Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Thwart the globalists through awareness

Thwarting globalists
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: “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.”[i]

            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.
I guess that makes sense because true Conservatives want everyone to do as well as they possibly can. It just wouldn’t occur to them to rule the world. 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, free will.

Let the power be spread around. Not the wealth. Let people be inspired to aspire, not relegated to regulations. (Oh, that’s good!)

Let people do for themselves and their families the best that they are able to do. 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 skin. 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.  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 confident in Conservatism no matter what anyone says about it.

[i]  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Economy/Crisis_Capitalism_Soros.html

Steps to totalitarianism

Steps to Totalitarianism


It starts out with things like save the whales, save the dolphins, save the frogs, save the tigers, save the chimps, save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. All are worthy (and real. Google search “save the…”) causes as are ecological and humanitarian causes.
Liberalism progresses into socialism by briefly passing through the Progressive 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 desensitizing 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
While the Progressives have their eye further down the field.

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 Democracy, and equity, and by adding the word justice 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 social justice, economic justice, water justice, food justice, housing justice, environmental justice, ecological justice, carbon justice, really, it’s endless.
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 know-what-they’re-talking-about.
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.

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 poor people on the planet. How did that happen? It happened because the participation in this socialism is not voluntary by all. Participation is enforced through the progressive income tax. The higher the income, the higher the percentage of tax you pay. Why? Because it’s fair. Patriotic even.
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…..

Now that the population is controlled, industry gets absorbed into government.
Maxine Waters, D California during hearings of oil companies.
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.” [i]

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.
So let’s review:
When you take apart the means used to promote the goals of communism, you first find liberalism which is an emotional ideology. The next degree is progressivism, which takes liberalism into action for change based on the emotion of liberalism. The next step is socialism. Socialism would work just fine on a voluntary 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 juice. Fewer fulfillments. And this is accomplished by using logical words like democracy, and democratic this or that. The final step (or final solution) is Communism. State run everything. State distributed everything. Everyone is totally one hundred percent dependent on the state. Totalitarianism.

[i]  http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/may/maxine-waters-wants-socialize-oil-companies

Sunday, April 3, 2011

What happened in Iran in '09?

Yearning for freedom
In Iran there are hundreds of thousands (close to a million or so) in the street to protest rigged elections of June 2009. They yearn for freedom. The people protested in silence 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 activist only after the 2009 election debacle.
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.
She was the subject of a shaky cell phone video that went viral (around the world via the internet in minutes). This was the moment that could have broken Iran’s leadership according to the HBO documentary For Neda. If there had been pressure from other heads of state, the people of Iran would have moved their liberty ball for at least a first down. Instead, when President Obama was asked to comment about the event, he commented that it was "tragic", and "there’s something fundamentally unjust" about what happened.
Well…that was powerful…good effort…look at him go…
Neda’s name means the voice 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 "Where is my voice?"
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.
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 - control. There was a viable candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, opposing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent. So who voted for Ahmadinejad? All the hundreds of thousands in the street were supporters of the opposition candidate. No one knew anyone who actually voted for Ahmadinejad. Yet, he won the election in a landslide.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Demographics V Collectivism

Chapter 5
How we got here
Demographics v Collectivism
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.

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.
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?

Methods of division
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.

Wording of questions
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Poll#Wordiing_of_questions

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.
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).

Friday, March 25, 2011

Press Release! Stay Mad! Observations of a Proletarian

By: David Graham

Contact: David Graham                                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(603) 219-3778
Observations of a Proletarian

            This is not a "politically correct" book. It is full of frank and common sense truths. It is well researched and documented.
Normal red-blooded American patriots are the antibodies, but we need to know what it is we're fighting off.
For instance, political correctness is actually a cancer, as it shields people from the truth claiming to make everyone feeeeel 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.
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”.
Now think about the things that are protected by political correctness.
Do companies have "Christmas" parties? No, its a Holllliday party
Are little kids allowed to keep score at their soccer games? No. We can't have little Johnny being upset.
The whole "hyphenated" American thing is a product of PC designed to group people and then pit them against each other.
Islam is a religion of peace....Right!
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...
ONE person claims to be offennnnnded at something and no one may enjoy the subject of offense - whether or not you're offended!
You get the idea.
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 immigration...who's leaving anyway?)
What else does this book cover?
Racism?  Which way do you mean?
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?
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.
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: Don't vote, it just encourages them!
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!
Everything you need to know to keep you mad enough to vote!

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

Thursday, March 24, 2011


From the Handbook of the Left: Rules for Radicals you find:
Rules of means and ends ...situational ethics

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.
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.

2. The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgement.
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.

3. In war, the end justifies almost any means.

4. Judgement must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
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.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice verca.
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.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being deployed at the time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
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.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

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.
Situational ethics.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Stay Mad! Observations of a Proletarian Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Chapter 1
American Exceptionalism……….….18
Chapter 2
Socialism in America……….............38
Chapter 3
Communism in America……...….….77
Chapter 4
Spread the Wealth Around = Trickle up Poverty……….108
Chapter 5
How We Got Here, Demographics V Collectivism……….131
Chapter 6
The Alinsky Chapter…………….....151
Chapter 7
Trinity United……………..............171
Chapter 8
Racism?………… ………....……...191
Chapter 9
The Agenda, “Skin In The Game”…222
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Changing the Direction, Patriotism……………………….....299


Sunday, March 13, 2011

The Rules for Radicals

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. 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.'...
"...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...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)[i]

[i]  Rules for Radicals - Saul Alinsky 1971

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Labor Unions = Community Organizing

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.

Community organizing 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.
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 good 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 excess 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.
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 - relies 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 bail out their benefits through the rest of the taxpayers in the Country.

Public Approval of Labor Unions
According to the Aug. 13-16, 2007, poll, 60% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, while 32% disapprove.[i]

By Akito Yoshikane
Only 41-percent of Americans now view unions favorably, Pew poll says—a huge decline since recession began
Unions are losing the public-relations battle.
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.)[ii]

           In two short years, unions have dropped around twelve points in favorability.
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
          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.
Okay, so how does this happen? How does socialism creep in through the window? Well, it’s that pesky old human nature thing. First the workers get hooked 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 socialist 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.
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. (Leave us not forget 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.

[i]  Gallup

[ii]  inthesetimes.com

Friday, March 11, 2011

Remember Daisy Kahn?

Chapter 11

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. The vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and worship as they see fit. This is the quote played over and over and repeated on the news.

Be an American FIRST!
Christiana Amanpor on This Week, Oct 10 2010, had a debate as to whether Americans should fear Islam. The wife of the ground zero mosque imam Daisy Kahn was accused of practicing taqqiya 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.
Anjem Choudary, a participant in the debate as a Muslim cleric from London (London, ha!) made an interesting distinction between practicing and non-practicing Muslims. He compared Daisy Kahn to a vegetarian who eats beef burgers. “You cannot be a practicing vegetarian and eat beef burgers.” [i]

If I could address Ms Daisy Kahn, I would say this:

“There is a reason Peter doesn't believe you and accuses you of practicing taqqiya. The reason is that you are here in America telling us you are a moderate. Fine. No one can see into your heart. You're right. But we now know of taqqiya so your credibility is damaged right out of the gate. We would really love to believe you. Honestly. You have that going for you here in America. America is THE MOST tolerant nation in the world! We are also a little bit sensitive when it comes to attacks on our homeland.
Your credibility would go farther if you were trying to moderate 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.
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).
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.
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.
You are an American citizen. Excellent! Welcome!
Now...be an AMERICAN first.
From an average American’s point of view, it doesn’t matter that you don’t believe in violent jihad. It matters that some within your religion do!

[i]  http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2010/10/ratings-report-for-abc-news-this-week-with-christiane-amanpour-sunday-october-10-2010.html

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Primary voting: the new rule is actually the OLD rule

Karl Rove supports Mike Castle in primary

The new rule is the old rule: vote your conscience in the primary
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 distinction the difference between Democrats and Republicans. THIS is more a distinction without a difference. Just take a look at John McCain. Everyone running for any election runs to the right (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.
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.
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.
Ordinarily, that would be where the media would investigate and report. Instead, they let things stand. Diversion, distraction, and outright deceit.

Not Dem V Rep… Conservatives V Rep
There are establishment Republicans and there are Conservative 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 Bushes. 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.

Vote your conscience in the primary and let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't matter who you think can "win". "This above all: to thine own self be true." Shakespeare

Much more in the book! Get it today on Lulu.com!

Thursday, March 3, 2011

What the NBPP want, What the NBPP Believe

Copied from the website of The New Black Panthers
Here is some more stuff if you did not get a complete picture from the website rant.
 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 not an official successor to the Black Panther Party. Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that this party is illegitimate 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.
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.
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.[i]

It is clear from these texts, that reparations for slavery must be fulfilled. I guess 330,000 white Union soldiers brutally killed during the Civil War is not a high enough price to pay for the freedom of slaves.[ii]

Did you notice that this was #9? Yes there were 8 points preceding that were just as vitriolic.
These are the "people" of Eric Holder.

Just a note, the original Black Panther Party denounces the New Black Panther Party as totally unaffiliated with them. The NBPP follows the Nation of Islam lead by Miiiiiinister Farrakhan. Muslims denounce the NOI as completely unaffiliated with Islam (the wheel in the sky and all...)
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.

[i]  -Wikipedia-

[ii]  http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Cloward and Piven

Cloward and Piven
At his point, I’d like to inject the Cloward-Piven strategy again, 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.

Obama knows… I know he knows.

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 guaranteed annual income 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 red tape. 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 equality of abilities. Again, I ask: why shouldn’t a person work to the best of their ability to provide as best they can 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 because they can afford it. 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 rich are really intended to destroy the middle class. Money is taken from mostly middle class families and given to the poor and the rich. The rich, in this case being the government, will then distribute tax dollars in the form of pork projects to wealthy donors as a reward for helping them to be elected. Get it?

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Rule #5: Ridicule...

What surprises me the most about things like this is that there are people who actually study how to destroy their own Country. After researching this book, I’m cynical to say the least.
Of course then we have The Nation, 45 years later, printing articles denying that Cloward and Piven ever intended to be the trunk of the tree of today’s political trends.

Richard Kim wrote an article called The Mad Tea Party. In this article, he ridicules the exposure that the strategy has gotten since Obama became President.
Well isn’t that one of the “rules”? 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

These are some excerpts:
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."…. (subtle)
…..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! (what else are we to glean from that statement???)
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… (exactly! Coming back through to this side!)
….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."… (on a nationally published show, if any of this were untrue, he would be immediately sued for liable. If there were only a shred 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!)
…..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."…… (I like Palin)
….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…[i]

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)

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Learn it, recognize it, expose it! Render it impotent.

"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."  
C.S. Lewis

[i]  4/12/2010,The Mad Tea Party, Richard Kim, The Nation