i>Ahmadinejad</i>? All the hundreds of thousands in the street were supporters of the opposition candidate. No one knew anyone who actually voted for <i>Ahmadinejad</i>. Yet, he won the election in a landslide.</div></div></i></b>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-615650829946594992011-03-27T18:15:00.003-04:002011-04-06T12:33:07.087-04:00Demographics V Collectivism<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div align="center"><strong><strong>Chapter 5</strong><br />
How we got here</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>Demographics v Collectivism </strong></div><u><em><strong>Marketing</strong> </em></u><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">With sales, demographics are a valuable way to effectively market your product. No one who has developed a product or service doesn't ask the question of: who will most likely buy what I'm selling? The answer comes through the use of polling, surveys, focus groups or just plain common sense. The fact is that, if there is a group which will most likely buy more of what you’re selling, that's where your advertising dollars will be most effective. At least until your product is established within that market. Then maybe a few dollars to try to attract a slightly different market, and so on. This is all wonderful and wholesome. When it comes to demographics used in politics, it turns nasty. </span><br />
<br />
<u><em><strong>Politicking</strong></em> </u><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It turns almost nefarious when politicians shove folks into a certain category that can then be pitted against another group. Each group is then turned into a victim that candidate X can then exploit. Each group is made to believe that candidate X is going to solve whatever circumstance existed that places them in that category to begin with.<br />
There are categories, and sub categories, and sub-sub categories. Think of it this way: Try to come up with as many different groups there are in the category of minorities. Once you get through all of the hyphenated Americans you then get into where they live and how much money they make, gender, orientation, disabled, political view, and so forth. So see? There can be a never-ending list of categories for politicians to shove individuals into. "..We need the this vote or the that vote..." Latinos, Hispanics, African-American, the Wal-Mart vote, the NASCAR vote, Women voters, fly-over country, on and on….You see? </span><br />
<br />
<u><em><strong>Methods of division</strong></em> </u><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on polling data, survey data, and the one that is the most distasteful for me, the focus group, although the focus group can be used for good or evil depending on the focus. These are techniques that are used on each of the categories of people polling groups wish to mine data from. Polls and surveys are taken for the obvious reason, that’s to find the answer to the poll question. Ah, but the question itself is designed to elicit the desired result. If poll results don’t offer supporting data, it’s never reported.</span><br />
<br />
<em><u><strong>Wording of questions</strong> </u></em><br />
<em>It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys. This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Poll#Wordiing_of_questions"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Poll#Wordiing_of_questions</span></a></em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Polling groups are also commissioned by politicians in order to gain an edge within a certain group. Opinion polls often influence the behavior of the electorate. Opinion polls are actually a method for nudging public opinion. Another use for polls is to desensitize the electorate to radical ideas. <br />
Focus groups are the way talking points are tested. The speeches, phrasing, terminology, and even the order of words, comes out of the focus group. Designed to extract maximum emotional response, the result is a sanitized phony pile of words and phrases strung together designed to weave in, out, and around the offending words and ideas that the focus group detected. Hence, no one dislikes your speech because it went around all the things that would offend. But it doesn’t stop at merely seeking to not offend, no, no, no, no, the focus group has also discovered how to get your blood pumping. What idea, or mind picture will swoop in and get you caught up in the moment. The right words in the right order, mixed with enormous crowds, will create a feeling of euphoria that no drug can compete with. (Well, they can compete, but then you’re a druggie).</span><br />
<br />
<div align="center"></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-63613099324186873502011-03-25T07:26:00.000-04:002011-03-25T07:26:43.908-04:00Press Release! Stay Mad! Observations of a Proletarian<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman,Bold','serif'; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'TimesNewRoman,Bold';"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">STAY MAD!</span></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman,Bold','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'TimesNewRoman,Bold';"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">OBSERVATIONS OF A PROLETARIAN</span></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">By: David Graham</span></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;">Contact:</span></b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"> David Graham<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><i>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</i></b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">(603) 219-3778</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tritonleatcomcastdotnet</span></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 20pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">NEWLY PUBLISHED BOOK:</span></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">STAY MAD!</span></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 16pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Observations of a Proletarian</span></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This is not a "politically correct" book. It is full of frank and common sense truths. It is well researched and documented. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Normal red-blooded American patriots are the antibodies, but we need to know what it is we're fighting off. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">For instance, political correctness is actually a cancer, as it shields people from the truth claiming to make everyone <i>feeeeel</i> better. Political correctness is a tool of communists used to "herd" the masses into willing submission to their secret goals, also laid out in this book. It is actually designed to destroy and bring down from within, the tenets of our civil society. Political correctness is meant to strip morality from and neuter people who engage in it.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Where did it come from? Designed after the Communist Revolution in Russia, "Critical Theory" was an idea conceived at the Frankfurt school as an attack on mainstream values and culture of America. It morphed into modern day “political correctness”.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Now think about the things that are protected by political correctness.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Do companies have "Christmas" parties? No, its a <i>Holllliday</i> party</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Are little kids allowed to keep score at their soccer games? No. We can't have little Johnny being upset.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The whole "hyphenated" American thing is a product of PC designed to group people and then pit them against each other.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Islam is a religion of peace....Right!</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Any other religious reference must be removed from all public areas: Separation of church and state, which is a joke the way it's interpreted. Instead of speaking to the "establishment" of a religion...</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">ONE person claims to be <i>offennnnnded</i> at something and no one may enjoy the subject of offense - whether or not you're offended!</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">You get the idea.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Compare the 10 planks of the communist manifesto to legislation and regulations of today and 8 out of 10 will directly match up. The other two are simply outdated as they refer to agriculture and emigration. (I didn't say <em>imm</em>igration...who's leaving anyway?)</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">What else does this book cover?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Racism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which way do you mean?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Is there anyone actually named "Bilderberg"? Maybe, but they probably don’t want a global corp. AND! Are they competing with Soros - an actual person?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Well, there is hope, but not if you listen to a liberal speech. What I mean by that is that they are "focus grouped" to evoke MAXIMUM emotion from listeners. But they're vague. And they're vague on purpose.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">You fill in the blank sentiment and they'll be able to do whatever you've assigned them to do. Just vote for them. I'm reminded of the bumper sticker: <b>Don't vote, it just encourages them!</b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">This book shoots from the hip and hits a bulls eye on political correctness, communism, socialism, (so-called) racism, taxing and election paradigms, Saul Alinsky, Marxism, Islamism, Globalism, and finishes with the shining hope of Patriotism!</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Everything you need to know to keep you mad enough to vote!</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRoman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">If you would like more information about this book, or to schedule an interview with the author, please contact David Graham at: (603) 219-3778 or Email to Tritonle@comcast.net</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"></span></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-55122274872343458952011-03-24T01:53:00.008-04:002011-04-22T10:53:27.936-04:00RULES OF MEANS AND ENDS<span style="font-size: small;"><u></u><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>From the Handbook of the Left: <u>Rules for Radicals you find</u>:</em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Rules of means and ends ...situational ethics</em></strong></div><br />
<div><strong>1. One's concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversly with one's personal interest in the issue. One's concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversly with one's distance from the scene of the conflict.</strong><br />
<em>So, in other words, as one's personal interest in an issue rises, the less the concern with the ethics involved. In addition, the closer one is to the scene of a conflict, the lower the concern of the ethics involved. In my view, ethics should be a constant.</em></div><div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>2. The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgement.</strong><br />
<em>So, it looks like according to Alinsky, two people could accomplish the same end using the same means, but if their political positions are opposite, judgement may be passed on only the incongruent person. This looks like a classic double standard.</em></div><div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>3. In war, the end justifies almost any means.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div><div><strong>4. Judgement must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.</strong><br />
<em>So no one may pass judgment on Bill Ayers for blowing up a police station back in the sixties because apparently, back then, it needed to be done. Today, he's a retired professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago.</em></div><div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice verca.</strong><br />
<em>This one says that the more means you have available, the more you can afford to worry about ethics. Technically, you could choose the most ethical means.</em></div><div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div><div><strong>8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being deployed at the time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.</strong><br />
<em>This employs the application of a survival instinct in a non life threatening encounter. In other words, if a person seems to be losing an engagement, any means may be used with no concerns of morality or ethics with the idea that there was no choice. Whereas, if one is finding themself victorious, more concern of morality or ethics may be afforded to avoid criticizism or end up losing, after all, to ridicule. This is seen sometimes in sports when one team defeats the other so badly and by so many points that criticizers will complain that it was unnecessary to accrue that many points to win and that the team could've moderated...please.</em></div><div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>Okay? So this is how Obama and other serious Alinskyites look at themselves in the mirror. This is how they sleep at night after doing things to others where, if it were done to them, they would squeal like pigs about how it's unfair, or, they're disadvantaged, it's just them up against an entire entity. They're being bullied, etc. etc.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>Situational ethics.</em></div><div align="justify"></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-26409879671344789302011-03-15T01:05:00.000-04:002011-03-15T01:05:03.642-04:00Stay Mad! Observations of a Proletarian Table of Contents<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: auto; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: center; text-autospace: ideograph-numeric;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt;">Table of Contents</span></b><span style="font-size: 16pt;"></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 1</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">American Exceptionalism……….….18</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 2</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Socialism in America……….............38</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 3</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Communism in America……...….….77</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 4</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Spread the Wealth Around = Trickle up Poverty……….108</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 5</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">How We Got Here, Demographics V Collectivism……….131</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 6</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">The Alinsky Chapter…………….....151</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 7</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Trinity United……………..............171</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"></span><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 8</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Racism?………… ………....……...191</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 9</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">The Agenda, “Skin In The Game”…222</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 10</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Globalizing……….…..................…248</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 11</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Islam………………….....................274</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 12</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Changing the Direction, Patriotism……………………….....299</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in -3.45pt 0pt 0in; tab-stops: 256.5pt; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Endnotes</span></b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">………………...325<b></b></span></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-81272982401764535522011-03-13T20:56:00.003-04:002011-03-13T21:05:44.933-04:00The Rules for Radicals<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134): </span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">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.) </span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><span style="color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">8. "Keep the pressure on, </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><span style="color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">... every positive has its negative." </span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><span style="color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... </span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'</span></i><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: white;">"One acts decisively only in the <b>conviction that all the angels are on one side</b> and <b>all the devils on the other</b>." (pps.127-134)</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a></span></i></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><span style="color: white;"><br clear="all" /></span><br />
<span style="color: white;"><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /></span><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="color: white;"><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Rules for Radicals - Saul Alinsky 1971</i></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-35165538000704161782011-03-12T18:52:00.000-05:002011-03-12T18:52:40.981-05:00Labor Unions = Community Organizing<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><strong>This post was written in Oct-Nov of 2010. While I stand by everything in it, I've learned lots about the unions since, with WI and other protests.</strong></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Community organizing </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">is a code word for socialism. Except the people being organized must never realize that they are being socialized, at least until they are indoctrinated and dependent.<br />
Unionizing is like a foot in the door to socialism. Actually, the door is wide open and unions are standing in the doorway browsing freely. Unions represent what would be considered the <i>good</i> part of socialism. Most union members are still in denial about being socialism. Think about it. Everyone is paid the same in a specific job no matter how much they produce. That is certainly not free market. Oh, and the union tells your employer how much that should be. Unions negotiate strongly and with a heavy hand leveraged with all of the employer’s workers. They go for health care, vacations, sick time, pensions, disability, whatever they can get, and as much as they can get. This is certainly not to say that if not for unions negotiating more toward the workers, that any <i>excess</i> money the employer would have would not be mismanaged in some fashion. But then, it’s their money and their choice. The business owns the jobs.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Unions served their purpose when they were instituted. However, at this point in our history, the point has been made. There are no longer children in sweat shops. We have the 40 hr work week. By the way, the 40 hour work week means what exactly when folks have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet? The forty hour week is federally legislated so what’s the point of the unions for that? There’s more awareness so there’s less (almost none) abuse of employees. If there is, the employee can leave and find another job. Unions have over-promised pensions and benefits beyond what this economy can now support. That’s the variable unaccounted for in union contracts. Many people live far beyond the projected pension negotiations. Some retire at 45yrs old! This is convenient for a government that uses the unions to be elected - <i>relies</i> on the unions to be elected. This is why Obama, for instance, favors unions ahead of the rest of the country. It is an opportunity to <i>bail out </i>their benefits through the rest of the taxpayers in the Country.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Public Approval of Labor Unions</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">According to the Aug. 13-16, 2007, poll, 60% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, while 32% disapprove.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a> </span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">By Akito Yoshikane</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Only 41-percent of Americans now view unions favorably, Pew poll says—a huge decline since recession began</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Unions are losing the public-relations battle. </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Positive attitudes toward unions have fallen in most demographic groups. Forty-one percent of those surveyed say they have a favorable view of labor unions, while nearly the same amount has an unfavorable view at 42 percent. (The findings reinforce a 2009 Gallup poll that said only 48 percent of Americans approve of labor unions—an all-time low since 1936.)<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[ii]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In two short years, unions have dropped around twelve points in favorability.<br />
The point of showing the drop in favorability for unions is that I think people are scared about socialism and now it’s becoming clear the degree to which unions resemble socialism. Also, as I said before, the unions have negotiated far beyond what the economy can now sustain. As I have learned throughout my life, any unbalanced negotiation will eventually unravel. There is a balance, but it’s important to understand that it’s not a static balance. Markets fluctuate, peoples moods change, regulations change the dynamic of supply and demand. Any number of things can affect the balance<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government unions are the biggest problem as I see it. Businesses out in the market depend on profit in order to keep promises made to unions that work for them producing. Unions know this and take the negotiations right up to the edge of the profit margins leaving just enough for the company to stay in business. Government unions have no such restrictions. The sky’s the limit as far as the government’s ability to lay and collect taxes. There’s no market force determining how far to reach when negotiating. It’s an arbitrary number.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Okay, so how does this happen? How does socialism creep in through the window? Well, it’s that pesky old <i>human nature </i>thing. First the workers get <i>hooked</i> with a higher wage and good benefits, and a near impossible chance of losing their job. The numbers grow and then unions unionize (not really). In any case, the unions are now a powerful political lobby. The <i>socialist</i> candidate will give more and better benefits, or at the very least stay the same. While the free market candidate knows that these benefits are something that the economy cannot sustain. The conservative will get accused of trying to take away benefits and jobs, etc. Well, which candidate gets the vote from the unions? Duh. Union members have been used! They have been bribed and bought off! The union dues go to support the candidate that will keep the unsustainable status quo.<br />
The unions bus people with a union mandate to attend rallies, dispatch thugs to town hall meetings, provide oversight for any and all things political. (<i>Leave us not forget </i>that the SEIU was charged with servicing the electronic voting machines in Nevada during the 2010 election) Go to almost any political event and you’ll see a union presence. Not so much with the TEA Party though. Good.</span></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gallup</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div><div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[ii]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>inthesetimes.com</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div></div></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-37256042542404324022011-03-11T13:13:00.001-05:002011-03-24T23:21:09.647-04:00Remember Daisy Kahn?<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Chapter 11</span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">Islam</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Let me begin this important section of this book by saying that I understand the thing about how not all Muslims want to kill people. <i>The vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and worship as they see fit. </i>This is the quote played over and over and repeated on the news.</span><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Be an American FIRST!</span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Christiana Amanpor on <i>This Week, Oct 10 2010, </i>had a debate as to whether Americans should fear Islam. The wife of the ground zero mosque imam Daisy Kahn was accused of practicing <i>taqqiya</i> by Peter Gadiel, another man on the panel, who lost his son on 9/11. Daisy got indignant and asked him if he could see into her heart. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Anjem Choudary, a participant in the debate as a Muslim cleric from London (London, ha!) made an interesting distinction between <i>practicing</i> and <i>non-practicing </i>Muslims. He compared Daisy Kahn to a vegetarian who eats beef burgers. “You cannot be a practicing vegetarian and eat beef burgers.” <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></span></sup></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">If I could address Ms Daisy Kahn, I would say this:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“There is a reason Peter doesn't believe you and accuses you of practicing <i>taqqiya</i>. The reason is that you are here in America telling us you are a <i>moderate</i>. Fine. No one can see into your heart. You're right. But we now <i>know</i> of <i>taqqiya</i> so your credibility is damaged right out of the gate. We would really <i>love </i>to believe you. Honestly. You have that going for you here in America. America is <b><i><u>THE MOST </u></i></b>tolerant nation in the world! We are also a little bit sensitive when it comes to attacks on our homeland. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Your credibility would go farther if you were trying to <i>moderate </i>Islam at the heart of the problem. The dilemma is that is the place where you do not count. Your testimony is half that of a man's. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">You have to change the heart of Anjem Choudary from the monitor who said you were not a practicing Muslim. You do not wear the head covering etc. “The flag of Islam will fly over the white house...” (blah, blah, blah). </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">If you came here after changing Islam from within at its core, then your credibility would go much farther (if you were even still alive... which is also the point). And quite possibly, you wouldn't have as much difficulty with your mosque. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">See, it's easy to reform something across the ocean in a land where you have free speech, freedom of religion and all the liberty our country affords you. BUT! Since the core remains, it will continue to ripple outward and eventually influence any reform you start over here. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">You are an American citizen. Excellent! Welcome! </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Now...be an <b><i><u>AMERICAN</u></i></b> first.</span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">From an average American’s point of view, it doesn’t matter that <i>you</i> don’t believe in violent jihad. It matters that some within your religion <i>do!</i>”</span> <br />
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2010/10/ratings-report-for-abc-news-this-week-with-christiane-amanpour-sunday-october-10-2010.html</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div></div></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-41826024822141822882011-03-06T07:06:00.000-05:002011-03-06T07:06:25.121-05:00Primary voting: the new rule is actually the OLD rule<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Karl Rove supports Mike Castle in primary</span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The new rule is the old rule: vote your conscience in the primary</span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This was the moment everyone knew that Karl Rove was a Republican more than he was a conservative. A distinction without a difference you ask? N n n n nooo. Big difference. Liberals and progressives, (what the hey, we'll just call them socialists shall we?) insist on making the <i>distinction</i> the difference between Democrats and Republicans. <i>THIS</i> is more a distinction without a difference. Just take a look at John McCain. Everyone running for any election runs to the <i>right</i> (conservative) or at least to the middle (spineless). Very few will run on out and out socialism. Why? Well I'll let you figure it out.<br />
I'll tell you the more I follow politics, and learn, and absorb the processes, I learn to recognize more quickly aspects and seeds of a progressive agenda. It’s everywhere and I’m not just being paranoid. I've expanded my awareness. I can see that the progressives constantly have the ball in motion. They’re moving in every direction and on multiple levels. Republicans are playing checkers while the liberals and progressives are playing multi-level chess. (And playing for keeps!) And have been since the sixties.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">They are constantly running plays in the form of focus groups, the use of the (complicit) media to disseminate information supportive of the agenda, leaving out anything that would make it look bad. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Ordinarily, that would be where the media would investigate and report. Instead, they let things stand. Diversion, distraction, and outright deceit. </span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Not Dem V Rep… Conservatives V Rep</span></u></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There are <i>establishment</i> Republicans and there are <i>Conservative</i> Republicans. This is to say there are Liberals and Conservatives. Ronald Reagan tried to set up a conservative base for the Republicans and he did. It was simply never maintained. What happens to anything that is not maintained? It deteriorates. The Republican Presidents since Reagan have all been <i>Bushes</i>. The Bush family is not totally Conservative. That’s all it takes. That’s all it takes for the forces against this Country’s founding to creep in, infiltrate and be patient. One small opening, by way of a little humiliation and ridicule from the press and they backed down. So now, using the Republican name and the reputation given it by Reagan, Establishment Republicans are born. Once in power, drink in too much and become corrupt, ruining the name for Republicans who want to get into government not for the power, but to serve and protect this Republic. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Vote your conscience in the primary and let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't matter who you think can "win". <em>"This above all: to thine own self be true."</em> Shakespeare</span></div><br />
Much more in the book! Get it today on Lulu.com!Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-6859471387335460412011-03-03T07:42:00.002-05:002011-04-08T16:57:35.541-04:00What the NBPP want, What the NBPP Believe<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Franklin Gothic Medium", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">9. WE DEMAND LOCAL REPARATIONS AND COMPENSATION:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Franklin Gothic Medium", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">WE AFFIRM THAT THE GOVERNMENTS, CORPORATIONS AND WHITE PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE REGION, HAVE WILLFULLY, INTENTIONALLY AND RECKLESSLY ENSLAVED, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, ROBBED AND DISFRANCHISED OUR PEOPLE IN COUNTLESS AND INNUMERABLE WAYS.</span><span style="color: blue; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(Our law provides for that, if you can <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">count</span> and <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">number</span> the ways, then you can bring a lawsuit) </span></i><span style="font-family: "Franklin Gothic Medium", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">WE AFFIRM THAT THE SAME ENTITIES WEALTH IN THE REGION IS ROOTED IN THE SLAVE TRADE-SYSTEM AND CURRENTLY PROFIT FROM CONTEMPORARY RACISM AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT.<br />
WE THEREBY DEMAND THAT THE GUILTY PARTIES RELINQUISH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OWED IN FINANCE, LAND AND OTHER NECESSARY SUPPLIES, AS PARTIAL REPARATIONS, TO PARTIALLY COMPENSATE FOR OVER 400 YEARS SLAVERY, DISCRIMINATION, RACISM, BRUTALITY, ROBBERY, THEFT, LAND-STEALING, SUFFERING, DEATH, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INJURIES, GENERAL ABUSE, DEFAMATION, SLANDER AND A HOST OF OTHER CRIMES AND TORTS OF THE BROADEST AND WORST MAGNITUDE.<br />
WE DEMAND THE USE OF THESE PARTIAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL REBUILDING OF THE BLACK NATION AND COMMUNITY WITH ABSOLUTELY NO STRINGS ATTACHED.<br />
WE FULLY SUPPORT ALL NATIONAL REPARATIONS MOVEMENTS, AND WE CALL ON ALL BLACK ORGANIZATIONS TO FIGHT FOR REPARATIONS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!! BLACK POWER!</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Franklin Gothic Medium", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There!</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Copied from the website of <b><i>The New Black Panthers</i></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Here is some more stuff if you did not get a complete picture from the website rant.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose formal name is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a U.S.-based black political organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. Despite its name, NBPP is <b>not</b> an official successor to the Black Panther Party. Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that this party is <b>illegitimate</b> and have vociferously objected that there "is no new Black Panther Party". The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center identify the New Black Panthers as a hate group.</i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The NBPP attracted many breakaway members of the Nation of Islam when former NOI minister Khalid Abdul Muhammad became the national chairman of the group from the late 1990s until his death in 2001. The NBPP is currently led by Malik Zulu Shabazz, and still upholds Khalid Abdul Muhammad as the de facto father of their movement.</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In April 2010, Malik Zulu Shabazz appointed French Black supremacist leader Stellio Capo Chichi as the representative of the movement in France. Capo Chichi has been holding the position of head of the francophone branch of NBPP.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It is clear from these texts, that reparations for slavery must be fulfilled. I guess 330,000 white <i>Union</i> soldiers brutally killed during the Civil War is not a high enough price to pay for the freedom of slaves.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[ii]</span></sup></span></sup></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">Did you notice that this was #9? Yes there were 8 points preceding that were just as vitriolic.</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">These are the "people" of Eric Holder.</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br />
</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">Just a note, the original Black Panther Party denounces the <em>New</em> Black Panther Party as totally unaffiliated with them. The NBPP follows the Nation of Islam lead by M<em>iiiiii</em>nister Farrakhan. Muslims denounce the NOI as completely unaffiliated with Islam (the wheel in the sky and all...)</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">So the NBPP Had an ideology without a name, so they took Islam. They had an organization without a name, so they took The Black Panthers. </div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /></div><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>-Wikipedia-</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div><div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[ii]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-50784743726067271462011-03-03T02:15:00.003-05:002011-03-15T21:16:03.728-04:00Cloward and Piven<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Cloward and Piven</span></u></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">At his point, I’d like to inject the <i>Cloward-Piven strategy </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">again<i>, </i></span>that has undulated like a creepy dark shadow through the entire Obama administration and Democrat party alike. I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid know what this is, I mean if you asked them on the street, other than a vague fuzzy image in their head that it’s something good that has to do with redistribution, if that. Now that’s not to say that if they both had a crystal clear understanding of the strategy, that they wouldn’t fully support it and push more to accomplish it. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Obama knows… I know he knows. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The overview of the strategy is to overwhelm the system until it breaks down. Then a new system (transform America) with the stated goal to help eliminate poverty with a <i>guaranteed annual income </i>for all can be installed. The inevitable result would be a stifling of enterprise and creativity. Holding people back by punishing success and wealth through massive regulation and <i>red tape</i>. Why shouldn’t someone try to do the best that they can? Work to the best of their ability? There’s no such thing as <i>equality of abilities</i>. Again, I ask: why shouldn’t a person work to <i>the best of their ability </i>to provide as <i>best they can</i> for their families? Holding people back by punishing success is not the answer. More money will be harvested through more people working than by stealing more from only the very wealthy. Think about it. Taxes will be raised so millionaires and billionaires would pay more <i>because they can afford it</i>. We have covered that logic. But then the bar is set at 200K or 250K for two income households. These are now millionaires and billionaires. How does that track? The poor don’t pay much if any in taxes and the extremely wealthy will barely notice the difference. But now you make 200K or 250K per year, you have a family, and a mortgage based on your current income, you notice it. Do you think those shop owners, salons, or the teacher-and-the-firefighter couple won’t notice?? Tax hikes on the <i>rich</i> are really intended to destroy the <i>middle class</i>. Money is taken from mostly middle class families and given to the poor <i>and </i>the rich. The rich, in this case being the government, will then distribute tax dollars in the form of <i>pork projects </i>to wealthy donors as a reward for helping them to be elected. Get it? </span></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-83956833786492671822011-02-26T06:20:00.004-05:002011-03-16T20:09:19.139-04:00Rule #5: Ridicule...<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">What surprises me the most about things like this is that there are people who actually <i>study</i> how to destroy their own Country. After researching this book, I’m cynical to say the least.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course then we have <i>The Nation, </i>45 years later<i>,</i> printing articles denying that Cloward and Piven ever intended to be the trunk of the tree of today’s political trends.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Richard Kim wrote an article called <i>The Mad Tea Party. </i>In this article, he ridicules the exposure that the strategy has gotten since Obama became President. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;">Well isn’t that one of the “rules”? <b><i>5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.</i></b><i> It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."</i></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These are some excerpts:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Leftists like to say that another world is possible, but I was never quite sure of that until I started reading tea party websites. There, a government of leftists is not only possible, it's on the cusp of seizing permanent power, having broken American capitalism and replaced it with a socialist state. Down that rabbit hole, Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are communists, and "The Left"--which encompasses everyone from the Democratic Leadership Council to Maoist sectarians--is a disciplined and near omnipotent army marching in lockstep to a decades-old master plan for domination called the "Cloward-Piven strategy" or, as of January 20, 2009, "Cloward-Piven government."….</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> <b>(subtle)</b></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">…..They also repeatedly cite Emanuel's statement, made in November 2008 after the passage of TARP but before the stimulus that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." From The Nation's pages to the White House's brains and muscles--it took only forty-four years! </span></i><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(what else are we to glean from that statement???)</span></b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">All of this, of course, is a reactionary paranoid fantasy. Rahm Emanuel is no more Frances Fox Piven's stooge than Obama is a Muslim. But the looniness of it has not stopped the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory from spreading across tea party networks. And the left's gut reaction upon hearing of it--to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery--does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact. In order to respond, alas, we have to understand, and that means going through the looking glass… </span></i><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(exactly! Coming <i>back</i> through to <i>this</i> side!)</span></b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">….Glenn Beck has brought up Cloward and Piven on at least twenty-eight episodes of his show over the past year. Beck is sometimes aided by a blackboard on which he has diagramed something called "The Tree of Revolution," which links Che Guevara, SEIU and ACORN's Wade Rathke to Saul Alinsky, the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, Bill Ayers and, perhaps most improbably, to White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. In the center of the tree's arching trunk, above SDS and Woodrow Wilson (!?) but below Barack Obama, who adorns the tree's crown, Beck has scrawled "Cloward & Piven."… </span></i><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(on a nationally published show, if any of this were untrue, he would be immediately sued for liable. If there were only a <i>shred</i> of untruth, there’s no way it wouldn’t be exploited by that arm of the movement. Believe me, all angles are covered and they are good at what they do. If it were actionable, they would act!)</span></b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">…..In a January 13 interview, Beck asked Sarah Palin if she had seen and believed in the case he had been making on Cloward and Piven. Palin replied, "I do. I do believe it.... It has to be purposeful what they are doing. Otherwise--otherwise I would say, Glenn, that there is no hope, that there are no solutions."……</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> <b>(I like Palin)</b></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white;">….Suffice it to say, if Beck and crew believe half of this crap, they belong in an asylum in the middle of Shutter Island, where they can tend to their survival seeds and sleuth out imagined conspiracies apart from the rest of the human population. The danger, however, is that they will maroon a sizable portion of the electorate there with them…</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There you go. Richard Kim, it seems, is trying to put the genie back into the bottle…the toothpaste back into the tube...un-ring the bell…give the cat a bath…(…okay, I don’t know about that last one)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."</span></i></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Learn it, recognize it, expose it! Render it impotent. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">C.S. Lewis</span></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span><br />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: black;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>4/12/2010,<i>The Mad Tea Party, </i>Richard Kim, <i>The Nation</i></span></span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-34180466028833792802011-02-23T21:24:00.000-05:002011-02-23T21:24:57.124-05:00redistribution of what?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Obama’s image of America is practically opposite from the reasons She was founded. The Constitution was set up to apply to government more so than citizens. Like most liberals, Obama lacks impulse control in the macro sense. In other words, most liberals go along with <i>helping hand </i>ideas because they are compassionate, and want to display empathy for anyone needing help. This, of course, gives them the moral high ground to argue their position. Wouldn’t the world be just wonderful if everyone were as compassionate as them etc.? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This is a short term <i>feel good </i>solution that everyone should be on board with. <i>“How can you take food away from a child?” </i>Obviously, it can’t and shouldn’t be done. But why was the child hungry in the first place? Was it due to choices made by the parent? Or is it because the parent has suffered a debilitating circumstance? Or, is it that without help from the government that child would go hungry?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Let me offer a perspective from Benjamin Franklin.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” </span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Conservatives look past the feel good result of the impulsive solution. The feel-goodness only applies to those issuing the helping hand. The attitude of those receiving it is more like <i>“could you spare it?” </i>It certainly doesn’t make the receivers feel good. It obligates them. And the politicians know it.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">What are the long term results of the helping hand policies? What ended up being the unintended consequences of them? I’m convinced that it turned out perfectly for the progressive movement and for the progressives pushing the policies. The more people dependent on government, the more power can be amassed, all in the name of <i>helping hand </i>and <i>fairness</i>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As to the <i>fairness</i> part of this, it’s perceived as <i>getting even</i> with those who have more than others. What a big trap this has become. It’s class warfare waged on anyone marginally successful. How dare they become successful outside of government control. Wealth then needs to be redistributed. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Yeah! All right! Stick it to ‘em!</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So, as part of the redistributive legislation, let’s take a look at who was helped.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Bear Stearns</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$30 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$400 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">American International Group (A.I.G.)</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.) </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$180 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Auto Industry</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$25 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Troubled Asset Relief Program</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$700 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Citigroup</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2008 Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$280 billion</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Bank of America</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> 2009 Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">$142.2 billion<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">[i]</span></sup></span></sup></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These don’t represent <i>any</i> sort of wealth redistribution. The bailouts <i>are</i> redistribution though. Redistribution of <i>poor decisions</i>. Redistribution of <i>bad mistakes - big ones</i>. Redistribution of <i>mismanagement</i>. Redistribution of <i>failures</i>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So, these are examples of redistributive legislation. All of it passed because of some emergency. No one was prosecuted or sued.</span></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2100156957057948071#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[i]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts</i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div></div></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-22266073660819497752011-02-21T09:21:00.000-05:002011-02-21T09:21:23.638-05:00Wealth envy=Schadenfreude<b><i><u> Incitement to class warfare </u>Or at least class envy.<br />
I also think a growing number of people realize the outright instigation of class warfare. Forget for a moment (for those who care) the tenth Commandment: <br />
<i>'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' </i>Then there is what's known as <i>The Golden rule</i>: <i>"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." </i>(Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31) The common English phrasing is <i>"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". </i>If you have less than someone else and you covet what they have to the extent that you vote into office a politician who will legislate the taking from said folk and redistributing it to you, keep in mind, you are not the only one getting redistributed to. Besides, two things: first it boils down to nothing more than <i>schadenfreude </i>(okay, it means the delight in another’s misfortune) and second: how much will that really benefit you? After everyone else gets a few pennies, you'll get your few pennies. yay. <br />
Now, follow the model down to those with less than you. They're looking at what you have with a dribble of spittle appearing from the corner of their mouth...Get it? It will never end. The bar will continue to change levels until everyone fits the system.<br />
What I find reprehensible are the ones who wish to wield this power of redistribution, pointing out and embellishing differences in people and groups of people instigating and agitating this envy because that's what will get them elected. Examples of this abound in the media. Most recently agitation took the form of calling income earners of 250K millionaires and billionaires. <br />
Putting aside the fact that individuals in the 250K category are mall shop owners, franchise owners, two income families, gas station owners, otherwise small business owners. I can't think of very many positions where someone else will put someone on payroll at 250K compared to the number of 100K or 150K payroll positions. That's why the categories with income of 250K or more contain the word <i>owner</i>. This title comes with responsibility and risk. Those two items need to be rewarded. Also, it’s nobody’s business how much anyone makes. Any amount set to divide the so-called rich and poor is an arbitrary one. Meddlers.<br />
Other examples are references to "fat-cat bankers" (Obama). What about the media outrage over the big three auto execs flying in private jets to testify before congress. They were so emasculated that they then all carpooled squished into a hybrid for the next visit. The point of this is the <i>incitement </i>to envy and covet. Does pointing out what someone else has compared to what you have really accomplish anything? Other than, making a few <i>feeeeel better</i>? aaahhh.... <br />
Emotion… (Again)<br />
<div align="center">Schadenfreude (Again) </div><div align="center"></div><b><i><u>Schadenfreude</u>Appealing to the lowest emotions is the easiest way to garner support and get votes.<br />
It's a little more work, but the opposite can be accomplished also by changing the frame of the issue. <br />
For instance: <i>Let <b>not</b> him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by <b>example</b> assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built. </i>Abraham Lincoln<br />
<i><br />
</i>In other words, Rich people can <i>inspire</i> that others may also be rich. However, demonizing and demoralizing the <i>rich</i> makes it less desirable to become rich in a sense. Not that being rich isn't the best revenge, but the opinions of others undulate and agitate creating discomfort amongst peers.<br />
Other ways higher emotions can be appealed to, is by presenting successful (which needs to be defined on an individual basis) people and describing the level of self-discipline it took to get there. Combine self-discipline with passion and the ability to make decisions (as well as the ability to learn from incorrect decisions) and very literally, anyone can become successful. The people on the Left want to live in a consequence free society. </i></b></i></b>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-41708416270116216822011-02-20T20:55:00.001-05:002011-03-24T23:22:30.681-04:00Islam does NOT mean "peace"<b><i><u>Islam does NOT mean peace </u></i></b><br />
<b><i>That's right boys and girls, Islam doesn't mean peace.<br />
<i>Salam</i> means peace. Maybe us westerners cannot be bothered enough to differentiate. After all, <i>Salam</i> kinda sounds like <i>Islam</i>.<br />
So, what does <i>Islam </i>translate to you ask as you lean forward in your seat? Eyes wide? Heart pumping? both knees jumping up and down at a hundred miles an hour?<br />
Well …<br />
Islam, means <i>submission</i>. Submission to Allah. Submission to Sharia law. These two items are virtually one and the same. If you fully submit to Allah, you are bound by all the rules set by Muhammad who got them from Allah. If you submit to Sharia … then you're all set with Allah. <br />
I noticed the media will trot out Muslims, after a terrorist attack of some sort, who will go on and on about how Islam is a religion of peace. "Islam means peace." They just leave off the rest of the sentence. Islam means peace acquired through submission to Allah.<br />
They know deep down it's a lie of omission because first: A Muslim will never speak ill of another Muslim. <br />
Second: as long as no Muslims were killed, they don't disparage another's <i>jihad</i>.<br />
Third: They are forgiven that lie due to the law of <i>"Kithman" </i>or the principle of <i>"taqqiya".</i><br />
<br />
Oh! What’s this?!<br />
That's right! Any lie told knowingly is forgiven so long as said lie perpetuates and assists the spread of Islam.<br />
Keep this in mind the next time you see a Muslim on American Media saying that Islam is a religion of peace.<br />
Propaganda is its own form of jihad. See, jihad is not <i>inner struggle</i>, as one of those fibbers put out there when that word first became a household word.<br />
There are so many forms of jihad. In fact, anything that furthers the cause of Islam or otherwise brings the world closer to caliphate, or global Islamic rule.<br />
Deception, coercion, terrorism, influence peddling, the end justifies the means. And there is no shame because caffirs (that's us) don't need to be bargained with. We don't need to be reasoned with. You don't reason with your dog, you just train it. To the hard line Muslim, we are second-class citizens, unworthy of having traits like honor or honesty wasted upon.<br />
<br />
<i>Caffir</i> means simply: non-believer. </i></b>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-73317421608881325092011-02-18T07:24:00.000-05:002011-02-18T07:24:52.312-05:00The Straw Man<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I, for one, am not dazed or sucked in by soaring speech rhetoric. I have personal experience with the term, “We’ll see what we can do,” (said to Jorje regarding McDonald’s benefit pkg). That phrase in particular means (to any that have used it) <i>nothing can be done but I want you to feel better </i>and <i>I want you to remember who made you feel better about this. </i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 1.05pt 0pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I played in a few small club bands years ago, and one of the determining factors as to whether or not your band was great and whether or not your band sucked was the ability to handle requests. I had to learn this the hard way. If a patron approached and made a request that was unknown to the band and you told him that, well, you sucked out loud all night. Moreover, that patron would tell everyone how and why your band sucked. Conversely, and I have seen <i>this</i> work magnificently countless times, where, if you told the patron <i>we’ll see what we can do… </i>The patron left with the full expectation of hearing their request. They would then continue to drink and party all the while yelling out about how much <i>this band rocks! </i>Then, if they make the request a second time, you tell them <i>we’ll get there… </i>The patron continues to party and drink and before you know it, we’ve run out of time and <i>we’re very sorry but we’re sure to get to it next time we play this room. </i>Everything is fine. The only difference is that the patron had no idea that we did not ever intend to perform their request. </span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 14.0pt;">The same goes for phrases like <i>I’ll do everything I can </i>or <i>I’ll continue to fight for you. </i>Listen for them and <i>know</i>.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-44786704028491018182011-02-17T15:47:00.000-05:002011-02-17T15:47:33.823-05:00#22-33 of the "45 stated goals for the communist takeover of the USA"I'm putting this up from the chapter I wrote on communism because there's a cute story about my dad and one of my kids.<br />
<div align="center">.....45 stated goals for the communist takeover of the USA.....</div><div style="text-align: center;">This is an excerpt from a book called "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen. 1913-2006</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><em>22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."<strong> -</strong></em><strong>The National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution is presenting a yuletide showing of such images as an ant-covered Jesus, Ellen DeGeneres clutching her breasts, naked male genitalia — and a painting the Smithsonian describes as "homoerotic" in its catalogue.<br />
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2010</strong><br />
<br />
<em> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art." </em><br />
<strong>[My dad accompanied my wife and our two kids to the local art museum. My wife tells it where she was across the small room from my dad and our oldest son who was nine years old at the time. The two gentlemen were contemplating an abstract of some sort. The museum was respectfully quiet as museums tend to be, with the exception of my wife and a museum attendant whispering about a piece. The quiet was broken by a male voice, not loud, but not a whisper either. It was my dad. After several minutes inspecting the painting, my father asked my son who was beside him also looking at the abstract, "You know what that is?" My son looked up at my dad, unsure if he were actually being asked to identify what the painting was, answered that he didn’t know. My dad supplied the answer. He said "That’s crap that’s what that is." Obviously, he wasn’t fooled. Yay dad!]</strong><br />
<em>24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. </em><br />
<em>25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.</em> <br />
<strong>They didn’t know of the internet back then but look at the rest of it.</strong><em> </em><br />
<em>26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."</em> <strong>Just take a look at <em>Will and Grace</em>,</strong><em><strong> Two and a Half Men.</strong> </em><br />
<em>27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch." </em>(<strong>What was Rev Wright’s church?)</strong><br />
<em>28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." </em><br />
<em>29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. </em><strong>(It’s now referred to by those who don’t agree with what’s in it as "a living, breathing document". This way, the Constitution can be pulled and twisted and mutilitated and morphed into whatever is necessary to push anything anti-American.)</strong><br />
<em>30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." </em><strong>(They’re referred to as slave owners. Therefore, they were too rich to have come up with a document that would address the needs of <em>all</em>)</strong><br />
<em>31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over<span style="color: red;">. </span></em><strong>Don’t forget the reference he made in his own book to the <em>Marxist</em> professors that Obama bragged about hanging out with.</strong><br />
<em>32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. </em><br />
<em>33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. </em><strong>(Trace back the <em>political correctness </em>movement. It was installed to accomplish this one without laws, congress, or legislation, using public opinion or mostly <em>perceived</em> public opinion through using editing, ridicule, and influence peddling)</strong>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-89423097288167518452011-02-17T10:10:00.001-05:002011-03-24T23:19:43.582-04:00Chapter 2 socialismHow many people would want to live in a socialist society? Well guess what? You kinda are. And they're not done. Every time Obama refers to the work his party has done, he always makes a point to say that there’s a long way to go. Or he talks about how much work remains. What is he <i>talking</i> about? It’s vague on purpose. You fill in the blank. In other words, whatever you think the government should be responsible for, then that’s exactly what they have left to do. If you were presented with what we now have (as the end game) as an agenda, you wouldn't go for it. They know that. That's why Obama didn't run on the socialist party ticket.<br />
There is one.<br />
He could have.<br />
Obama knows that wouldn't get him elected. He also knows that (and the people around him do too) people will reject things changed by revolution or rapid change. That is why we are the frog that has been put into cold water and cooked. Seriously, who has the time to keep up with all this stuff when there's work and family and life in general? Oh sure, once in a while an issue comes up that gets you hot and you pay attention, maybe even make a call to the congress, but it soon fades. I'm glad there are people who do punditry for a living. <br />
<br />
<div align="center">This is also the reason behind writing the book.</div><div align="center">Stay Mad and VOTE!</div><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left">P.S.</div><div align="left">Regarding the "frog" analogy, I've noticed a serious acceleration and increasing boldness regarding the agenda as if Obama-as-president is the "checkmate" move....I'm not dead yet!</div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-54345762548653121522011-02-16T23:22:00.000-05:002011-02-16T23:22:39.005-05:00Introduction to "Stay Mad! Observations of a Proletarian"<span style="font-size: x-large;"> <div style="text-align: center;">Introduction</div></span><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">This is not a call for violence or revolution. </div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">This is a litany of things that happened in my country before I was paying attention.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Ultimately, I guess it was 911 that jarred me from my slumber. I became a news junkie. It took a few years, but I began to realize that the news agencies were more like "views" agencies. (Dwight Schultz)</div><div style="text-align: center;">I slowly began to realize that history has not stopped. It is constantly evolving and writing itself. I also realized the power that some in this world have tapped into with the will to change the course of future history. As I researched, I also began to realize there are those (and have been for a long time) in this world who are so completely narcissistic that they would like to take over or somehow control the way the world exists. Those people are pretty close to their goal. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">For me, Hitler was ancient history. But he’s not. There are people alive today who suffered under his tyrannical rule. People voted for that! Well, in fairness, there were very few who actually knew the endgame and wanted it. But the point is if we don’t remember our true history, this can all happen again.</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">Just remember, history was "right now" for those that lived it. We have our own "right now" now.</div><div style="text-align: center;">My point in writing this book is to show how far and how fast things can be turned upside down from your daily routine. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">I use the title: STAY MAD! Only to get people mad enough to vote. Anger at where this country has been brought in two short years of President Obama’s Administration is what got great numbers of people to actually vote in the 2010 midterm election.</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">One problem with us is that when things are going smoothly, we get caught up in our daily routines. Things are going well; we lose interest and take our freedoms for granted.</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">This book identifies in my own way – the way I finally understood things – a lot of what contributed to the election of a Marxist to the Presidency.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">Yes, I think both Bushes were clear contributors.</div><div style="text-align: left;"></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-16574367810614360592011-02-16T07:04:00.000-05:002011-02-16T07:04:46.075-05:00Republic V Democracy<div align="center"><u><strong>Code Words</strong></u></div><div align="justify">Just remember, code words for socialism: Economic justice, social justice, (the newest one is food or nutritional justice), water justice, environmental justice, democracy, democratic citizenship, open society, global citizenship, global warming, global cooling. Most code phrases have the word <i>justice</i>, <i>global</i>, or <i>equality</i>, and now to disguise it even further, the word <i>democracy</i>. <i>Egalitarian society </i>or <i>classless society </i>sounds so sophisticated but it just means equal outcomes for all, no matter the degree of input. Socialism.</div>What they don’t get is that right now in America, if someone wants to work a little bit harder than the next person, then they can earn a little more than the next person. Socialism holds that back by removing the financial incentives for entrepreneurship, ingenuity, inventiveness, cleverness, smarts, good ideas, on and on. That’s not even getting into the rest of the liberties forfeited in the process. <br />
A republic is a more disciplined system than a democracy. That’s why <i>democracy</i> or <i>democratic</i> is now used as a codeword for <i>collectivism</i>. (Socialism or Communism)<br />
A Republic:<br />
<i>Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.</i>A Democracy:<br />
<i>Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, the Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.</i>A Republic is a few layers removed from the raw emotion of an electorate. In other words, in the Republic, with democratically elected representatives, it will take time and offers cooling layers to issues that are highly emotional. <br />
There are popular speakers who can whip large numbers of people into a highly emotional state. If they all voted to take a vote immediately on an issue, then all voted emotionally, you have what is known as a <i>lynch mob</i>.Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100156957057948071.post-28872188210434134272011-02-15T11:36:00.001-05:002011-02-15T11:39:12.648-05:00Freedom isn't free<b></b>How many times have you heard this one? <br />
Used frequently as an excuse for war, or to justify it, soldiers dead or dismembered, well it's true, freedom isn’t free.<br />
The soldier has chosen that line of work and it's always in the back of their head. Believe me; many of us are extremely grateful for those who do choose to serve. <br />
This, however, is not the only price for freedom. Blood, I mean. No, there is an equally high price demanded of people who don't choose to enlist or otherwise serve to protect this Nation.<br />
Responsibility and education. That might loosely boil down into <i>awareness</i> but that excludes necessary action.<br />
What do I mean by that? I mean your vote. Your <i>educated</i> vote. That vote comes with the responsibility of educating yourself at this point. Hopefully, awareness to what’s really going on will stir folks to action. Obviously, the so-called <i>ruling class </i>would much rather a sleeping electorate. You need awareness and knowledge. This is the best way to <i>thank</i> those who enlist and otherwise serve to defend your rights. It’s a symbiotic relationship and the soldiers are getting the short end of the stick due to our apathy.<br />
<div align="center">Freedom isn't Free <br />
<a href="http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tritonleatcomcastdotnet">http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tritonleatcomcastdotnet</a></div>Antikommiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01543590912983374398noreply@blogger.com0