WHAT WENT WRONG?


  When I was ten years old in 1960, America was a vastly different place. Yes, there was such a thing as White privilege. More specifically White male privilege. This affected not only people of color but also White women. At that time we did have a serious problem with systemic racism, and sexism. America definitely had it's flaws. Change was in the air, however; and had been since WW2. The scope of that war made people begin to scrutinize our racial and gender problems more closely. WW2 helped bring America closer to a day of reckoning on the problems of race and gender, that at least on a legal basis would be resolved during the turbulent 1960's and 1970's. The war gave many women a sense of worth outside of the home and brought attention to the plight of Black veterans who had fought against two of the most racist regimes on earth only to come home to racist mistreatment here in America.

  What happened to our country since 1960, however? In spite of our problems we were a hopeful, patriotic, and a generally moral people. Out of wedlock births among all races was low. Traditional marriage was something that just about everyone strived for, as well as the children that followed. Drug use, especially in the South, was virtually non existent. As late as 1968, when I graduated from high school, I did not personally know of anyone who smoked weed or took drugs of any kind. I knew many kids who drank alcohol, however; and used tobacco, but that was it. How many school children can make that claim today? For a male in the South, it was not a matter of if you would join the military, but pretty much every boy expected that they would serve their country one day. If they waited around, and were drafted, like Elvis, they felt an obligation to serve. People had manners and respect for each other and most of us respected our parents. Hopefully I can give some historical perspective on how America changed so radically over the last 59 years of my lifetime. Much of my life happened during the Cold War. I served in the Air Force during the height of the Cold War and yes Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union but unfortunately Communism is very much alive and well. It is the greatest threat that we face in America today and can be blamed for most of our problems in one way or the other.

  The Industrial Revolution began in Europe in the late eighteenth century and had it's origins in this country in the early 1800's. Inventions like the cotton gin, trains, steamboats, and electricity would transform America and the world. In many cases they would have unintended consequences. For example, the argument can be made that by the time of the American Revolution slavery was a dying institution in America. The Northwest Ordinance, passed under the Articles of Confederation, outlawed slavery in the new northwest territories. This area that would eventually become the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  The change in attitude of the Founders toward slavery is also reflected in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers agreed that the slave trade would end twenty years after the ratification of the Constitution in 1808. When the cotton gin was invented in 1794, this invention breathed new life into a dying institution. It became very profitable for a handful of Southern planters, who were empowered politically by the attainment of great wealth. This, combined with the acquisition of the new cotton growing territories of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, and later Texas, would insure that slavery would linger a little while longer than expected. 

  So, don't let these Communist professors, and Democrat media lap dogs, tell you that America's history of race goes back to that day at Jamestown Virginia in 1619 when the first slaves were landed there. No our history begins with the Declaration Of Independence that was ratified on July 2, 1776, which said "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".  A small group of White men would enjoy this equality from the start but a promissory note was issued that day for everyone else. Over time more and more White men would be allowed to cash in. Then came people of color in the 1960's, and finally women in the 1970's and 80's would get to cash in. All of these groups could always fall back on the promissory note originally issued in 1776 and paid for by the blood of patriots along the way. The industrial revolution had it's flaws but it created the wealthiest society in the world. And no society in the world enjoys more freedom than we do. We are a country that is a magnet for freedom loving people from all over the world. Unfortunately because of the Communists in our government, and their lackeys, there are those who wish to take advantage of our freedoms in order to lower our standards to that of the sh_t hole countries that they came from. In the immortal words of president Trump.


 The roots of modern leftist thinking started with Georg Hegel, a German philosopher who was born in 1770 and died in 1831. Karl Marx considered him his mentor although they never knew each other. Hegel believed that human history was moving toward the inevitable triumph of reason. He also coined the term dialectic. This is defined as the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Another way to explain it is you have a thesis met with an antithesis which results in a synthesis. I find Hegel's concept of the dialectic hard to understand but this is what I believe that it means in layman's terms. There will always be opposition to what the elites define as reason but in the end their concept of reason will win the day. My problem with Hegel's theory is this. Who gets to define what reason is? History has shown that it is the elitists who think they know better than everyone else. Hegel incorporated a religious aspect of Christianity into his ideas but these were later rejected by the Young Hegelians a few years after his death.

  When the elitists say that we should have same sex marriage, open borders, more than two genders, the homeless living in our streets, secularism, the welfare state, and the state raising our children, we are supposed to accept their thinking. Of course we will push back and resist. At some point, however; their view will prevail, because in their mind it is right and inevitable. That is dialectic. They are the ones who are constantly screwing things up, however. Karl Marx, like Hegel, was also born in Germany in 1818. He was an elitist who formulated a utopian society on paper but had no way to test it. He took Hegel,s idea of the ultimate triumph of reason and changed it to the ultimate triumph of the working class, or proletariat. Marx did not invent Communism but his brand would ultimately influence the Communist world for years. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, The pol Pot regime of Cambodia and the list goes on and on. It is estimated that one hundred million people have died under Communism and at least a billion people have been enslaved. Personally, I think that this is a conservative estimate.
Georg Hegel



 Was Marx an evil person? Who knows? If he could come back today and see how badly socialism and Communism has failed, and how bloody it has been, he might repent of the fact that he even had anything to do with it. Marx is kind of like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They fell to sin because they never had the chance to experience the consequences of sin until it was too late. In Marx's defense, especially during his lifetime in western Europe, and later in America, there were many societal ills caused by the industrial revolution. There were the very wealthy and the very poor. People worked extremely long hours in factories at very low wages. There were very unsafe working conditions. No one was making sure that the food that people consumed was safe to eat or that over the counter medicine was safe for consumption.

 For the early capitalists like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Flagler, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Harvey Firestone, Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, and others, they made their own rules, because no rules had been written. These men are known in history as the "Robber Barons". My definition of a robber is someone who takes but gives nothing back in return. These men were some of the greatest philanthropists in the world. It is estimated that Rockefeller gave away half of his fortune to philanthropy. He helped create the greatest medical system in the world without government help. These men built much of our infrastructure. Henry Flagure turned Florida from a swampy almost uninhabitable region into a tourist mecca. Before Flagler only the toughest settlers could survive there. Yes, these men did create monopolies but their industries made products much more affordable to the common man. They helped create the wealthiest country on earth with the largest middle class. Communists may want to share the wealth but you can't share it unless someone creates it first. Government cannot create wealth. This is why Free Market Capitalism will always be superior to Socialism-Communism.
John D. Rockefeller
  Before the creation of the first Marxist state, the Soviet Union in 1917, Marx and other Communists had their sights set on transforming Western Europe and the United states. Marx hated Russia. He thought that it was a backward feudalistic society. He had bigger fish to fry and knew that in order for Communism to work it would have to be implemented by force. Yet he was not in favor of a violent revolution to bring it about. He prophesied that capitalism would fall of it's own weight and communism would be there to pick up the pieces. Marx, however; did believe that there were things that socialists could do in order to hasten the collapse of capitalism. A progressive income tax, abolition of inheritances, private property, child labor laws, promote the nationalization of the means of transport, centralized communication, centralization of credit via a national bank, expansion of publicly owned corporations and free public education. The ultimate goal was a stateless and classless society. It is ironic that Marx was advocating the end of inheritances when his wealthy benefactor Friedrich Engels was supporting Marx, and himself, off of the inheritance from his wealthy capitalist father and in addition he was a capitalist himself. As far as I know Marx never worked a day in his life. Typical of the elites that think they know what is best for everyone else. Marx and Engels also wrote Das Kapital and other books. Supposedly Engels provided Marx with money so he could write and do research to bolster his theories on communism. An untested theory until the Soviet Union came into existence and was the first country to put it into practice.

 Communism failed to take root in Western Europe and the United States before WW1 because capitalist societies began to raise wages, shorten hours, improve job safety, and employ limited social reforms in order to discourage a full blown workers rebellion. Unions were formed that represented the rights of workers. By 1913 some of Marx's goals for weakening capitalism were implemented in the United States. More public education, centralization of credit through the Federal Reserve, a graduated income tax system. and the expansion of publicly owned corporations. In my view the graduated income tax system has had a devastating impact on America. Politicians can use it to reward who they want to and punish who they want to. It is a revenue stream that provides an seemingly endless amount of money for politicians to waste and enrich themselves. Originally it only targeted the wealthiest of Americans, which was the top 6%. This was how they sold it. The funding needs of WW2, however; enabled government to tax most American's. The worst thing that ever happened, in my view, was payroll deductions. Because of payroll deductions most American's do not seem to comprehend how much the government really takes from their paychecks. It removed much of the pain. Now the income tax system is used to rob from the haves and provide welfare to the have nots through such things as the child tax credits. Although the Marxist's made great strides in the 1800's and early 1900's WW1 would be the great wake-up call. Because of the nationalistic fervor among the working classes of Europe, Marxists realized that more had to be done to end capitalism once and for all.


 World War 1 was the great wake up call for Marxists. When the war began many Marxists believed that it would be the thing that would unite the working class. In their mind the proletariat in Germany for example, had more in common with the proletariat in France and England than they had with the bourgeoisie in their own countries. They believed that the proletariat would refuse to fight. When the proletariat marched off to fight for their individual countries in a great surge of patriotism and nationalistic fervor the Marxists were thoroughly disappointed. They blamed Western culture. The goal of Marxism was to destroy nationalism in the working class. Marxism, in theory, was a movement to unite the proletariat of the world in a classless, and international movement, where borders were irrelevant. Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist who was born in 1891 and died in 1937. He was arrested by Benito Mussolini's regime and sent to prison. While in prison he wrote a series of notes that were compiled into what came to be called the Prison Notebooks. Gramsci is known for his theory of Cultural Hegemony. In his view the bourgeoisie, or middle to upper class capitalists, develop a hegemonic culture using ideology, rather than violence, coercion, or economic force, to maintain the status quo. It propagates it's own values and norms until they become common sense values. This culture is produced and reproduced through institutions that form a societal superstructure. Gramsci realized that it would take the Communists years to destroy the bourgeoisie culture and this effort came to be called the "Long March".

  The Marxists established "think tanks". Sound familiar? These think tanks determined that the only way that economic Marxism could succeed was if western culture was destroyed. So they created cultural Marxism. This is the purpose of political correctness which was created during WW1 and is not a modern creation. They have also taken over our institutions of higher education. This began in 1923 with the creation of the Frankfort school which was founded in 1923 by Carl Grunberg. A group of Marxist professors in the Frankfort school came up with the idea of Critical Theory, where higher education would criticize everything concerning Western culture. This work is more closely associated with Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. The rise of Hitler drove these Communists out of Germany and into the United States during the 1930's They arrived in New York in 1935 and set up shop Columbia University. Over time this has spread to the majority of our institutions of higher learning and they are dominated by Communist professors teaching Cultural Marxism. Our education system on the secondary level has been also been taken over by these people. They realize if they can indoctrinate our youth that will go a long way toward destroying western culture and Marxism will eventually triumph. Herbert Marcuse, one of the members of the Frankfort school and largely responsible for the spread of Marxism in our universities became known as the "Father of the New Left" and inspired political radicals during the 1960's and 70's in the United States and abroad.



Antonio Gramsci

Max Horkheimer on the left
Herbert Marcuse
  Lyndon Baines Johnson had one goal for much of his life, which was to be president of the United States one day. His life's plan was to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He would then master congress and go on to run for the Senate. After being elected to the Senate, and mastering it, the Senate would then be his stepping stone to the White House. LBJ became the youngest member of Congress. He was elected from his Texas district in November 1936 at the age of 28. For his efforts as a New Dealer he became a protege of President Franklin Roosevelt. LBJ also sucked up to fellow Texan Sam Rayburn, who was Speaker of the House. Rayburn was a lifetime bachelor and Lady Bird Johnson cooked many meals for Sam. Rayburn became just another member of the Johnson family. Johnson, under Rayburn's mentoring, soon mastered the House of Representatives and ran for the U.S. Senate in 1948.  In that election Johnson won by a very slender margin of 200 votes. Earning him the nickname "Landslide Lyndon". It is pretty certain that he stole the election by voter fraud. This was done by counting the illegal votes of Mexican migrants, and stealing the ballot box in Precinct 13. Johnson's path to power in mastering the Senate was similar to how he mastered the House. Georgia senator Richard Russell was one of the most powerful senators in the Senate and like Rayburn, he was a bachelor. Russel was soon added to the Johnson family enticed by Lady Birds cooking and a close friendship was fostered between Johnson and Russell.  In my opinion Johnson became the most powerful and persuasive Senator in the history of the United States. 

  So far, so good. Johnson's plan for becoming president was working like a charm until he stumbled, and as it turned out he stumbled badly. Johnson knew that a Southerner hadn't been elected president, since before the Civil War, with the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson, who was originally from the South. As a professor who rose to be president of Princeton University he wasn't considered to be a Southerner, although he was one of most racist presidents in American history. Johnson knew that he had to do something dramatic in the area of Civil Rights in order to have any chance of being elected president. He was primarily responsible for pushing through the 1957 Civil Rights Act. The first civil rights act enacted since reconstruction. The Democratic nomination for president was his to lose in 1960. For some odd reason Johnson acted uninterested in going after the nomination. In reality he wanted to be president more than anything. Yet when his supporters were urging him to throw his hat in the ring he acted like he wasn't interested and was giving mixed signals. Johnson underestimated the up and coming Senator John F. Kennedy who had sought the Vice Presidential spot under Adlai Stevenson at the 1956 Democratic convention. While Johnson was dragging his feet, and being indecisive, Kennedy was securing the support of those delegates that would have probably given their support to Johnson otherwise. When Johnson finally woke up to what was happening it was too late.  



 The election of 1960 was one of the closest in American history. Only 112,000 votes separated Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. In 1960 there were about 180 million people living in America and about 69 million people voted in the election. Kennedy won 49.72% of the vote and Nixon won 49.55% of the vote. Nixon won 219 electoral votes to Kennedy's 303. I am posting these statistics to drive home the fact of how close this election was. There were a string of events that happened that changed the course of history in my view. If they had happened differently America might be a very different country today. We can't know that for sure because it didn't happen but I personally believe that America might be a vastly better country today if Richard Nixon had won this election, or if John Kennedy had lived to serve two full terms as president. Also, I hope to show that the ascension of Lyndon Johnson to the office of the president was the very worst thing that could have happened to this country. 

 An argument can be made that if Richard Nixon had won the presidency in 1960, rather than 1968, we would have seen a less paranoid and eccentric Richard Nixon than we saw in 1968 and 1972. America was a vastly different country in 1960 than it was in 1968. There were only 900 advisers  and support troops in Vietnam and no front line American combat troops. By 1968 there were 500,000 American combat troops in Vietnam. In 1960 there was no War on Poverty, no counterculture to speak of, and no huge shift in America's cultural values. On television there were shows like Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, Hazel, I Love Lucy, Whats My Line, Rawhide, the Rifleman, and Gunsmoke, just to name a few. And the parents on these shows slept in twin beds  About the only shows pushing the envelope back then were Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock but they were very tame compared to T.V. shows today.
LEAVE IT TO BEAVER


RAWHIDE

GUNSMOKE
 Why did Richard Nixon become the paranoid and eccentric man that he would become just eight years later in 1968? First of all I think Richard Nixon, just by his very nature, had a character flaw. Yet events in his life exasperated this flaw, especially between 1960 and 1968. Nixon, like so many of his generation, patriotically served in WW2. Both Nixon and Kennedy were Naval Officers and both served in the Pacific. Kennedy was a decorated war hero and saw much more combat than Nixon. Because of the Great Depression congress had been in the hands of the Democrats until 1946. The Republican's managed to win back both houses of Congress that year. Both Nixon and Kennedy were elected as freshman congressmen. Nixon from California and Kennedy from Massachusetts. Kennedy was considered a moderate to conservative Democrat and Nixon was a moderate to conservative Republican. Both men held very similar beliefs. They both believed in the advancement of civil rights for Black people. Nixon was a lifelong member of the N.A.A.C.P., and they were both Cold warriors and they hated Communism. Kennedy was in favor of steep tax cuts, which when enacted, after his death, would be responsible for one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. In reality Nixon was probably the most liberal of the two. This did not become evident until Nixon was elected president in 1968. As president he would bring about the quota system that we associate with Affirmative Action, wage and price controls, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration, or OSHA, and the Environmental Protection Agency, or what we call the EPA to name a few. Nixon was the first president to visit China and he ended their political isolation from the western world.
Richard Nixon

John Kennedy
 The Left has always hated Richard Nixon and their hatred of him goes all the way back to when he ran for Congress in 1946. And later when he ran for the Senate in 1950. A hard line toward the Communists became a winning issue for the Republicans after WW2. This was because many Americans were waking up to the threat of Communism due to Stalin's imperialistic expansion into Eastern Europe during the late 1940's. The fear of Communism was pretty strong in America. During the 1920's and 30's many on the left were enthralled with the supposed Marxist utopia in the Soviet Union. When Stalin signed the non aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 many on the left began to see Communism for what it was. In 1946 Nixon defeated a five time incumbent Democrat congressman named Jerry Voorhis by implying that he was a Communist sympathizer. Then in 1950 he won the Senate from California by using similar red baiting tactics against Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas. She was a famous actress and opera singer married to the Hollywood actor Melvyn Douglas. Right, or wrong, Nixon was hated by the left, and many in the media, for using these tactics to defeat two popular Democrat candidates. Nixon would become known as a staunch anti Communist and would be directly responsible for successfully prosecuting and convicting a high ranking member of the State Department.  His name was Alger Hiss and he was convicted of perjury in relation to his being a Communist spy. This would also draw the ire of the political left and the media against Nixon. For the rest of his life Nixon would be savaged by the media. Sometimes, however; Nixon was his own worst enemy.
Jerry Voorhis

 Helen Gahagan Douglas


 Because of the fame that came to Richard Nixon as a result of this high profile case and being seen as a staunch anti Communist he was chosen as General Dwight Eisenhower's running mate in the presidential campaign of 1952. In the Fall of 1952 Nixon's political enemies found out about a fund that his supporters had raised to pay for his living expenses during the presidential campaign. There was nothing illegal about it but his detractors were implying that Nixon would owe these supporters favors for their support once he was in office. The political fallout was such that there was talk of replacing Nixon on the ticket. Nixon flew to Los Angeles and delivered a nationwide television address in which he attacked his political enemies. He also explained that he lived a humble existence and was not a rich man. The speech was marked by self pity but he was able to save his spot on the ticket. Eisenhower took a hands off approach and left Nixon to fend for himself. Nixon was given a family dog that was named Checkers. He said in the speech that regardless of the outcome he wasn't giving up the dog. For that reason this speech was derisively called the Checkers speech by his enemies. 
Nixon's Checkers speech


  For the next eight years Nixon became a loyal hard working Vice President for Eisenhower. In my view Eisenhower was a great man, and a good president, but he was not fair to Nixon. Vice Presidents have been used many times, to be the presidents mouthpiece on issues that allows the president to remain above the fray, or to be detached from controversy. The VP can also be a traveling ambassador to foreign countries, acting in the presidents stead, or to convey policy to foreign leaders. Nixon performed his job very well. He and his wife Pat were nearly killed when the limousine they were riding in was surrounded and attacked by an anti-American mob in Venezuela. They were repeatedly spat upon while standing under a balcony at attention during the playing of the U.S. and Venezuelan national anthems. The Nixon's bravely and very stoically endured the abuse.  Eisenhower was much too ambivalent toward Nixon and there was even a question as to whether he would be even be on the ticket in 1956. The president unfairly let Nixon sweat it out until almost the last moment. Just before the 1960 election a reporter asked Eisenhower if he could give an example of a major idea from Nixon that he had heeded. Eisenhower very flippantly answered "If you give me a week, I might think of one." How much this comment hurt Nixon in the 1960 presidential race cannot be measured but Eisenhower was a much respected and popular president. His opinions carried a lot of weight. In my view, regardless of what you might think of Richard Nixon, this was a cruel thing to say about a subordinate who had been as loyal as he had.
The attack on the Nixon's car in Venezuela

  The only things that John Kennedy and Barack Obama might have in common is that both accomplished very little during their time in the U.S. Senate prior to becoming president. Both of them prepared for the presidency by writing books. Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage were written by Kennedy. Dreams From my Father and the Audacity of Hope were written by Obama. That is about all they had in common with each other. The reason I bring Obama's name into the picture at this point is to help illustrate how vastly different that the Democrat Party was then, and what it is today. Kennedy's generation was molded and shaped by the trauma and hardship of both the Depression and WW2. Although the Kennedy's maintained their wealth, while others suffered during the depression, they had to be conscious of the suffering around them. Kennedy had lost a brother in the war and he was nearly killed himself. This generation was deeply scarred by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and they were determined to prevent future Pearl Harbor's. Kennedy's book Why England Slept dealt with the subject of how the tragedy of WW2 came about. It was a warning for future generations of Americans. Profiles in courage dealt with examples of Americans who displayed personal and political courage in American history.



  By contrast Obama's Dreams From My Father is a self loathing book that glorifies a father who abandoned him and his mother when he was two. His father was a Communist and an alcoholic. The title of his book, The Audacity of Hope, comes from his pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright, who god damned America from the pulpit, said that September 11th was the chickens coming home to roost for America, and spread the Marxist and racist ideology of Black Liberation Theology. Kennedy was a staunch anti communist and Obama was a Communist. Kennedy was a Cold warrior and Obama was an appeaser. Especially of radical Islam, and everyone else for that matter. Kennedy built up our military, the last Democrat president to do so, and Obama allowed our military to deteriorate. Kennedy vowed to "bear any price and bear any burden" to support our friends. Obama turned his back on our friends and gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative and Obama was a believer in the welfare state. Kennedy said " Ask not, what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". Most Democrats today would never come close to saying anything like that. Their message today is that America is the bad guy and must pay for it's sins.


 One of the things Kennedy did do while in the Senate was to serve on the McClellan committee that was investigating organized crime. His brother Robert served as an advisor. This was one of the reasons that the Kennedy's came to be loathed by mob bosses such as Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante Jr., and Carlos Marcello. They liked their father Joseph Kennedy Sr. who worked closely with them during prohibition, smuggling foreign alcohol into the country, but they detested his boys. Joseph did not let the mobs hatred of his sons get in the way of his asking Giancana for a favor. With the help of Frank Sinatra acting as a go between, Giancana agreed to help get John elected. Only if Joseph agreed to keep John and Robert on a tight leash.

The mainstream media in 1960 was not as blatantly left wing as it is today but it did lean toward the Democrat Party. If it is possible, Kennedy was even more promiscuous than Bill Clinton, but not by much. To his credit I am not aware that he ever forced himself on women or violently rape them as Clinton did. All John ever really aspired to be was to be a rich playboy. Joseph Sr. was the one who made the family fortune and he badly wanted to be president. He destroyed his political future by appeasing Hitler while he was the United States ambassador to England in the late 1930's. Joseph then put Plan B into effect. He began grooming his oldest son Joseph Jr. to become president. His plan was thwarted when Joe Jr., a Navy pilot, was killed flying a bomber on a suicide mission over the English channel during WW2. Joe Sr was not deterred. John would became the heir apparent in his scheme to place a Kennedy in the White House.

  Joseph Sr. was a certifiable scumbag who ruled his large family with an iron fist. The press of the day knew about John's philandering and the sins of his father. I have heard reporters of the period say that there was an unwritten rule that reporters didn't expose sexual indiscretions of politicians back then. Regardless of this, I have to believe that if Nixon had been a philanderer like Kennedy, or had a father like him, reporters would have savaged Nixon because of their hatred for him. If my memory serves me it was probably during the late 1960's and early 70's when we began to learn the truth about John Kennedy. When Kennedy died he became a sainted American martyr that could do no wrong. If people had known in 1962 that Kennedy had mafia mistresses, was sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, and was bringing prostitutes into the White House he would have been impeached. Having said that, as a Conservative today. Kennedy was the last Democrat that I could have voted for with a clear conscience.

 There are some valid reasons why Nixon lost the election in 1960. First, the nation was experiencing a downturn in the economy and Nixon made the mistake of campaigning in all fifty states rather than in the key battleground states like Trump did in 2016. On the other hand Kennedy had some unfair advantages. The mob helped him win the Democrat primary in West Virginia due to the heavy influence of the United Mine Workers Union there. Kennedy was Catholic and won in a traditionally protestant stronghold. In the general election Giancana helped Kennedy win the vote in Chicago and Illinois. A lot of dead people voted in that one I am sure. Kennedy also got a lot of help from Don Hewitt. The same Don Hewitt who later became the producer of CBS's 60 minutes and pulled Bill Clinton's butt out of the fire in the 1992. Hewitt edited an interview that he did with Bill and Hillary that aired just before the Super Bowl in 1992, when viewership was guaranteed to be way up. Bill was slipping in the polls after Gennifer Flowers revealed her 12 year affair with Bill. Hewitt's editing and Hillary's stand by her man routine saved both her and her husbands political futures. Hewitt can be seen on video bragging about saving Clinton.
The Clinton's Stand By Her Man interview on 60 Minutes
  As a much younger man Hewitt was in charge of the camera crews during the first Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960. They were the first televised presidential debates in history.  Nixon had recently been released from the hospital because he had developed a serious leg infection due to a leg injury he sustained. He had campaigned right up to the time of the debate and Kennedy was rested after taking several days off from campaigning. To make matters worse he accidentally re injured his sore leg as he was exiting his car to go inside for the debate. Both men refused make-up but Kennedy appeared healthy and tanned from campaigning in the sun. In actuality much of the tan look was from the effects of Kennedy's Addison's disease and his treatment for it. Nixon also had a heavy beard and had 5 o'clock shadow. Hewitt took advantage of Nixon's weakened condition.  Nixon was gaunt, pale and 20 pounds lighter as a result of his illness and appeared exhausted. Kennedy looked straight into the camera as he talked and Nixon was looking toward nearby reporters, which made him appear shifty. Hewitt did everything he could to make Nixon look bad on camera and to make Kennedy look good. In substance both men performed well. People who heard Nixon on the radio declared him the winner but people who saw the debate on television declared Kennedy the winner for the most part. Although Nixon came off much better in the final three debates, the damage had been done.
Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes

The first Kennedy-Nixon debate

   America and Western culture is at war. Most of us probably don't realize it but we are. Christian's can trace the wars origins all the way back to when Lucifer, along with a third of his fellow angels, were cast out of heaven down to their kingdom here on earth. The Bible reveals to us that Christ wins this war in the end. Evil will be vanquished for all eternity. The war between Marxism and Democracy can be traced to Georg Hegel and to Karl Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Regardless of whether we acknowledge it we are at war, like it or not. America, and the western world is not only at war with Communism but with Islam. Like Communism, they will not be satisfied until the entire world is conquered. Islam has been a threat for much longer than the Communists but again far too many in the west are not awake to this fact. Unlike the war between good and evil in the spiritual world we don't know how these wars will end in the physical world. So far both of these religions are winning. Most people don't think of Communism as a religion but it is. The god that they worship is man. As far as the Muslims, they are only making progress in this country because the Communists have allowed Islam to spread. They encourage Islam's spread only because it helps to undermine free market capitalism and they hate conservatives worse than they hate Islam. What they fail to take into consideration is that when, or if Islam conquers, they will decapitate the Communists first.

Ilhan Omar



  As in all wars there are turning points. In our revolution there was the Declaration of Independence, the battles of Trenton, Saratoga and Yorktown. The Civil War had it's, Antietam, the Emancipation Proclamation, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and the fall of Atlanta. WW2 had it's Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, the battle of Stalingrad, and the invasion of Normandy. This ideological cold war that we are in right now is of a much longer duration. For our purposes it can be traced back to the Progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900's. Some turning points could be the election of Woodrow Wilson, the passage of the 16th Amendment creating the income tax, the Depression, the election of Franklin Roosevelt, the Frankfurt Marxist school being established in America at Columbia University, the defeat of Richard Nixon, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the ascension of Lyndon Johnson to the presidency, the defeat of Goldwater and the election of Barack Obama. If the Communists prevail in this war historians one day can point to these turning points in the war to destroy America. The irony of it all is that we thought we were safe once the Soviet Union fell. We did win a great victory over them but the real threat to America wasn't the Soviet Union. It was the insidious spread of western European Communism in the form of cultural Marxism that has undermined American society since the 1960's.

   For me, 1963 was a turning point in my life and the life of the country. The year 1963 began with a personal tragedy and ended with national tragedies. On January 16, 1963 my parents died as the result of a murder-suicide and on November 22, 1963 Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas. Two  tragedies occurred that day. Kennedy died and Lyndon Johnson replaced him as president. I am convinced by the historical evidence that Kennedy had no intention of escalating the war in Vietnam. It is my belief that it was his intention to continue to back Vietnam with American advisers and military equipment but he had no intention of taking over combat operations from the Vietnamese. When Kennedy died there were only 22,000 American advisers and support troops. Five years later, in 1968, there were over 500,000. Johnson not only fought a hot war in Vietnam, he was fighting a war against poverty. He admired Franklin Roosevelt and because of his gigantic ego wanted to top Roosevelt's New Deal. The big difference is that Roosevelt was dealing with a financial depression and Johnson wasn't.

  Statistics show that the War on Poverty was an unmitigated failure. The unintended consequences of it has been the weakening of the American family structure. His policies created a lifelong and generational welfare class. Because of such programs as Aid To Dependent Children and other welfare programs he enabled poor women to get by on their own without the benefit of marriage. It became profitable to have children out of wedlock. By 1966 25% of Black mothers were having children out of wedlock and no fathers living at home. Today this number has risen to over 70% and White families are where Black families were in 1966. Because of the societal problems caused by Johnson's wars the Communists were able to exploit the turmoil of the 1960's. Remember, they never let a crisis go to waste.
My parents funeral

The Kennedy assassination

The swearing in of Lyndon Johnson
  Because of the unpopularity of the war in Vietnam we saw the emergence of the counterculture movement or Hippie movement. Although there were serious problems in society such as racism and sexual discrimination, the Hippie movement seemed to be youthful rebellion for the sake of rebellion. There is no doubt in my mind now, knowing what I know about the Frankfort Marxist School, that much of this was Communist inspired. Communist professors had been spreading their poison in our universities since the 1930's. Were most Hippies Communist? No, but they were at the very least useful idiots exploited by the true believers. The Hippie movement finished the job that Johnson had started, which was sowing the seeds for the further destruction of the family by espousing wholesale drug use and promoting sexual promiscuity. Drug use has done much damage to the American family since the late 1960's and early 1970's.

 I graduated from high school in 1968 but did not know anyone who used drugs. There were plenty of people who drank but I never knew anyone who used marijuana or drugs of any kind. You would be hard pressed today to find a public school student who can say that. At least that was the way it was in the South. It is safe to say that drug use became general in the 1970's. Many soldiers returning from Vietnam were hooked on hard drugs and this added to the drug epidemic. The invention of the birth control pill in the early 1960's made it possible for people to engage more often in recreational sex without the worry of pregnancy. This, combined with the counterculture movement further undermined the family. By the 1970's traditional marriage was decreasing in popularity. Today it is safe to say that as many people are living together as are married.  The radical feminist movement also came of age during this time and has become a male hating orgy that has emasculated men and confused the sexes as to their proper role in society. The aim of cultural Marxism is to destroy the family, religion, traditions, private property, and free market capitalism.






  Lyndon Johnson was doing a pretty good job of putting America on the road to overwhelming debt in the 1960's. He did this by escalating the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. Two cultural Marxist professors from Columbia university, however; published an essay in the leftist magazine The Nation. The year was 1966 and the name of the essay was "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". They were Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Pivens who would eventually marry and be together until Clowards death in 2001. Their strategy was brutally simple. Overload the public welfare system at the state and local levels to precipitate a debt crisis that would plunge America even further into poverty. The Federal government would have no choice but to activate and implement a guaranteed minimum income level for every American.

 They wrote "The ultimate objective of this strategy-to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income-will be questioned by some, because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income" Piven pushed for a voter-registration strategy to "radicalize the Democratic Party and polarize the country along class lines" This would be done through collaboration with a community organizing ally called the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN. The Cloward-Piven strategy has been very successful. Beginning with Johnson's War on Poverty until 1974 the number of welfare recipients grew from 4.3 million to 10.8 million. Today, at least 100 million Americans collect a check from the Federal government of some kind or the other which costs the taxpayers at least one trillion dollars a year. 

The Community Organizer in Chief, Barack Obama, was closely associated with Acorn. There is no doubt in my mind that Obamacare is tied in with the Coward-Piven strategy. It has added to the overwhelming debt that America has at the moment. The ultimate goal of Obamacare is to crash our health care system and replace it with a single payer health care system totally operated by the Federal government. Because of Obamacare we have seen health care costs skyrocket. The Cloward-Piven strategy is one reason that the Democrats do not want a wall along our southern border. The more illegals that they can bring across the border works to their advantage. They ultimately represent votes for the Democrat Party and more people that can be placed on our welfare roles which moves the welfare system closer to collapse. What the Democrat candidates for president today are pushing for is the ultimate accomplishment of the Cloward-Piven strategy which in essence is replacing the capitalist system with a Communist system.
Frances Pivens standing next to her husband Richard Cloward

  I once owned a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals but I loaned it to a friend and I will probably never see it again. One of the things that jumped out at me when I read the book was his account of the time just after the 1968 Chicago riots when the radicals tried to take over the Democrat Party. They were using antifa style violence as their tactic, clashing with the Chicago police but they got the worst of it. Mayor Daly's Chicago PD, wasn't afraid to knock heads back then. The leftist thugs leading the riots came to Alinsky for advice on how to proceed in the future. Since I don't own the book anymore I am paraphrasing his response. He basically told them that they had three options. They could all have a pity party, lead a violent revolution and be killed, or cut their hair, take a bath, put on dresses, ties and suits. Change the system from within. This is exactly what they did. By 1972 the radicals had fundamentally changed the Democrat party. They ran the left wing anti-war candidate George McGovern. America itself wasn't fundamentally changed, however; and McGovern was defeated by Richard Nixon in the 4th largest landslide in American history. McGovern lost 49 out of 50 states in the electoral college. He lost every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. I was a Democrat then but McGovern was too far to the left even for me. That was the first presidential election that I was old enough to vote in and I voted for Nixon. 




  The reason Alinski's advice to the radicals after the Chicago riots impacted me so much was because I had suspected that the same radicals who fought for control of the Democrat Party in the streets in 1968 were the same people that had steered the party to the left in 1972. Even as a Democrat I had suspected it. Alinsky's account in Rules For Radicals convinced me that I was right. I was a John F. Kennedy, or Henry (Scoop) Jackson kind of Democrat. Just a little right of center in my political opinions. A few years before I read Alinsky's book I read a book called Bill & Hillary: The Marriage. I wish every American could read this book. It is a very revealing look into the sinister lives of these two evil people who were made in hell for each other. In the book it explains how after Bill was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978 for his first two year term, Bill & Hillary displayed their radical nature a little too much for culturally and politically conservative Arkansas. Bill wore long hair and had a staff around him that was also radical in thought, as well as appearance. Hillary refused to take Bills last name in marriage and went by her maiden name of Hillary Rodham. Her true radical feminist nature was displayed by her appearance. She refused to wear make-up, wore thick wire rimmed glasses and wore headbands. Dolly Kyle Browning stated during this period that she stunk to high heaven. As a result Bill was defeated by a Republican businessman in 1980. 

 From 1980 until 1982 the Clinston's underwent a makeover that was Alinsky 101. Bill cut his hair and tried to appear more mainstream. Although the gospel never seemed to have had much of an impact on Bill, to his credit he had always attended church. This time, however; he began attending one of the largest Baptist churches in Little Rock, that televised it's Sunday morning services. His seat in the choir was strategically located where he could always be seen on camera. In newscasts he was always seen carrying his Bible when leaving church. He also did this a lot as president. Hillary began wearing dresses, put on make-up, changed her glasses for contacts, threw away her headbands, and became Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Whether she began bathing or not, I don't know. Browning said that as long as she was around her she always had a bad smell. Alinsky's makeover worked. Bill was elected governor in 1982 and remained in office until he was elected president in 1992.

Hillary praying
  Alinsky's book, Rules For Radicals, was the common mans book modeled after (The Prince) which was written by  Niccol√≤ Machiavelli. The Prince was written as instruction for those who were already in power to keep and hold on to power. Alinsky divided people into two categories. The Haves and Have Not's. Rules for Radicals was instruction for the Have Not's to gain power and to hold on to it. The ultimate goal of both books is immoral in my view. In essence both Machiavelli and Alinsky are teaching people that the ends justify the means. If you have to lie, cheat, steal, be honest, threaten, or kill to attain power and to hold on to power then you use whatever tactic is necessary. In fairness to Alinsky I don't remember that his book advocated killing anyone but you get the picture. Since Alinsky learned much of his skills from the mob I don't think killing would be that big of a jump for him. 

  In 1972 Alinsky agreed to a Playboy interview. Reading the interview was disturbing for me. It was almost as if satan himself was talking. When the character of satan is being described in the Bible you realize that satan never hits you with a straight out lie. The way he deceives is by mixing truth with error. Such as Jesus when he encounter satan during his 40 days in the wilderness. The definition of sin is transgression of the law. Sin is rebellion against God. Lucifer was the greatest of all rebels. Being raised in an Orthodox Jewish household Alinsky, like satan, knew the law. Alinsky is proud of his rebellious nature from an early age. In the forward part of his book Rules For Radicals he expresses his admiration for satans rebellion by stating "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very "from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), 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".

 In the Playboy interview he says "better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n" has provided a rallying cry for generations of revolutionaries. Then he ends the interview this way. ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell. PLAYBOY: Why? ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there. PLAYBOY: Why them? ALINSKY: They're my kind of people. Alinsky didn't realize how close he was to fulfillment of his dream. He died of a massive heart attack the same year this interview was done.

  In the 1972 Playboy interview Alinsky talks about his early life and how he became a community organizer. In my view Alinsky had some some serious issues with a father who was detached and uncaring. This might explain a lot about why he turned out to be so dysfunctional. As a college student in Chicago, during the depression, he talks about sitting in a cafeteria one day as he was finishing his meal when a light bulb came on in his head. He claimed that he was raised poor and barely had enough to eat while going to college. Alinsky was sitting over in a back corner of the room and came up with the idea to move over to a table near the cashier. Holding a cup of coffee he struck up a conversation with the cashier so it would look like coffee was all that he had. When he got up to pay he hid his ticket and told the cashier that he had lost it. Thinking that he only had a cup of coffee the cashier only charged him a nickel. Alinsky kept the ticket for the cup of coffee and for his next meal went into another cafeteria, in a different part of town that was part of the same chain, and ordered a huge meal. Again he ate in a back corner of the cafeteria out of sight. When he got up to pay he handed the cashier the ticket for a cup of coffee.

 Excited about how easy it was to steal a meal he posted a notice on the bulletin board back at the university. Alinsky called for a meeting on the subject of how to eat for free. Some students thought it was a joke but they showed up anyway. Alinsky pulled out a map of the various cafeterias in the area that were part of the same chain. He divided the students up into teams and sent them to cafeterias all over the area at coordinated times using the same technique that he had used. They were able to get away with it for six months. Apparently the cafeterias finally wised up and changed their payment system ending Alinsky's free ride. When the Playboy interviewer asked if he had any moral qualms about stealing he replied that stealing is justified when you are hungry. A typical use of moral relevance by the left to justify wrongdoing. This was Alinsky's first foray into community organizing. 
Saul Alinsky
  Alinsky decided to do his doctoral dissertation on the Capone mob from the inside. At first he approached mobsters directly asking if he could follow them around getting firsthand information for his thesis. Alinsky was rudely rejected until one day he managed to befriend a famous hit man. In no time he was in good with Frank Nitti who was Al Capones chief enforcer and his number two man in the organization. Since Capone was serving time in Federal prison for income tax evasion, Nitti was the defacto leader of the Chicago mob. Alinsky learned the ins and outs of the business. Prostitution, illegal gambling, illegal booze and the businesses that were run as legal fronts by the mob. On one occasion he was looking over the mobs account books  and noticed where they had hired an out of town hit man from St. Louis for 7,500 dollars. Alinsky asked Nitti why they would pay that much for a hit man when he had at least 20 living in Chicago. Nitti patiently explained that local hit men might have to kill someone who they knew personally. In other words someone that they had gotten drunk with, had taken their kid to a ballgame or had socialized with their families. An outside hit man had no personal connection to their victims.

  Alinsky told Playboy .” I think Frank was a little disappointed by my even questioning the practice; he must have thought I was a bit callous". PLAYBOY: Didn’t you have any compunction about consorting with — if not actually assisting — murderers? ALINSKY: None at all, since there was nothing I could do to stop them from murdering, practically all of which was done inside the family. I was a nonparticipating observer in their professional activities, although I joined their social life of food, drink and women: Boy, I sure participated in that side of things -- it was heaven. And let me tell you something, I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing.
Frank Nitti

Frank Nitti dead
   Hillary Clinton was an admirer of Alinsky and wrote a 92 page thesis at Wellesley college entitled "'There Is Only the Fight ...': An Analysis of the Alinsky Model," Hillary had this thesis blocked from public access until after the Clinton's left the White House at her request. Hillary and Alinsky corresponded until Alinsky's death in 1972. Alinsky even offered her a job because as he himself stated, toward the end of Rules For Radicals "she had the right pedigree". Hillary was from the bourgeoisie, or middle class. That was what he meant as having the right pedigree. The dictionary defines the bourgeosie as the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes. In Marxist terms the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production. Alinsky stated "In the coming decades, radical organizers will focus their attention on "America's white middle class. That is where the power is." The radicals have made great inroads into undermining the middle class since 1972. This is why America has changed for the worse in my view. Hillary was perfect for the role of undermining the White middle class culture in his eyes. Alinsky and Hillary had a basic disagreement. She wanted to work from within the American political system to bring about change and Alinsky didn't. Hillary decided to go to Yale law school where she met Bill and went on to become a lawyer working for a left wing California law firm that represented Vietnam war protestors, the Black Panthers and other radical groups. This is the woman but for the grace of God, and Donald Trump, that almost became president.
Cover sheet for Hillary's Alinsky thesis

The middle class Hillary

Hillary, center at a student protest

Hillary, the Alinsky radical
18 The following are Alinsky's 13 rules for radicals.

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
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 enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Saul Alinsky, as far as I know, always denied that he was a Communist but never denied that he was a socialist. As far as I am concerned there is no difference. These rules can and have been used successfully by Conservatives against the left. On college campuses, Hollywood, the media, and certain areas of the country a Conservative is the radical. If you stand on Bible principles, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you are a radical. The left never identifies themselves as extreme left wing but if you stand on these principles they describe you as extreme right wing. This is how far that we have drifted from our founding principles. In my view it is okay to use these tactics to fight the left as long as your goal is to preserve the founding principles of our country. 

I will not deal with every Alinsky rule but I will highlight a few of them. RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Whenever I read this rule I think of Robert E. Lee and George McClellan during the Civil War. McClellan was beaten before he ever started whenever he went up against Lee. McClellan always greatly outnumbered Lee but McClellan was convinced that he was the one outnumbered. Lee was in his head from the start. If McClellan had been Grant, the war could have been over as much as two years earlier than it was. One of the things that Conservatives have to do is realize that we still have the numbers on our side. The demographics are changing because of the indoctrination that our children are receiving in the Beast, our Communist universities, and the image of the Beast, our public schools.

 It is also changing due to the influx of illegal immigrants and migratory patterns of leftists from failing states like California to the red states like Texas for example.We may only have a generation before we become the minority. Right now, contrary to what the media and others might tell you Conservatives outnumber the left by a lot. We were McClellan for too long, and the left is Lee. Conservatism is winning now because Trump is our Grant. He is not intimidated by the noise coming from the left, or their fruitless maneuvers. We must not be intimidated by these people and realize that we are the power because we are the people. Never forget that Trump won in spite of the media, the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, Hollywood, and the deep state being arrayed against him. You and I put him in power and we are the power in this country. Trump is like Theodore Roosevelt in one respect. Roosevelt said that as long as he stood by the people, the people would stand by him. We stand with Trump because he has stood with us.


RULE # 4 - Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules -

 This is one of Alinsky's rules that we can easily use against the Democrats. On October 7, 2016 the Access Hollywood tape was released by the Washington Post. It revealed an extremely lewd conversation that Trump had with Billy Bush in 2005. Eleven years before the 2016 presidential campaign. Trumps words were indefensible.  I have never had a conversation in private or in public like the one Trump had because I have more respect for women than that. In my view there are many men like myself that haven't had these kind of conversations. Most men, however; if we are honest, have all heard this kind of talk at some point in our lives. We call it locker room talk. Some men like to brag on or embellish their sex lives. Trump at first denied the Access Hollywood story. He once told a friend “You’ve got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women, if you admit to anything and any culpability, then you’re dead. … You’ve got to be strong. You’ve got to be aggressive. You’ve got to push back hard. You’ve got to deny anything that’s said about you. Never admit.”

 Bill Clinton can be heard on audio tapes saying virtually the same thing to Gennifer Flowers. Clinton can be heard telling Flowers to “hang tough” and deny any involvement. On another occasion he can be heard saying "If they ever hit you with it just say 'no' and go on, there's nothing they can do". Later in the same call he says "I just think that if everybody's on record denying it you've got no problem". " if everybody kinda hangs tough, they're just not going to do anything. They can't". Then he says "They can't run a story like this unless somebody said, 'Yeah, I did it with him." Rather than cave to calls for his withdrawal from the campaign Trump counterattacked the Clinton's by correctly stating that both Bill and Hillary were guilty of even worse behavior. Clinton sexually harassed women, even raping one, while Hillary defended his behavior.
Gennifer Flowers
 Trump was already slipping in the polls because of his bad performance against Hillary in their first debate. Many of Trumps advisers and other Republicans were advising that Trump step down for the good of the party and let someone else run that could win in November. Just about any other Republican would have caved under this kind of pressure but not Trump. Two days after the release of the Access Hollywood tape on October 9th, in true Alinsky fashion, he arranged a news conference. Three of Bill Clinton's victims were in attendance, along with the woman, who as a young girl of 12 had been raped by a man named Thomas Taylor. Hillary Clinton, who was his defense attorney, can be heard on tape in the 1980's laughing as she recounts how she was able to plea the man down. Because of her he only served one year in prison. This same Hillary Clinton who claims to be the great defender of women. The women in attendance at the news conference were Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathy Shelton. These women were in the audience during the debate and the looks on Bill and Hillary's faces were priceless.


  Whether or not Trump was even thinking about Alinsky when he did this is not important. Trump was exposing the fact that the Democrats do not live up to their own rules. The Democrats are the self proclaimed defender of women, Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, and pretty much all minorities. That is as long as these minorities side with them. Once you stray from the Democrat plantation they release the dogs on you. Women become bimbos, whores and sluts. Remember this famous quote from James Carville when he was talking about Paula Jones? "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find". Or Betsy Wright, who coined the term "Bimbo eruptions" during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. According to Black Conservatives like Larry Elder and Candace Owens they are called niggers, house niggers, coons, Uncle Tom's, and boot lickers by other Blacks in the Democrat Party for having the audacity to think for themselves. Conservative homosexuals get the same treatment. If Democrats were living up to their own rules they would celebrate diversity of thought among minorities and defend their right to be different. This is why we love Trump in spite of his many flaws. Do you know how many times I have shook my fist in frustration  at the T.V.  or radio, when some milk toast Republican is being charged with some sin, that he may or may not have committed? I want them to fight back and point out the Democrat sins rather than balling up in a fetal position or retreating at the first sign of trouble. We love Trump because he is a fighter and he gives them a good dose of their own medicine. We cannot win any other way and this is the very reason that Democrats do not have a clue how to defeat him.
James Carville

19-  RULE # 5 - “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

This is one of Alinsky's tactics that is used constantly by the left. For years Conservatives have been called racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, nativist, bigots, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and every pejorative word, or name, that you can think of. Sadly, this tactic has been far too successful. This is one reason that we don't see Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats, placing bumper stickers on their cars, placing signs in their yard or making any outward sign of support for Trump. People do not want to be called these ugly names. That, and the fact that they don't want to be confronted by some antifa type thug, or have their homes and vehicles vandalized. Alinsky is wrong, however; there is a defense against rule # 5. As Conservatives we must grow a spine. Do our homework and stand our ground when confronted by the name calling. This is one of the big reasons why Trump followers are so loyal. He doesn't care what they call him and he fights back. Trump is not like establishment Republican's who melt at the first sign of adversity. Confidence in knowing who you really are and having the knowledge to counter their lies. This is the key to winning.  Humor, is also a good defense mechanism. Lincoln and Reagan were masters of humor and knew how to use it as an offensive weapon and a defensive shield. Personally, Trump cracks me up in the way he goes after his enemies.  I love his twitter posts and his debate tactics. This is why the left is totally baffled by him and do not know how to defeat him. He is not your typical Republican and the last thing bullies want or expect is someone who will stand up to them.


The casualty of name calling by the left has been the truth. There are actual bad people in this world. People who mistreat, Blacks, women, homosexuals, immigrants, and people of the Islamic, or Jewish faith. Because the left has so abused and overused these terms the average person has become desensitized to them. People just roll their eyes now when they hear these words. It is like the story of the boy who cried wolf so many times that nobody believed him when the real wolf showed up at the door. It makes you wonder what the real motives are of the people that throw these words around so flippantly. As a mall security officer I have been called a racist by thieves more times than you can count. I never get involved with anyone, regardless of race, unless that person has done something that warrants my suspicion. In other words I don't dance until I hear music. Calling me, or one of my officers a racist is a ploy used to distract us from the business at hand. They hope that it will intimidate us enough that we will quit watching or following them. White thieves do not have this luxury. The left uses these terms for the same reason. They do it to silence us or to end debate. Far too many on the right have been intimidated by these tactics and that is another reason that we lose when we don't have to.


Rule # 8: Keep the pressure on.

Rule # 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

 These Alinsky rules for radicals are very similar. Have you ever noticed how pressure from the left never stops? The left is like the Hollywood villains Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees from the horror movies Halloween and Friday the 13th. Every time that you think the monster is dead he comes back to life. Their attacks on the good guys are frustrating, relentless and seemingly endless. The left is like the Energizer Bunny, except for the fact that the bunny is funny, unlike the left. Every time that you turn on the news the left is attacking everything that that we hold dear. Things like family, marriage, the flag, our country, Christmas and holidays in general. Our 1st Amendment rights are under attack such as freedom of religion and speech. They use every opportunity to attack our 2nd Amendment rights. The left never fails to exploit a tragedy involving guns as long as it fits into their narrative. Finally, they are trying to eradicate our history. The left attacks the historical figures that we have been taught to venerate and destroy their monuments. The Communist term is cultural cleansing.



  No president in American history has been more hated, Lincoln excepted, more than Donald Trump. Although Trump is the most hated political figure of my lifetime all Republican or Conservative politicians are berated and attacked such as Nixon, Reagan, the Bush's. The character of our Supreme Court justice nominees such as Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh are routinely attacked. Although Nixon, the Bush's, Dole, McCain and Romney turned out to be establishment Republicans, once they became a threat to the left by obtaining power, or staying in power, the left turned on them. 

  In Trump's case he has been charged with one sin after another. Russian collusion in order to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Their investigation lasted 2.5 years and wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer money only to come up empty handed. This whole attempt to remove Trump is a deep state coup attempt by the left to remove a legitimately elected president. According to the left Trump is a racist. He is a racist because he wants to build a wall on our southern border in order to keep criminals out,  stem the flow of illegals, disease, and drugs into this country. In other words he wants to protect American sovereignty. According to the left his racism instigates violence. In their eyes Trump was the cause of a young girls death in Charlottesville and he also caused the massacre of Black church goers in Charleston. In their eyes he is an anti- semite causing the deaths of Jewish temple goers in Pittsburgh who were killed by a White supremacist which fits the lefts narrative. Trump is a racist and xenophobe because he said that treasonous people like Ilhan Omar and the so called squad should go back to where they come from. Probably a poor choice of words but their actions speak louder than words that they care very little for the America that we care for. I think it is verifiable that Trump has done more to help minorities than any president in modern history. An anti-Semite doesn't place the American embassy in Jerusalem, something that no other president has had the courage to do. Trump has also established warm friendship with Israel and has a Jewish son-in-law along with Jewish grandchildren. 
The American embassy ceremony



  They have threatened Trump with impeachment since two days after he was elected and are now following through with the process. Simply because they lost an election and refuse to accept the results of that election. It really wouldn't have mattered who won in 2016 on the Republican side, because they would not have accepted the results. Trump has turned the tables on them. is their worst nightmare because he is their Michael Meyers and Jason Voorhee's. They can't kill him. In order to defeat these obnoxious people we must be as diligent and persistent as they are. We should never cease to be on the attack. Our attack is strongest and can bear fruit because we have the truth on our side. They don't.
Adam Schiff & Donald Trump

Rule# 9 The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

  This Alinsky rule is used against us with devastating results. I shake my head in wonder sometimes at how many times we cave on our principles at the first sign of trouble. Someone complains and a school system, business or some other institution will back down without a fight. Nathan Bedford Forrest used this tactic very effectively in the Civil War. In spite of the fact that he was usually outnumbered he would win by bluffing his opponent into surrendering. Forrest, under a flag of truce, would threaten to kill everyone if they didn't surrender. A radio station in Cleveland Ohio pulled the Christmas song Baby, It's Cold Outside from it's play list because a handful of people complained that the lyrics were at odds with the #Me Too movement. To me the lyrics have nothing to do with the issues expressed by the #Me Too movement. The song was released in 1944 and the lyrics go like this.


I really can't stay (Baby it's cold outside)


I gotta go away (Baby it's cold outside)


This evening has been (Been hoping that you'd dropped in)


So very nice (I'll hold your hands they're just like ice)


My mother will start to worry (Beautiful what's your hurry?)


My father will be pacing the floor (Listen to the fireplace roar)


So really I'd better scurry (Beautiful please don't hurry)


Well maybe just a half a drink more (I'll put some records on while I pour)


The neighbors might think (Baby it's bad out there)


Say what's in this drink? (No cabs to be had out there)


I wish I knew how (Your eyes are like starlight now)


To break this spell (I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell) (Why thank you)


I ought to say no, no, no sir (Mind if move in closer?)


 The only thing that I can see that could possibly be offensive is "Say what's in this drink?" but I don't think the author was thinking like people do today when a drink is drugged in order to rape them. The guy in the song is not intended to be Bill Cosby and I think that the song is innocuous. There are many songs that offend me but I don't demand that they be taken off of the air. This stupidity has spread across the country. Now it is rare if you even hear this song, which is one of my favorites. If this stationed had stood their ground and ignored the complainers they would have eventually moved on to something else.


We see this kind of thing in the controversy over the name for the Washington Redskins football team A few Snowflakes complained that the name Redskins is racist and the team should change its name. The owner of the Redskins has adamantly stood his ground and the team is still called the Redskins. Truth be known it was a bunch of White leftists wanting the name change. A 2016 poll revealed that 9 out of 10 American Indians were not offended by the Redskins name. We have seen Trump hit with everything but the kitchen sink but he has had the courage to weather the storm. This is why Republicans and Conservatives like myself like him so much. He doesn't fold like a cheap suit.

 When institutions and people are afraid to stand their ground many more people are offended in the long run than the original handful that were offended. For example I quit watching the NFL after they allowed players to disrespect the National anthem and I have no more use for the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts resisted allowing homosexual Scout leaders into the organization and they did fine until leftists changed it from within. Now the Boy Scouts are unrecognizable.Nothing like the Boy Scouts that I belonged to.The names of schools are being changed, streets are being changed and monuments are coming down all in the name of political correctness. Many in our society have no spine to resist. This is because they perceive that the threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. If we want to win we must have courage to resist. We have truth and the people on our side and that is always a winning combination.

23 Rule # 11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

  Regardless of what we think about Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest he was undeniably a military genius. Forrest was illiterate and had the equivalent of a 2nd grade education but he defeated a multitude of West Point educated officers in battle. Sherman called him " that devil Forrest" and because of the slaughter of Black soldiers at Fort Pillow, Forrest's murky involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, he is the Devil to many American's. Some of us conveniently overlook the fact that Sherman was as much of a racist as Forrest. Maybe even more so. At least Forrest allowed Blacks to serve in his army. Sherman kept Blacks in the rear with the gear as they might have said in Vietnam. Blacks in Sherman's army were relegated to manual labor and guarding rear area stockades. Sherman had no confidence in their fighting abilities.

  One of the reasons that Forrest was so successful is that he never waited around to defend a position. He was always on the attack because he believed in the element of surprise. If Forrest was attacked he immediately counterattacked even if he was the one caught by surprise. Forrest learned this concept as a young boy riding through the woods near his home in Chapel Hill Tennessee.  A pack of wild dogs attacked him causing his horse to rear up. He was thrown to the ground right in the middle of the pack causing them to scatter in fright. This experience taught him to always do the unexpected. George S. Patton must have studied Forrest because he also used these tactics in battle. He said "Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more".



  The thing that drives me crazy about Republicans and Conservatives is that too many of us are always playing defense. The Democrats are always on offense. They accuse us of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, and hating the poor. I am trying to break the habit of everytime I talk about a minority group I start the conversation by saying I am not racist but, or I am not sexist but. We need to quit apologizing. Republican's and Conservatives apologize way too much. We are not the guilty ones. They project their own sins upon us.When Bush 41, and Bush 43 were presidents they never even tried to defend themselves much less go on the attack. This attitude always drove me crazy. Somehow they found their voice after Trump was elected and didn't mind attacking him every chance they got. They became great buddies with the Clinton's and Obama's. Facts and logic are our ammunition and we are the weapons. Like Forrest and Patton we need to go on the attack, attack and attack some more. Instead of Democrats establishing the narrative it should be us.

  Rule # 13-   Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

  The left has this rule down pat. They are constantly lying about Conservatives. We are called every name in the book. Racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, we want to destroy the planet, we want to starve poor people, we don't care about people killed in mass shootings or children after they have been born. And any other pejorative that they can think of. Because we have truth on our side we can use this rule much to our advantage. They are the real racists by keeping Black people poor and dependent.  They not only want to keep Blacks poor, but people in general so they will remain dependent and continue voting

 Democrat. Welfare has destroyed the Black family and is destroying the White family by removing fathers from homes and causing a rise in criminal activity. Democrats oppose school choice, which most Blacks support. Democrats want to keep everyone in government schools in order to keep people ignorant and dependent. By supporting affirmative action set asides Democrats are saying that Blacks are too stupid to compete successfully against Whites. The Democrats opposition to voter ID laws is racist. Democrats are in essence saying that Blacks are too stupid to acquire a photo ID. The left only cares about those Blacks, women, homosexuals, poor people and minorities who tow the party line.

  We can beat them to death with their own history. It was the Democrat Party that enslaved people and many were traitors to the Northern cause during the Civil War. The Copperhead movement was the Democrat Party. They were primarily responsible for segregation and lynching. One can argue that the Klan was an arm of the Democrat Party because it was dominated by Democrats. After the Klan hierarchy was established in Nashville it's primary role was to keep the Republican Party out of the South. The Democrat Party was meant to be the Party of the White man. They terrorized White Republicans who were trying to organize the Freedman into a Republican voting bloc and the Freedman who were wanting to vote. The resurgent Klan of the 1960's was doing the same thing. Terrorizing Blacks who wanted to vote and Whites who were trying to help bring that about. As well as those who were trying to desegregate public eating, and entertainment facilities. It was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who appointed Hugo Black, a former klansman to the Supreme Court, and interned hundreds of thousands of Japanese - American's in concentration camps during WW2.


 There is a myth, that even I bought into for many years, that the parties flipped after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The myth goes like this. Because of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy in 1968 disaffected White Southerners angry about the passage of the Civil Rights Act became Republicans. The facts don't back this theory up. Nixon's Southern strategy was aimed at the more moderate upper South and Southwestern states. He was not a racist. Nixon was a card carrying member of the NAACP and had always been an advocate of civil rights for Black people. He was raised as a Quaker. Of the Democrat congressmen and senators who voted against the civil rights acts only two, one congressman and one senator, left the Democrat Party and became Republicans. More Republicans voted for all the civil rights acts ever passed than Democrats have. Al Gores father voted against it.

 The deep South voted overwhelmingly for George Wallace in 1968, who was a Democrat segregationist. Wallace won Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. The largest Southern state of Texas voted Democrat in 1968. Not until 1994 did Southerners in large numbers began to vote Republican in races other than presidential elections. By that time the average Southerner was much more progressive in regard to race. Their main reason for voting Republican were things like tax cuts, the pro life issue, gun rights, moral issues, rising crime rates and more individual liberty.
George Wallace

1968 electoral map

  Because perception is reality Blacks have voted Democrat as a bloc since the mid sixties. Historically Blacks voted Republican when they were able to vote because they were the party of Lincoln. The shift toward the Democrat Party began in the 1936 election when Roosevelt ran against Republican Alf Landon. Many Blacks benefited economically from the New Deal. As late as the early 1960's most Blacks were still voting Republican. Martin Luther King Sr. and Jackie Robinson were Republicans. The Democrats, the media and academia have done an excellent job convincing people that the Democrat Party changed with the passage of the civil rights acts. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became civil rights heroes overnight among Black people.

 The 1964 Civil Rights Act was Kennedy's idea but Johnson had to political clout to get it passed in congress. There is no evidence, however; that Lyndon Johnson was anything but a racist. On Air Force One he supposedly made the comment “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Some leftist historians argue that he didn't say this but whether he did or he didn't there is no doubt that Johnson regularly used the N word until he died. Trump is starting to expose this myth for what it is and there is a good chance that Blacks will vote Republican next year in the greatest numbers since the early 1960's. This could be the beginning of a historic shift back to the Republican Party for many Black people.
LBJ
 Now that we know something about what went wrong how do we make things right again? Or is it even possible? Realistically I think it is probably too late. In my view we have marched too far down the road toward suicide that Lincoln warned us about in his Lyceum speech. Trump's election, and hopefully reelection has slowed the process some but the Communists control some powerful American institutions. The media, Hollywood, higher education and secondary education. If we are to change things around we have to take the attitude of Antonio Gramsci. It will not happen overnight and it will be a long march. Not a short ideological war but a long one. For years we thought the major threat was coming from the Soviet Union. We thought we were safe when the "Evil Empire" collapsed. Little did we know that the real threat was the cultural Marxists of Western Europe.

  Like the Communists, we have to target the very same institutions that they targeted so many years ago. We will have to find a way to retake the media, or create an alternative media with an even greater clout than the mass media has today. I am not talking about the new media such as Conservative talk radio. We need a media that is not one sided but reports the truth and is not an arm of any political party. A  media that lets the chips fall where they may and does what they are supposed to do. Report the truth and arm the people with knowledge. Right now is a great time to do that because the mainstream media has lost much of it's credibility with the American people. I trust the American people to do the right thing when they are armed with the truth. Can you imagine the impact that that kind of media could have on America? A media that investigated corruption, regardless of party the way police would investigate a murder or a felony. Reporters that are relentless at searching out the facts of a story. If we had this kind of media there would be far less corruption in either party, especially from the Democrat Party.

The second thing that has to happen is reclaiming Hollywood. Andrew Breitbart believed that Hollywood is even more influential than the mass media. I agree with him. The cultural Marxists have done a masterful job of destroying our culture. I believe that television and movies over the last fifty years has been the primary tool of the Marxists to bring this about. Hollywood has glorified drug use, sexual promiscuity and the anti-hero type character. It has promoted anti-religious bias, anti- American bias and undermined our most sacred traditions. For years Hollywood lamented the McCarthy era when Hollywood stars and screenwriters were blacklisted but for the past fifty years they have been guilty of their own form of McCarthyism. Republicans and Conservatives, of which there are many in Hollywood, have been forced into silence or have been blacklisted themselves.

 There are some good alternative movies coming out of Hollywood with religious, pro Christian and pro American themes within the last ten years or so. Clint Eastwood, Ron Howard, and Mel Gibson have done some good movies. Apollo 13, Cinderella Man, American Sniper, Sully, We Were Soldiers, Hacksaw Ridge, just to name a few. There are movies like Soul Surfer, The Passion Of The Christ, A Walk To Remember, War Room, Gosnell, and Unplanned.  Movies with family themes are being made with little or no profanity and nudity.  They have proven to be very profitable. The Left tends to make movies that are ideologically suited for a limited audience. This has forced many people like my brother, who is a good Christian man, to avoid most movies and he is not alone.

Just like the media, and Hollyweird, we have to find a way to reclaim our institutions of higher education and secondary education. Or we need to establish an alternative educational system. Personally, I would like to find a way to abolish government secondary education and the teachers unions. Our children are being indoctrinated rather than educated. If I was raising children today I would not allow them to go to a government school. I would find a way to home school them or put them into private schools.

  It follows then that if we could regain control of higher education over time this would trickle down to our secondary educational system. Since teachers receive their education in our universities. It speaks volumes about the state of our educational system when most public school teachers place their own children in private schools. The emphasis should be on math, reading, spelling, English grammar, civics and history. In my view history and civics should be high priority. We cannot expect raise children into civic minded adults if they don't understand our founding documents, how government works, and an accurate telling of our history. Students should learn that America is an exceptional country as I did as a student. Instead, all they are hearing is how bad we are. We need to push for school choice that is funded by our tax dollars but with the government staying out of the decision making on how those dollars are spent. If they have a say then we really don't have a choice.

Another thing we have to do is shrink the Deep State or bureaucracy. There are far too many people in government that rule our lives and they are totally unaccountable to us because they are not elected. President Trump is a great example. We elected him to do certain things such as doing something about illegal immigration and Obamacare. There are many other campaign promises that he has tried to fulfill but he is being fought tooth and nail by Congress and the Deep State. We can vote Congress out but the Deep State is not accountable to the American people. They are privileged elitists that think they are smarter than we are because of their university degrees and experience.They are doing a great deal of damage to this country, however; and are accountable to no one. Conservatives must take back our school boards, city councils, and elected positions on the local, state and Federal level.

Finally, the only thing standing between the American people and tyranny is the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Without the latter we cannot keep the former. Both are under a relentless assault by the Communists. If we lose them it is all over. We need to seriously start thinking about forming armed militias in each state. These would be defensive in nature. I am not advocating rebellion, at least not at the moment. Like the Founding Fathers we must strive for a redress of grievances. In order to avoid the stigma of White supremacy, as militia's have been stigmatized in the past, our militias must be open to all races and both genders. We should train not only to defend against any future illegal gun confiscation but to defend our 1st Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. As far as our 1st Amendment rights, not in a violent way, such as Antifa, but like the Minutemen of old we should be ready at a moments notice to defend our rights when threatened. We might just be one presidential or congressional election away from full blown tyranny. Like the patriots of old, life without liberty is not worth living. I do not worry for myself because I have reached the biblical age of threescore and ten. It is my children and grandchildren who I worry about. I will end this with some of my favorite lines from Lincoln Lyceum speech.

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."


























Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Death Of Jayne Mansfield

NASHVILLE AND JESSE JAMES

THE YOUNGEST AND OLDEST SOLDIERS OF THE CIVIL WAR