Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is another tactic used by radicalS. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. A radical marxist individual or group, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about the opposition's views. It is used to increase the general possibility of switching sides among the current electorate; or to maintain leverage over a current political partner who could potentially become a rival.
FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
In response to a growing number of homeowners forgoing the use of real estate agent services during the sale of their homes, national and regional real estate boards have adopted a strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Ads reinforce consumers' anxiety over legal paperwork, and suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful; that consumers can't possibly learn; and that it would be much safer to leave the process to a real estate agent. I guess that the poor public is just too stupid to do anything according to the elite.
Appeal to fear FUD is now often used in many contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics one side can accuse the other of using FUD to obscure the issues. For example, critics of George W. Bush accused Bush's supporters, most notably the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor", and "weapons of mass destruction". This tactic is widespread and is used often; what works successfully gets picked up and repeated by others.
Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In the UK this technique is better known as "rent-a-crowd" after the successful "rent-a-crate" business. US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, believed to have coined the term, was quoted by the Washington Post in 1985 using it to describe a "mountain of cards and letters" sent to his Senate office to promote insurance industry interests, which Bentsen dismissed as "generated mail."
The National Smokers Alliance, an early astroturf group created by Burson-Marsteller on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris, worked to influence Federal legislation in 1995 by organizing mailings and running a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to laws aimed at discouraging teens from starting to smoke.
In 1998, a combination of television ads and phone-banks were used to simulate "grassroots" opposition to a bill aimed at discouraging teenage smoking. According to The New York Times, "Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice."
Apparent "grass-roots" letters favoring Democratic Party policies appearing in local newspapers around the US were denounced as "astroturf" when Google searches revealed that identical letters were printed with different (local) signatures. The signers were electronically submitting pre-written letters from a political website that offered help for sending one of their letters to a local paper. A similar automated email employed by MoveOn.org in 2004 to support Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film resulted in at least 22 form letters appearing in local papers.
Black propaganda is information that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. Most astroturfing is black propaganda in that the identity of the source is falsified. However, the ostensible source of the evidence planted is usually not a grassroots organization. When black propaganda uses the same means as astroturfing, the distinction is less clear, as in the case of forged letters being sent to congressman Tom Perriello by a Washington lobbying firm working against 2009 clean energy legislation.
Journalist Ben Smith of The Politico has observed, "Interest groups across the spectrum have grown expert at locating, enraging and turning out authentic Americans. And the operatives behind the crowds say there's nothing wrong with a practice as old as American politics." Regarding the 2009 health care debate, author and blogger Ryan Sager has argued in a New York Times editorial: "Organizing isn't cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics."
In business, astroturfing is one form of stealth marketing, which can include the manipulation of viral marketing. Several examples are described as "undercover marketing" in the documentary ‘The Corporation’. The term "astroturfing" is also used to describe public relations activities aimed at "falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of an orchestrated and disguised public relations exercise; designed to give the impression of spontaneous support for an idea, product, company, or service." According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Social Media Guidelines, which cautions members that an astroturfing campaign is "self-evidently likely to contradict the CIPR Code."
It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low. Groups may use a boiler room full of telephones and computers where hired activists locate people and groups who create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. The radicals method of operation is “use every means possible to accomplish the objective” no matter what the reaction.
A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by fusion with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging. Radicals use this technique constantly, in fact it is their first mode of attack when confronted with something that they can not answer or explain, for example Govenor Palin.
Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead a political opponent as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Its techniques may also be found in politics and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor.
These are only a small sample of the various dirty tricks that the left has developed and used over and over for decades. These were all used in one form or another when I was young and dumb and believed the liberal propaganda. You would think that the public would catch on but the radicals are very sly and deceptive and it is difficult to catch them with proof. Plus the compliant news media treats everything coming from the radical marxists as fact.
If you watch closely you will see all of these types of deception at play when a radical group attempts to persuade the general public. If you want to learn more about these radical groups go to this website for information http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This is the best site on the web for good information concerning many radical groups and explains how they are funded. If you are a liberal, who can think for yourself, then you will be enlightened to the point of joining the ranks of the independent voters as I did!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 1
As I have stated before I was at one time a true believer in the liberal tripe that was presented as the democratic platform. I saw all the political tricks that they used to promote themselves as the defender of the common man. Much later I began to understand that democrats could care less about the common man and were more concerned about votes, votes and more votes. Therefore, liberals have developed a vast array of political tactics to influence these votes. The following are a few of these tactics used by liberals.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Do Public-sector Unions contribute to state budget problems?
Last week, I had lunch with a friend and we were talking about the pressures felt by public-sector unions as states attempt to balance their budgets. "If we get a union protest coming here from Wisconsin," my friend said, "we're in trouble." Ah, yes. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's successful attempt to break the back of public-sector unions is the current front in the battle over public-sector pay and compensation. Some tend to cast this as a battle of good vs. evil (although which side is which role depends on who you're talking to). Having been in public education for over 30 years I can say without reservation that I never believed in teacher unions and never belonged to one. I have always believed that teachers were about children and not money. In fact I passed a rather lucrative opportunity when I selected education as my profession.
So I thought it was refreshing to read a column in the usually liberal New York Times that offered a thoughtful and nuanced look at the issues at stake. There are several important points involved and one has to do with an inherent problem with public-sector unions, but the other point is that states' budget problems are far bigger than just employee annual compensation. The elephant in the room so to speak is the states' unfunded liabilities with the public retirement funds and Healthcare. These two monsters are going to put those states, that did not set aside funds to cover such massive programs, into bankruptcy.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Governor Walker's side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack. That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest".
Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don't have that luxury.
The debt problems before the tax payers are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain current deficits, therefore, we have to consider the retirement and healthcare packages. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises".
So if the New York Times prints an article that is not in total agreement with the labor unions them you know that unions are in difficulty. However, it is apparent that one factor still remains and is very important and that is tax payers don't have a place at the bargaining table and they are expected to pay the bill. Seems like a situation of taxation without representation!
Recently congress was requesting files from Obama and he refused. Stating that this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming executive privilege.
On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an Administration's records. Therefore; it is possible that our new president could do the same and repeal or change President Kennedys Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions. This would in effect "kill the bill" and do away with or change public unions as we know them today.
There are a large number of people who think that pay and benefit increases for public unions must be decided by a vote of the electorate. This would take congress out of the equation and make it impossible to show favor to gain votes! Another item to change is, not allowing public unions to donate to political parties with the membership dues. Either idea would help reduce the current problems that exist within public sector unions.
So I thought it was refreshing to read a column in the usually liberal New York Times that offered a thoughtful and nuanced look at the issues at stake. There are several important points involved and one has to do with an inherent problem with public-sector unions, but the other point is that states' budget problems are far bigger than just employee annual compensation. The elephant in the room so to speak is the states' unfunded liabilities with the public retirement funds and Healthcare. These two monsters are going to put those states, that did not set aside funds to cover such massive programs, into bankruptcy.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Governor Walker's side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack. That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest".
Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don't have that luxury.
The debt problems before the tax payers are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain current deficits, therefore, we have to consider the retirement and healthcare packages. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises".
So if the New York Times prints an article that is not in total agreement with the labor unions them you know that unions are in difficulty. However, it is apparent that one factor still remains and is very important and that is tax payers don't have a place at the bargaining table and they are expected to pay the bill. Seems like a situation of taxation without representation!
Recently congress was requesting files from Obama and he refused. Stating that this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming executive privilege.
On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an Administration's records. Therefore; it is possible that our new president could do the same and repeal or change President Kennedys Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions. This would in effect "kill the bill" and do away with or change public unions as we know them today.
There are a large number of people who think that pay and benefit increases for public unions must be decided by a vote of the electorate. This would take congress out of the equation and make it impossible to show favor to gain votes! Another item to change is, not allowing public unions to donate to political parties with the membership dues. Either idea would help reduce the current problems that exist within public sector unions.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Radical islamism is really a political ideology
It is a known fact that all muslims are not radical islamists; however, there are enough that we must stay vigilant at all times! Several experts tell us that only 5% to 13% of all muslims are radical islamists; therefore, if you do the math then we are dealing with about 91 million terrorists!!! And to think that we were so concerned while only dealing with a religion of peace!
Many liberals would have you believe that Christians are the oppressors and muslims are the victims! I suggest that they talk to Egyptian Coptic Christians or Iraqi Christians! لعدة أشهر الإسلاميين المتشددين قد يقتلون "المسيحيين العراقيين" وقد اضطر طار إلى البلد أو يعانون من الموت. Which is Arabic and it states "For several months radical islamists have been killing Iraqi Christians and they have been forced to flew the country or suffer death."
Egyptian Coptics have suffered from Egyptian muslims and even the police. Christians in Turkey have also suffered from radical muslims but they remain diligent and continue their goal of telling the people there about Jesus Christ even though it is definitely dangerous for these heroic Christians. America should be proud of these missionaries who are fearless in their mission to spread the Word of God in a muslim country!
What is really important is the fact that the early Christian church in Turkey was based upon the early Christian word imparted when Paul and others passed through that area and many Christian churches were started as a result.
Another important fact for Christians to realize is that the first Ecumenical Councils were made at Nicea (Iznik today) in the Marmara Region of Turkey, between Bursa and Istanbul. Also, the Orthodox Byzantine Church was officially started in Turkey when the country was mainly muslim. The entire area, although now muslin, was once Christian and is important to the Christian church. Once the area was invaded by the Ottoman Empire the killings of Christians began and has not stopped.
A 2007 Pew Research Study shows that a small percentage of American muslims effectively support Osama Ben laden. If you use the Pew Research percentage of 5%. and since 2.1 million muslims live in the United States that means there could be 117,500 supporters of violent terrorism! What this really means is that there are many, many terrorists already here and we don't know who they are and when they will strike next!
The Lame Street Media only has good things to say about muslins and always prints the positive. In fact the muslims are presented as the religion of peace and goodwill, yet, the mass killing of Christians goes on in muslim countries with very little reporting by the lame street media! WE need to stay alert and think positive about our heroes in the military because they are the only ones standing between us and the jihadists.
There is a way to defeat the islamists and that is by separating islamism from religion and begin to call it what it really is, a political ideology! A clear realization of the fact that islamism is an ideology and not a religion will help the whole question from a variety of difficulties.
As stated by Mr. Mozaffari, who is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, “In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics”. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism.
The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia”.
Mr. Mozaffari also states “During the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with islamists leads nowhere. Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. If dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure!
Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect-- as was the case with the Taliban -- war should not be excluded as a last resort”. Therefore, I again say that the only guard against the Jihadists will be our strong military! God bless them all!
Many liberals would have you believe that Christians are the oppressors and muslims are the victims! I suggest that they talk to Egyptian Coptic Christians or Iraqi Christians! لعدة أشهر الإسلاميين المتشددين قد يقتلون "المسيحيين العراقيين" وقد اضطر طار إلى البلد أو يعانون من الموت. Which is Arabic and it states "For several months radical islamists have been killing Iraqi Christians and they have been forced to flew the country or suffer death."
Egyptian Coptics have suffered from Egyptian muslims and even the police. Christians in Turkey have also suffered from radical muslims but they remain diligent and continue their goal of telling the people there about Jesus Christ even though it is definitely dangerous for these heroic Christians. America should be proud of these missionaries who are fearless in their mission to spread the Word of God in a muslim country!
What is really important is the fact that the early Christian church in Turkey was based upon the early Christian word imparted when Paul and others passed through that area and many Christian churches were started as a result.
Another important fact for Christians to realize is that the first Ecumenical Councils were made at Nicea (Iznik today) in the Marmara Region of Turkey, between Bursa and Istanbul. Also, the Orthodox Byzantine Church was officially started in Turkey when the country was mainly muslim. The entire area, although now muslin, was once Christian and is important to the Christian church. Once the area was invaded by the Ottoman Empire the killings of Christians began and has not stopped.
A 2007 Pew Research Study shows that a small percentage of American muslims effectively support Osama Ben laden. If you use the Pew Research percentage of 5%. and since 2.1 million muslims live in the United States that means there could be 117,500 supporters of violent terrorism! What this really means is that there are many, many terrorists already here and we don't know who they are and when they will strike next!
The Lame Street Media only has good things to say about muslins and always prints the positive. In fact the muslims are presented as the religion of peace and goodwill, yet, the mass killing of Christians goes on in muslim countries with very little reporting by the lame street media! WE need to stay alert and think positive about our heroes in the military because they are the only ones standing between us and the jihadists.
There is a way to defeat the islamists and that is by separating islamism from religion and begin to call it what it really is, a political ideology! A clear realization of the fact that islamism is an ideology and not a religion will help the whole question from a variety of difficulties.
As stated by Mr. Mozaffari, who is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, “In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics”. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism.
The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia”.
Mr. Mozaffari also states “During the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with islamists leads nowhere. Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. If dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure!
Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect-- as was the case with the Taliban -- war should not be excluded as a last resort”. Therefore, I again say that the only guard against the Jihadists will be our strong military! God bless them all!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
How Public Unions Took Taxpayers Hostage
I recently read a blog by Arthur Conley which gave a very good history of the labor movement in America and its connection to the democrats. In the blog he indicated that the chaotic years of the 1960s and '70s are best known by the leading attraction of the news which was antiwar, civil rights and women's rights movements. But there was another "rights" movement, largely ignored by the lying news media, that was a large factor for American labor movement. The looming public-pension crisis that threatens to bankrupt city, county and state governments had its origins in those same years when public employees, already protected by civil-service rules, gained the right to bargain collectively.
Liberals at one time were opposed to public-sector unionism. In 1937 FDR stated that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Private-sector unions were also opposed to the idea of public-sector unions. George Meany argued that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." Private-sector unions were very concerned that public-sector labor would be extracting taxes from a public that included their own workers. However, the late 1950s, with the failure of the private-sector labor movements organizing campaigns they gave in and insisted on the necessity of winning the right to organize public employees. While the private-sector was waning the public-sector was increasing in membership.
The first to seize on the political potential of government workers occurred in New York City. A prominent New Deal senator had authored the landmark 1935 Wagner Act, which imposed on private employers the legal duty to bargain collectively with the properly elected union representatives of their employees. New York City, forced by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme), gave city workers the right to bargain collectively in 1958.
Democrats turned to a new force, the public-sector unions, as their political machine. This re-election technique caught on at the Kennedy White House and staffers began to develop plans. Kennedy looked to mobilize public-sector workers as a new source of Democratic Party political support. In mid-January 1962, he issued Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions.
The scene in downtown Manhattan during a sanitation workers' strike, 1968. Two young and militant public-sector unions, the American Federation of Teachers and Afscme, both strong supporters of the still nascent civil rights movement, seized the opportunity. Union leaders saw both teachers and African-Americans as second-class citizens fighting the old-line political bosses. They called a brief teachers strike in 1960, and called another strike in 1962 that shifted the balance of power from principals to teachers, where it has remained down to the present.
In 1958, there had been but 15 public-employee strikes nationwide, involving a handful of workers. By 1968, after the old guard in Afscme had been deposed by the so-called young leaders, more than 200,000 union members, mostly in local and state government, were involved in 254 strikes. In 1968, amid rioting, civil rights and antiwar protests, Martin Luther King Jr. backed an Afscme strike by poorly paid, mostly African-American sanitation men in Memphis, Tenn. After King's tragic assassination, the city quickly settled with the union.
In the 1970s, government-worker unions became a political setting for New Leftist, feminist and black activists hoping to carry on in the militant spirit of the 1960s. The divisions within organized labor over the Vietnam War allowed the public-sector unions to take on the declining private unions of the AFL-CIO, whose leaders backed the war. Public-sector unions leadership become a key player in George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, and public employees have had a lead role in Democratic Party politics ever since.
Public-employee unionism seemed to gaining membership; Afscme was gaining a thousand workers a week, until the summer of 1975. At that point there was a surge in strikes, and the government unions began to threaten Democratic officeholders. In 1975 New York sanitation workers walked off the job, allowing garbage to pile up in the streets and the city was already in the throes of fiscal crisis. In short order, cops objecting to furloughs imposed by the city's liberal Democratic Mayor shut down the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, with marchers carrying signs that read "Cops Out, Crime In" and "Burn City Burn."
On that same year 76,000 Pennsylvania state workers went on strike against the liberal Democratic Governor because of the Governors austerity measures. Afscme's leader in Pennsylvania told his members "Let's go out and close down this God-damned state." And in Seattle, the fireman's union initiated a recall ballot on July 1 directed against the one-time union favorite, Mayor Wes Uhlman, who held back pay hikes in the midst of rising deficits.
Mr. Uhlman narrowly survived and he, like other democrats, calmed the situation by largely caving in to the striker's demands. But a line had been crossed: With New York's near-bankruptcy a visible marker, the peril posed by public-sector unionism became a problem for Democrats as well as Republicans. The fiscal burden of public-employee unions briefly became visible again in the early '80s, when many warned of a looming public-pension crisis. That crisis was averted by the stock market boom that began in 1982-83 and lasted until 2007-08.
It is now back with a vengeance. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and many other states now are in a desperate financial situation because the democrats have given these public-sector unions anything and everything that they have desired!
Restraining the immense clout that government-employee unions have accumulated over the past half-century will be difficult, but not impossible. Civil rights for African-Americans and women was a fulfillment of the principals of the American promise as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Collective bargaining by public employees was not rooted in deep-seated American tradition.
Instead, the decision to grant this privilege was a political decision designed to enhance the power of a pressure group whose interests, even many liberals assumed, would be at odds with those of the general public. Political decisions can be reversed and in this case conservatives should bring this colossus down.
When public-sector unions act as if they deserve more, than what hard working men and women in the private-sector receive, during this "Great Recession" then we need to take action. The largest percentage of public labor union support has always gone to democrats and because of this fact democrats have always voted for the labor unions. However; the more important fact is that tax payers are forced to pay for these services and benefits without representation!
Politicians need to write a bill that would allow an increase in the government sector pay and benefits only with a vote of the people. This process already occurs in some states and it needs to occur in all states! Otherwise, the tax payer is left out of the equation and the politicians are left with the ability to use this power as a bargaining chip to stay in office.
Liberals at one time were opposed to public-sector unionism. In 1937 FDR stated that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Private-sector unions were also opposed to the idea of public-sector unions. George Meany argued that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." Private-sector unions were very concerned that public-sector labor would be extracting taxes from a public that included their own workers. However, the late 1950s, with the failure of the private-sector labor movements organizing campaigns they gave in and insisted on the necessity of winning the right to organize public employees. While the private-sector was waning the public-sector was increasing in membership.
The first to seize on the political potential of government workers occurred in New York City. A prominent New Deal senator had authored the landmark 1935 Wagner Act, which imposed on private employers the legal duty to bargain collectively with the properly elected union representatives of their employees. New York City, forced by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme), gave city workers the right to bargain collectively in 1958.
Democrats turned to a new force, the public-sector unions, as their political machine. This re-election technique caught on at the Kennedy White House and staffers began to develop plans. Kennedy looked to mobilize public-sector workers as a new source of Democratic Party political support. In mid-January 1962, he issued Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions.
The scene in downtown Manhattan during a sanitation workers' strike, 1968. Two young and militant public-sector unions, the American Federation of Teachers and Afscme, both strong supporters of the still nascent civil rights movement, seized the opportunity. Union leaders saw both teachers and African-Americans as second-class citizens fighting the old-line political bosses. They called a brief teachers strike in 1960, and called another strike in 1962 that shifted the balance of power from principals to teachers, where it has remained down to the present.
In 1958, there had been but 15 public-employee strikes nationwide, involving a handful of workers. By 1968, after the old guard in Afscme had been deposed by the so-called young leaders, more than 200,000 union members, mostly in local and state government, were involved in 254 strikes. In 1968, amid rioting, civil rights and antiwar protests, Martin Luther King Jr. backed an Afscme strike by poorly paid, mostly African-American sanitation men in Memphis, Tenn. After King's tragic assassination, the city quickly settled with the union.
In the 1970s, government-worker unions became a political setting for New Leftist, feminist and black activists hoping to carry on in the militant spirit of the 1960s. The divisions within organized labor over the Vietnam War allowed the public-sector unions to take on the declining private unions of the AFL-CIO, whose leaders backed the war. Public-sector unions leadership become a key player in George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, and public employees have had a lead role in Democratic Party politics ever since.
Public-employee unionism seemed to gaining membership; Afscme was gaining a thousand workers a week, until the summer of 1975. At that point there was a surge in strikes, and the government unions began to threaten Democratic officeholders. In 1975 New York sanitation workers walked off the job, allowing garbage to pile up in the streets and the city was already in the throes of fiscal crisis. In short order, cops objecting to furloughs imposed by the city's liberal Democratic Mayor shut down the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, with marchers carrying signs that read "Cops Out, Crime In" and "Burn City Burn."
On that same year 76,000 Pennsylvania state workers went on strike against the liberal Democratic Governor because of the Governors austerity measures. Afscme's leader in Pennsylvania told his members "Let's go out and close down this God-damned state." And in Seattle, the fireman's union initiated a recall ballot on July 1 directed against the one-time union favorite, Mayor Wes Uhlman, who held back pay hikes in the midst of rising deficits.
Mr. Uhlman narrowly survived and he, like other democrats, calmed the situation by largely caving in to the striker's demands. But a line had been crossed: With New York's near-bankruptcy a visible marker, the peril posed by public-sector unionism became a problem for Democrats as well as Republicans. The fiscal burden of public-employee unions briefly became visible again in the early '80s, when many warned of a looming public-pension crisis. That crisis was averted by the stock market boom that began in 1982-83 and lasted until 2007-08.
It is now back with a vengeance. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and many other states now are in a desperate financial situation because the democrats have given these public-sector unions anything and everything that they have desired!
Restraining the immense clout that government-employee unions have accumulated over the past half-century will be difficult, but not impossible. Civil rights for African-Americans and women was a fulfillment of the principals of the American promise as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Collective bargaining by public employees was not rooted in deep-seated American tradition.
Instead, the decision to grant this privilege was a political decision designed to enhance the power of a pressure group whose interests, even many liberals assumed, would be at odds with those of the general public. Political decisions can be reversed and in this case conservatives should bring this colossus down.
When public-sector unions act as if they deserve more, than what hard working men and women in the private-sector receive, during this "Great Recession" then we need to take action. The largest percentage of public labor union support has always gone to democrats and because of this fact democrats have always voted for the labor unions. However; the more important fact is that tax payers are forced to pay for these services and benefits without representation!
Politicians need to write a bill that would allow an increase in the government sector pay and benefits only with a vote of the people. This process already occurs in some states and it needs to occur in all states! Otherwise, the tax payer is left out of the equation and the politicians are left with the ability to use this power as a bargaining chip to stay in office.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Radical Progressive Mind
In the radical progressive liberals mind "two plus two equals five" and is a slogan used in Orwell's BigGov masterpiece '1984' as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to current obviously false slogans by the radical progressive liberal BigGov Party. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious – but politically inexpedient – truth.
In the book '1984'George Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? If the "ONE" deems it so must it therefore be factual? Smith writes in his log, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement "2 + 2 = 5" is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.
Eventually, while undergoing reeducation, Winston declared that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four ("Four, five, six - in all honesty I don't know"). The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals says, of the mathematically false statement, that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the 'Party' wills, then any corporeal act is possible. In accordance with the principles of doublethink, "sometimes there are five, sometimes there are three. Sometimes there are all of them at once". In the mind of the radical progressive liberal this is logical thinking and therefore, all things from the "ONE" is truthful and correct and must be protected by all means possible.
This type of thinking has existed in the liberal mindset for centuries and was developed into the current belief that the State was the answer for all the ills of society. During the Third Reich Hitler and his cronies took this idea to a level that had never been seen before and George Orwell stated:
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs".
"Two Plus Two Equals Five", which was a slogan used by Stalin's government to predict that the Five year plan would be completed in four years, which for a time appeared widely in Moscow. However, Orwell may also have been influenced by Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!"
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
Victor Hugo said "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step." The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture under the rule of Stalin. Ivan Turgenev wrote in prayer, one of his Poems in Prose "Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four."
Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy's last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church:
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age".
In Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged', the hero John Galt posits that "the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four". However, having said that we must stay alert at all times because the Devil is hiding in the details! If we lose sight of the importance of our freedoms then the Devil will be there to take then away and once this happens there is no guarantee that we can ever get them back.
It seems that when serfs are placed under the rule of BigGov there will always be measures or rules that are made to keep the serfs alike so that BigGov can keep control. The rules of the "ONE" have to be adhered to so that chaos does not become evident and upset the rules! This aspect really is confusing since that usually is how BigGov gets started in the first place. BigGov steps up when radical progressive liberals are able to create chaos and then place their special rules to fix the chaos. This is where Mr. Alinsky stepped in and developed his 'Rules for Radicals' and then the usual suspects stepped in and trained a large group of progressive radicals on how to use his playbook.
Modern America will become something that Americans have never been before if we allow these radicals to transform America as they are trying to do right now. I would urge you to read George Orwell's books or Ayn Rands' books or similar authors and compare what these authors are saying to what is going on here in America. Do not for a second think that this could never occur in America because it can! Liberals have the defective mind set that will allow them to continue to forge ahead until that day WE allow it to happen. The radicals remind me of a dog with a bone.
In the book '1984'George Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? If the "ONE" deems it so must it therefore be factual? Smith writes in his log, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement "2 + 2 = 5" is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.
Eventually, while undergoing reeducation, Winston declared that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four ("Four, five, six - in all honesty I don't know"). The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals says, of the mathematically false statement, that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the 'Party' wills, then any corporeal act is possible. In accordance with the principles of doublethink, "sometimes there are five, sometimes there are three. Sometimes there are all of them at once". In the mind of the radical progressive liberal this is logical thinking and therefore, all things from the "ONE" is truthful and correct and must be protected by all means possible.
This type of thinking has existed in the liberal mindset for centuries and was developed into the current belief that the State was the answer for all the ills of society. During the Third Reich Hitler and his cronies took this idea to a level that had never been seen before and George Orwell stated:
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs".
"Two Plus Two Equals Five", which was a slogan used by Stalin's government to predict that the Five year plan would be completed in four years, which for a time appeared widely in Moscow. However, Orwell may also have been influenced by Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!"
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
Victor Hugo said "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step." The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture under the rule of Stalin. Ivan Turgenev wrote in prayer, one of his Poems in Prose "Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four."
Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy's last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church:
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age".
In Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged', the hero John Galt posits that "the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four". However, having said that we must stay alert at all times because the Devil is hiding in the details! If we lose sight of the importance of our freedoms then the Devil will be there to take then away and once this happens there is no guarantee that we can ever get them back.
It seems that when serfs are placed under the rule of BigGov there will always be measures or rules that are made to keep the serfs alike so that BigGov can keep control. The rules of the "ONE" have to be adhered to so that chaos does not become evident and upset the rules! This aspect really is confusing since that usually is how BigGov gets started in the first place. BigGov steps up when radical progressive liberals are able to create chaos and then place their special rules to fix the chaos. This is where Mr. Alinsky stepped in and developed his 'Rules for Radicals' and then the usual suspects stepped in and trained a large group of progressive radicals on how to use his playbook.
Modern America will become something that Americans have never been before if we allow these radicals to transform America as they are trying to do right now. I would urge you to read George Orwell's books or Ayn Rands' books or similar authors and compare what these authors are saying to what is going on here in America. Do not for a second think that this could never occur in America because it can! Liberals have the defective mind set that will allow them to continue to forge ahead until that day WE allow it to happen. The radicals remind me of a dog with a bone.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Radical Marxist Progressives
Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinsky - 1971 Opening page - Dedication by Saul Alinsky has a statement that has a dark meaning: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” We could not say it better than the Devil himself in describing how modern Marxists think about what they are doing in America! Mr. Alinsky states the obvious, because that is exactly what the Radical Progressives want; their own kingdom.
This is so typical of progressives who have this arrogant attitude that they are so much more than the rest of us! They feel that they are so smart and that they have this innate ability to know and understand what the rest of us need to survive in this life. They immediately can predict and provide our every need so that the serfs need not concern ourselves with things because BIG government will be there for all the serfs in the serfdom.
There have been many varieties of socialism pop up during the past millenniums that one has to be surprised by its longevity. An old adage states that if an idea keeps getting repeated with the same results that someone needs to find a better idea! However, if nothing else progressives are tenacious when they get an idea; it reminds me of a dog with a bone.
The Radical Progressive Liberals (New Democrats) have found their new idea in Marxism. Those that studied the Marxist Theory and felt that it was something that would work to improve American society must have a genetic defect or a learning problem. The first thing that Marxism requires is to dissemble the religious foundation that exists in America. I realize that they are trying to do this at this moment but with only a limited success. However, all it takes for evil to win is for religious men and women to do nothing. The fact is that there seems to be a lot of resistance now against this satanic Marxist theory in most churches. I will save this new version of evil that is attempting to invade our churches for another blog.
Mr. Alinskys theory has been able to brainwash many progressive politicians into believing that his 'Rules for Radicals' holds promise for the future of America. These politicians drink this Kool-aid and believe and then "Hope" that Mr. Alinsky is correct because they want to 'Change' America. With this 'Change' they want to become the elite leadership that helps the serfdom become all that it can be! It is so easy to sell the serfs on this bad idea because after all the serfs are only serfs and we know their inabilities and how the leaders love to care for them. The 'One' will help level the playing field for them and improve their lives with the aid of everyone's money that the 'One' has.
The Serfdom will soon be able to support all serfs at the same lower level while all the elites sit back in their upper levels and feel good about all that they have accomplished. While Rome burns the elites continue on without a care because after all they have put the serfs all on the same lower level, and this is good sayeth the 'One'. The 'One' told them that this would be done and the 'One made it so. You must understand, sayeth the 'One', all on the lower level are being taken care of and won't have to worry about working to get to the upper level. Life goes on without a care until the evil satanic monster arrives!
These elitists learn their power tactics well from their studies of Mr. Alinsky.
The following are statements from Mr. Alinsky:
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 universal. 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 you '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." Mr. Alinsky apparently learned the jargon of Christianity even if he failed to understand the concept.
The same failure to really understand the concept of Christianity afflicts all the other radicals. Radicals have a plan to persuade the serfs by a continuous use of propaganda that is delivered by their useful idiots and the compliant news media. It is apparent that we must develop a counter plan to use against these radicals and become activists. Remember that all is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. Thank God for the Tea Party because they will save the day, provided they don't become part of the elitist group and think they have the only answers. If the tea party groups demand their way or the highway then the radicals will win! The leadership of the current party must also be held accountable and forced to comply with the conservative ideals.
As a former democrat I know how they will fight with everything they have so that they win. They will use every trick in their playbook. The lame street media will constantly push every negative tidbit available plus they will make up the rest. The tea Party should counter this effort with a strong push in all local areas, making sure that they promote with quiet persuasion, which is an Alinsky rule. Beat them with their own game but this will require reading Mr. Saul Alinsky and applying the message when possible. The Alinsky tactics can and should be used by conservative activists. Activists can select targets to freeze; for example advertisers with any liberal media would be a great choice. The liberals have used this tactic against conservative advertisers successfully for decades. It is now time for conservatives to become activists; I realize that this may be uncomfortable for many but I must repeat if good people do nothing then evil will win!
This is so typical of progressives who have this arrogant attitude that they are so much more than the rest of us! They feel that they are so smart and that they have this innate ability to know and understand what the rest of us need to survive in this life. They immediately can predict and provide our every need so that the serfs need not concern ourselves with things because BIG government will be there for all the serfs in the serfdom.
There have been many varieties of socialism pop up during the past millenniums that one has to be surprised by its longevity. An old adage states that if an idea keeps getting repeated with the same results that someone needs to find a better idea! However, if nothing else progressives are tenacious when they get an idea; it reminds me of a dog with a bone.
The Radical Progressive Liberals (New Democrats) have found their new idea in Marxism. Those that studied the Marxist Theory and felt that it was something that would work to improve American society must have a genetic defect or a learning problem. The first thing that Marxism requires is to dissemble the religious foundation that exists in America. I realize that they are trying to do this at this moment but with only a limited success. However, all it takes for evil to win is for religious men and women to do nothing. The fact is that there seems to be a lot of resistance now against this satanic Marxist theory in most churches. I will save this new version of evil that is attempting to invade our churches for another blog.
Mr. Alinskys theory has been able to brainwash many progressive politicians into believing that his 'Rules for Radicals' holds promise for the future of America. These politicians drink this Kool-aid and believe and then "Hope" that Mr. Alinsky is correct because they want to 'Change' America. With this 'Change' they want to become the elite leadership that helps the serfdom become all that it can be! It is so easy to sell the serfs on this bad idea because after all the serfs are only serfs and we know their inabilities and how the leaders love to care for them. The 'One' will help level the playing field for them and improve their lives with the aid of everyone's money that the 'One' has.
The Serfdom will soon be able to support all serfs at the same lower level while all the elites sit back in their upper levels and feel good about all that they have accomplished. While Rome burns the elites continue on without a care because after all they have put the serfs all on the same lower level, and this is good sayeth the 'One'. The 'One' told them that this would be done and the 'One made it so. You must understand, sayeth the 'One', all on the lower level are being taken care of and won't have to worry about working to get to the upper level. Life goes on without a care until the evil satanic monster arrives!
These elitists learn their power tactics well from their studies of Mr. Alinsky.
The following are statements from Mr. Alinsky:
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 universal. 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 you '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." Mr. Alinsky apparently learned the jargon of Christianity even if he failed to understand the concept.
The same failure to really understand the concept of Christianity afflicts all the other radicals. Radicals have a plan to persuade the serfs by a continuous use of propaganda that is delivered by their useful idiots and the compliant news media. It is apparent that we must develop a counter plan to use against these radicals and become activists. Remember that all is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. Thank God for the Tea Party because they will save the day, provided they don't become part of the elitist group and think they have the only answers. If the tea party groups demand their way or the highway then the radicals will win! The leadership of the current party must also be held accountable and forced to comply with the conservative ideals.
As a former democrat I know how they will fight with everything they have so that they win. They will use every trick in their playbook. The lame street media will constantly push every negative tidbit available plus they will make up the rest. The tea Party should counter this effort with a strong push in all local areas, making sure that they promote with quiet persuasion, which is an Alinsky rule. Beat them with their own game but this will require reading Mr. Saul Alinsky and applying the message when possible. The Alinsky tactics can and should be used by conservative activists. Activists can select targets to freeze; for example advertisers with any liberal media would be a great choice. The liberals have used this tactic against conservative advertisers successfully for decades. It is now time for conservatives to become activists; I realize that this may be uncomfortable for many but I must repeat if good people do nothing then evil will win!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)