Humanity is good, but, when we let our GUARD DOWN we allow darkness to infiltrate and destroy.
Like past battles fought, we now face our greatest battle at present, a battle to save our Republic, our way of life, and what we decide (each of us) now will decide our future.
Will we be a free nation under God?
Or will we cede our freedom, rights and liberty to the enemy?
We all have a choice to make. .
Evil [darkness] has never been so exposed to light.
They can no longer hide in the shadows.
Our system of government has been infiltrated by corrupt and sinister elements.
Democracy was almost lost forever…
Their thirst for a one world order [destruction of national sovereignty] serves to obtain control over America [and her allies [think EU]] by diluting your vote to oblivion and installing a new one world ruling party.
The start of this concept began with organizations such as: world health org, world trade org, united nations, ICC, NATO, etc., [all meant to weaken the United States] also the formation of EU through threat [con] of close proximity attack [attack on one is an attack on all – sales pitch to gen public – fear control].
Their thirst to remove your ability to defend yourself serves to prevent an uprising to challenge their control. There is a fundamental reason why our enemies dare not attack [invade] our borders [armed citizenry].
Only when we stand together, only when we are united, can we defeat this highly entrenched dark enemy.
Their power and control relies heavily on an uneducated population.
A population that trusts without individual thought.
A population that obeys without challenge.
A population that remains outside of free thought, and instead, remains isolated living in fear inside of the closed-loop echo chamber of the controlled mainstream media.
This is not about politics.
This is about preserving our way of life and protecting the generations that follow.
We are living in Biblical times.
Children of Light vs children of darkness.
United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity...
Alinsky’s beliefs originated in his worship of Satan. This rejection of God is the basis of Marxism and is the inspiration of many in current political power. Clinton and Obama come to mind. Light dispels darkness and truth will ultimately kill lies. We need to persist in the pursuit of the one who is “the way, the truth and the life.”
Thomas John, here literacy will be better than wikipedia- Rules for Radicals is a Luciferian manifesto, it is a satanic guide book, one need only read and understand the author through his work that he is a satanist, perhaps not in the formal sense that satisfies the modern google investigator, but without a doubt the man was in the service of satan. The hate, malice, and viciousness has been normalized today, so I would understand if many today wouldn't not understand, but that is the work of the devil, simply to get us to self-reference and then begin to normalize our disordered desires. It won't do to judge by today's standard of morality, but by the enduring objective standard it is glaringly obvious.
The reason it is confusing is that the word "formal" has been hollowed out of it true meaning, so interestingly, the answer would be, "so not in the nominal sense" but indeed in the true formal sense. Socialism is formally satanic, not nominally satanic. The essence of socialism is a rebellion against authority (the very formal image of lucifer rebelling against God) and the aim is to make one's own kingdom apart from the kingdom of Heavan. The socialist aim is to "make a heaven on earth."
Look what Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: 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. "— SAUL ALINSKY
The US was founded to give acknowledgement to God as the source of our inalienable rights, Alinsky credits man for this gift and this is satanic formally, socialism nominally and normalized increasingly.
So socialism is not equivalent to satanism or satan, it is a diabolical form of government akin to communism because its essence or formal cause is Luciferian. What the democrats call this diabolical system is "democracy" and they characterize as equity, inclusion, diversity, empathy, and tolerance, the very constituent ideologies of a satanic society that tyrannizes on a praetor-natural scale.
I know the Lucifer quote. But I think that was a one off of any mention of satanic anything - and was being used as an example of a rebel that won his own kingdom. If you could call Hell a kingdom. I don't think Alinsky was trying to stretch anything more out of that analogy. I find the argument kind of thin to take one sentence he wrote and kind of run wild with it. Let me think about your last paragraph some more.
Thomas John, I hear you, but nearly every line of Rules for Radicals is satanic is essence, not in name. Far from a literary "one off" it was a nominal "one off" - The argument is thin today because we have rejected true literacy and all things immaterial and Alinsky's work is satanic in spirit.
We know that there are 4 explanatory factors for understanding things- the material, efficient, formal and final. We live in an age that has rejected authority, nature, and objective reality, this eliminates formal and final causality as they were meant to be understood- so for anyone who recovers all 4 causes in their fullness is likely to easily and clearly see the nature of Alinsky's work- unfortunately, we have all been conditioned (educated) to see and understand the material and efficient causes and that is how the argument looks so thin.
I fear that when most read Rules for Radicals they will not see the satanic form, because we have been like the frog in the slowly boiling water, certainly not uncommon today.
"Alinsky’s beliefs originated in his worship of Satan. This rejection of God is the basis of Marxism and is the inspiration of many in current political power." Yes, you're right in noting Alinsky's rejection of Christianity was no doubt of result of his socialistic and revolutionary aspirations, but my challenge to you is this; As someone who embraces democracy and the foundational principles of America, how do you reconcile the fact that these ideals and beliefs and in direct post to Christian values historically, which valued a hierarchical and religiously influenced government as a means of upholding moral principles? The founding fathers promoted the separation of Church and state, and while you may argue it was intended to prevent religious persecution, it is precisely the lack of an objective moral and religious framework in our government that had consistently failed to uphold traditional and religious values historically and today. Moreover, while the founding fathers stated their government only works among a virtuous and religious people, they created a very weak government that can only exist when the majority embraces moral absoltuism, we are subject to the mercy and whims of the majority. A Catholic monarchy would not have this weakness and consistently be able to uphold moral truths despite an atheistic majority. How do you reconcile that the "Americanism" you champion has ironically created all the conditions necessary for the decay in morality, social cohesion, and even the erosion of your rights you decry as a conservative? Alinsky and his beliefs are affecting America thanks to our democratic system.
My opinion is that voting in national politics is an illusion of choice. It pacifies those that believe in the system...yet perfectly divides us. I believe this country and most others have been hijacked by a monolithic global "cabal"....much like what JFK described in his famous speech to the press club. The evidence is everywhere....yet we still get sidetracked by this red vs blue thing.
I think the country got hi-jacked by the growth of government employee unions, whose members we are required to fund with our own tax dollars. Ironically, it was JFK who authorized their existence by executive order in 1962. This unilateral action alone ultimately makes JFK's final record very checkered.
This was the time when we created an unelected "deep state" within our ship of state, which has only grown in power and control since 1962. Today this state within our state has reached a critical tipping point in sheer numbers alone and has become independent political power.now aligning completely with only one political party.
Today government employee union members are now dedicated to their own survival , in opposition to our founding ideals when we the people act as an independent whole.
Bottomline, with the growth and power of this unelected fourth branch of government - the massive administrative state of government employees, all 22 million of them - the majority of them union members - the fundamentals of the US constitution no longer work because no provisions in the US Constitution were made for this possibility.
In fact this current state of affairs was not even contemplated. Who even considered after our original fight for freedom, we would eventually succumb to internal self-inflicted government tyranny, just like King Georg had held over us. Yet all this happened within our constitutional form of governance, since we voted for those who encourage this to happen along the way and even mandating that we continue to fund it.
Perhaps we will learn can overtake this decades long drift into a greater centralized government power, depending on the direction voters take this November. This is a critical election. Do we vote to defund and defang this administrative deep state, or do we let it grow even more tenaciously until there is nothing left of our original founding principles. Are we in fact voting to "escape from freedom"?
This statement in the author's article.... "It is my opinion that many of the critical steps have been completed or are almost complete." is correct. I would add one other item.
The American Revolution was achieved by "LIBERALS" intent upon a free society. The "CONSERVATIVES" (King of England etc.) opposed a free society and wanted continued absolute power over the people and more importantly the wealth of the nation. When people came together under a Liberal Banner stating they wanted freedom it was powerful. The Conservative factions reaction was and is to Brand Themselves as Liberals. The Political Left in this nation is clearly the supporters of big government, more and more social controls, more taxes, etc. Yet what does the Left call themselves? Liberals.
In 200 years they won the PR fight. What was Up is now Down and what was Down is now Up. Give it to the dictator faction of the nation politic!!!
New people coming to the nation hear the Left spouting "Liberal" doctrine and it is a lie. Vote for us and we will protect you from "Government" .... while they enact more and more punishing laws and when they cannot justify destruction of social policies they then create "regulations."
Mr. Stoker is correct. one Democrat at a time. It is good reading.
I'll end with this. Destruction of efficient and rational transportation grids in the City of Santa Barbara was done one street at a time and took less then 2 decades. Is taking your rights of auto ownership and form of transportation by force a "Liberal" stance?
"The American Revolution was achieved by "LIBERALS" intent upon a free society. The "CONSERVATIVES" (King of England etc.) opposed a free society and wanted continued absolute power over the people and more importantly the wealth of the nation." This is false and is historical revisionist rooted in a romanticized perspective promoting "Americanism".
King George III was not a tyrant. He actually sympathized with the plight of the colonists in America, but England was in massive debt from its engagement in the seven years war, and they needed the funds to not simply pay off debt but also continue funding their armed forces. King George III was the rightful monarch and the colonists were his subjects, he imposed taxes not to "oppress" but continue supporting the Empire that the colonists were a part of. And unlike many Americans historically who held anti Catholic biases, King George III despite being the head of the Anglican Church was very friendly towards Catholics unlike his predecessors.
Divine Right Monarchs by definition had dictatorial control. The Magna Carta while historic left intact much of iron-fisted government control. It was when the colonies failed to generate cash that the real intent of England was exposed.
Might I suggest you find a direct path when driving to get your groceries. Otherwise it will take you forever to get there.
Nothing about possessing absolute authority makes one inherently a tyrant. It is the abuse of power that does so, not merely possessing it.
Absolute Monarchs like St. King Louis IX used his power to uplift his people through legislative reforms (like establishing the presumption of innocence), promoting social welfare and defending the poor and vulnerable through the creation of hospitals and promotion of charity, and defending the Christian faith through his participation in the crusades.
God is the King of the Universe, and yet despite being able to fo as he pleases he doesn't force us to love him, we can't truly love him if we are forced to. And he allows us to commit grave evils in respect for our free will. Would you call God a tyrant?
I can even look to a non-Christian Monarchist like Cyrus the Great, he did not impose the Zoroastrian faith common among Persians among the Jews or any other conquered group, indeed he respected the ability of different peoples to practice their faith and engage in their cultures. Is Cryus the Great a tyrant from being the uncalled head of his Persian Empire?
What do you think about the democracy and the tyranny of the majority? Laws and leaders are enacted and elected based upon the whims of the majority, without any regards to objective moral truths. Abortion is a grave evil that had been allowed thanks to this tyranny of the majority, abortion was never legal (let alone considered morally acceptable) under any Catholic monarchy, yet America embraced it thanks to our "righteous" democracy. And surely you oppose 'Preident Biden' as a Trump supporter, if he was truly elected fairly and freely, it again highlights the failure of democracy in being able to elected a senile man, who can hardly form a coherent sentence, or even truly support Catholic principles.
Like many conservatives on here, when I engage your beliefs from a traditionalist perspective you deflect from my arguments, ignore them, or simply poke fun at me. I challenge you to address them instead of engaging in intellectual laziness, you are hardly better than the liberals you so often decry if you continue with these tactics.
Merle Haggard has a song out with the lyrics "Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for Hell?" How very appropriate for these days we find ourselves living in. Our country is so divided most fear it will never be united again. I believe we are finally living in what the Bible calls "the last days of the church age". Yes, things look pretty grim everywhere we look. But instead of losing our heads like most others around us.....we should look up to Heaven for guidance, and find our comfort & security there. We sure as heck won't find it in the world around us. As each day passes, we are getting very close to a world shaking event...and people who are left behind will have much more to worry about.
Charles - the next line in that song: "With no kind of chance for the flag or the Liberty Bell"
The Commie-Dems have f---d up everything ! But don't worry - it's America and there are still plenty of good people who will rally behind the muscle Trump will bring to Washington when he's elected. I just hope for 2 things:
a) Trump becomes the iron-fisted dictator everybody says he will - that's what it's gonna take to get our beautiful country back on track.
b) I just hope he doesn't 'turn the other cheek.' I want retribution, revenge and payback from that idiot Biden the Commie-Dems who have screwed up our country !
Do Democrats refuse to give up education (K-12 indoctrination), or do we refuse to take it away from them? Nominally we control public education through our elections. We choose to keep funding it. We can change both. Time to ask, why have we not?
Brian, I would argue that as a contemporary conservative you are among the "sheeple" your criticize for ultimately supporting the same democratic and secular foundations and institutions America was built on, which are themselves (classical) liberal innovations. Your failure to align yourself more fully with traditional and religious groups who were the first to fight against the predecessors of modern liberalism is ultimately a great weakness of the conservative movement (yes even the populist MAGA republicans) do not understand), and by embracing elements of liberalism you undermine your own beliefs.
Interesting. Perspective. Who are the more traditional religious groups?
Reality all are Sheep. The real question is who is their shepherd?
Some follow God & Jesus’s teaching and examples.
Our forefathers wrote, Declaration states, “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.”
What do think God & Jesus intended for us?
Do you think the stewards of Gods people, the current political democrats & Rinos sitting at the head of the table are pleasing God?
Do you think God is happy how his people follow the current politicians & bureaucrats?
Or do you think he views them as Jesus viewed the Pharisees?
Did God wipe out the planet 2,000 years ago? Did Jesus remove the politicians of his day? Jesus went direct to the people, the sheep, and urged them to wake up.
A more traditionalist group would the Carlists, George Orwell wrote about their immense commitment to fighting the Republican, Socialist, and Anarchsist coalition and maintaining the purity of their own monarchist and devoutly Catholic ideology. The Carlists were better motivated and equipped than the communist militias fighting in the Spanish Civil War.
The founding fathers while appealing to a "creator" explicity omit "God", the True Christian God, in favor of a more nebulous "creator" which given their own support of freemasonry and deism (a heresey) for at least kne founding father), makes sense. Freemasonry is a secret society that promotes ideas counter to Christian beliefs, including the appeal to rationalism and relativism, in contrast to divinely revealed truths and absolutism.
God intended for us to follow him and I belive that he desired our human government's to express a commitment to uphold his laws and Christian morality as well. This was the case for traditional Catholic monarchies who sought to uphold divinely held truths and promote them in their rule to ensure a moral society.
Most politicians are not known for personal piety, moral absolutism, or righteousness, I do think God is immensely disappointed by most world leaders, especially those who claim to be Christian yet are pragmatic in their approach to governance while also not expressing a true commitment to Christian beliefs. God did not wipe out the planet 2000 years ago, he redeemed it through his death and resurrection, opening the gates of heaven to all men.
The declaration does state, “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” … “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator”
They acknowledge God is the Creator.
They acknowledge Jesus’s teachings
“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.-“
They acknowledge that man is corrupted and cannot be trusted with power. Which is why they designed our government to try & prevent any one person or group from usurping the people’s freedom.
The Masons were not welcomed by organized church. Considering how corrupt the Church was I do not consider that a bad thing. Just like the Pharisees were power hungry & not centered on God.
Free masons believe in God, a Creator. Throughout the ages God has had many names complicated by different languages.
Just as all the main religions believe in the one true God and heaven, the immortal soul. We as humans get hung up on terms, words, semantics and personal issues. So much so we ignore the teachings in the Bible and the fact that God does exist.
We agree that “God is immensely disappointed by most world leaders, especially those who claim to be Christian” Most people wear Christian or Jew as a label but do not actually believe. This is very apparent with a short conversation.
"Considering how corrupt the Church was I do not consider that a bad thing. Just like the Pharisees were power hungry & not centered on God."
You need to explain not only how the Church was corrupt, but also how rejecting it's authority despite being a divine institution founded by Christ (and thus confering his authority to it's leaders, our earthly shepherds) is a good thing. Judad was a part of the ministry of Christ, should we reject Christ because he affiliated with Judas, no that's an outrageous thing to likewise simply having corrupt officials in a Church does not negate the authority or truthfulness of the Church and it's teachings as divine institution.
Moreover, the Pharisees actually possessed valid teaching authority, Christ even tells us to fo as they said, NOT as they do. With the New Covenant, however, Christ appointed authority onto his Apostles by the laying of hands, and that tradition was passed on by the Apostles to their own successors and students, Bishops of the Early Church. These bishops have continued the laying on of hands today and grant validity to the sacraments that all Valid local Churches (those in communion under the Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East).
We are meant to follow God & his word over a “church”.
As Jesus was disappointed with the Pharisees we have seen the same corruption in many churches.
Let the k back through the dark ages at how much gold & expensive carvings & stained glass windows there are while the people lived in poverty.
Jesus told us we do not need to attend a church to pray to god.
Did Jesus instruct his disciples to go to temple to preach his word? No, he said instructed them to go to the people directly. And what designation did Jesus give to his disciples that preached his word? Did God provide them with altars & churches & titles?
I'd be really interested to know what percent of the US population believes in the biblical calendar. Brian - did God wipe out the planet 2000 years ago?
No the Earth was not wiped out even though God was so disappointed in humans. He sent his one & only son, Jesus to lead by example. To show how God intended us to live.
The percent of people who identify as Christian is much more than people who actually believe in God.
All the major religions believe in God, they differ at how they perceive Jesus.
Most of the world believes in God, yet you can’t have a conversation with most people you see every day.
Very important article Mr. Stoker! I was inspired by Ira Gottleib to slowly read Rules from Radicals from start to finish. It is shocking how that book was not only inspired by Lucifer, but articulates the bent one's game plan. I wrote in an article that Alinsky dedicated the book to Lucifer, Snopes and Gottleib contended it was only a literary allusion, but it is worse than both of those. It is worth reading that book just to know the mind of the enemy but you will clearly see the game democrats play and play well. Part of that is to accuse those across the aisle of the same tactics which is never quite true. Most of Alinsky's diabolical tactics are normalized and at play in all our institutions, education, political, medical, and even in the corporate. Think carefully of C.S. Lewis' words against the kind of subjectivism that undergirds Alinsky's and the modern democrats diabolical schemes: the movement “will certainly end our species (and in my view damn our souls) if it is not crushed; that fatal supposition that men can create values, that a community can choose its ideology as men choose their clothes.” Four more years of Biden diversity, Biden's race baiting, open boarders, gender ideology, and perhaps worse of all the fake climate alarmism, the green agenda, and exponentially more damage will be done than by the Clintons, Al Gore, and Obama combined.
We know Geriatric Joe isn't running the show - it's being done by unelected 'advisors', family hustlers, party hacks and various hanger's-on. It's like you and I running California from a back room because our gov was disabled. "Hey, I have a good idea - let's shut the freeways down an hour each day - just think how much the left-wing weenies and woke freaks would love us!"
Time to track down Hilary Clinton's college thesis on Alinksy -wonder which way she went back then. She was a Goldwater Girl at one time, having been raised in a conservative family.
Thank you, Mike. Reading this and the comments I'd like to say this about Satanism: I know a lot of people who think Satanism doesn't exist. It does. There are Satanists. And instead of acting as though it's some sort of conservative Christian fantasy, people should research and explore the various strands of Satanism, its origins, and how Satanists are in many fields of important work, not just politics. We all live among Satanists, just as we live among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists. I grew up in Santa Barbara and Pasadena. In the 40s, before my time, there was a house in Pasadena known as The Parsonage. Jack Parsons, who owned it, was a brilliant rocket scientist, part of JPL. He was a follower of Aleister Crowley and married Marjorie Cameron, who was regarded by many people in LA as a witch. Parsons held Satanic rituals at The Parsonage. Among the people who were there was L Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology - an extremely powerful cult in Hollywood. So, if you ever think there no connection between Satanism and politics and Hollywood, you would be quite ignorant. To show you how close all of us are to knowing actual Satanists, one of my childhood friends was related to Marjorie Cameron - his mother was her cousin and apparently, his mother's introduction to the rituals at The Parsonage drove her to Evangelical Christianity. It's time people started studying Satanism and understanding it in a rational way. It is a part of our politics, our entertainment, our schools, our future.
Absolute BULLSHIT!!! …. This country has about as much chance of becoming fully Socialist as it does creating universal healthcare, which will never happen as long as obesity continues to be rampant.
Just another example of clueless conservatives blaming all their own failures and conspiracy theory nonsense on everyone and everything but themselves.
You must "llike" your own comments, thus the jealousy over the "red hearts" I get it Mark.
For such a smart guy, you use so many words to say so little. Is there a point you can disprove? Alinsky has been a great influence on your favorite politicians and in your psychopathic party, and your only comeback is to call it "bullshit" and call the people who clearly see it "conspiracy theorists?" And you call those who see clearly "clueless"?
And what does obesity have to do with socialism? Body positivity is one of the mechanisms to break down society, just what socialism needs to take in. They cause the problems they pretend to solve.
There is no need to keep trying, it is done. The cat is out of the bag. Calling everyone a racist, a white supremacist, a bigot, a conspiracy theorist has worn out its shelf-life. You keep trying.
Mark: What is "health care" first, before you demand it is universal. aka funded by OPM and the services of others.
Serious question: define "health care" before you demand a blank check. Is it everything you demand, is it rationed and by whom, it is only what medical professional decree is non-futile? is it just for trauma, or for wellness, or repair or merely surrogate endpoint tweaking?
Is it what got exposed today in WSJ "home health visits" by a paraprofessional diagnosing the need for "diabetic cataracts" surgeries, even in those who already had cataract surgery? At one time "health care" was defined by providing health care insurance to everyone. How did that work out? (See example above.)
The devil is in the details, but Lucifer (D) himself is the one who keeps dangling the promise.
Why can't I be a patriot and believe in social security and Medicare? Why do you think the Constitution is more important than the Bible? Why do you think America's birthday is more important than Jesus? Isn't the first commandment to not place any idol before God?
HAHA! Justin, you can believe in social security and Medicare- others have had stranger gods. You seem intentionally obtuse, like the idiots in the media who claimed hoodies, ice tea and skittles had anything to do with Trayvon Martin's tragic death. Socialism is an evil at odds with American. No one said the Constitution is more important that the Bible, this is a political article, not a religious article, again, so obtuse. The reason you cannot be a patriot is that clearly you don't understand the terms of the debate- I blame public schools for your lack, but now you own it so it is yours to amend.
You certainly like to insult my intelligence and straw man my arguments. I find that you are an expert in straw manning, because that is the only way your arguments will hold any water. You know what I mean when I say I believe social security and Medicare have been good things for the American public, but if you need insult my intelligence and education to feel like your arguments are lending to the conversation, by all means continue. I can take it. The point of my comment was worship of the Constitution is a mistake and not what the authors intended. Instead, try seeing it as a living breathing document that can grow, change, and in my hope, get better. The Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. The Constitution in 1788. So with a couple years, the framers realized they needed to change and grow their document to improve it.
Justin, I could never do more to insult your intelligence but to repeat what you write- and there are no strawmen, if there were, I am sure you would attempt to reveal them. The Constitution is not a living document. It is not a breathing document, morality does not evolve, the objective truth does not change. To add to it, and clarify is something radically different.
Explain how patriotism is unwavering, non questioning belief in the Constitution? Which, if any, one of the amendments counts? Can it be amended further? Your argument is beyond silly. I'm the biggest patriot you will meet. I love this country. And I think it can get better.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Justin. fundamentals of the US Constitution assume it can get better too. Of course, it can be amended further. That is why the original US Constitution intrinsically allows for amendments.
Being "patriot" is not carved in stone. Not sure where you are going with that question - do you think the term has one fixed meaning and is some sort of litmus test applied by writ of law?
My old boss is always a thoughtful writer for the conservative point of view. I’ve said this before, but after decades as a card carrying Republican (I voted in my first election by absentee ballot from Vietnam) I re registered as an independent when the party was hijacked by the likes of Santos Greene, Boebert, Cawthorn et al. I have GRAVE concerns about Project 2025 and despite DJTs denial of having anything to do with it, his name is mentioned numerous times and most of the framers are past Trump staffers. Great choices this year. The third party candidate admits a worm ate his brain to boot.
"when the party was hijacked by the likes of Santos Greene, Boebert, Cawthorn et al. I have GRAVE concerns about Project 2025 and despite DJTs denial of having anything to do with it, his name is mentioned numerous times and most of the framers are past Trump staffers. Great choices this year. The third party candidate admits a worm ate his brain to boot."
Not that I care for these people as a Catholic Monarchist, but how exactly are they hijacking the conservative movement from your perspective as far as I'm concerned they just happen to oppose the conservatism that had been watered down by secularism and a focus on purely economic conservatism with an emphasis on at least marginally more conservative beliefs. They are far from extreme. I have made it clear my own desire as a Carlist to establish a confessional state in America.
Two out of three of your alleged GOP party hi-jackers already got booted, and the remaining too are actually pretty sharp ladies. Not sure your worries about the GOP are well-grounded. Or any less worrisome than the "other guys".
What is conservatism to you, because it should be about protecting traditional and religious values and desiring a moral and effective government, not a movement that caves into secular and liberal pressure.
I don't care for Christian nationalism, Andy, I want a genuinely Christian movement to reflect Catholic social teaching. Nationalism is a modern and liberal creation, I want people centering their identity around God first and foremost, than after him a Catholic monarch reflects authentic Christian tecahings aimed around uplifiting the poor and marginalized and ensuring the peolle are nourshed both materially and spiritually. I do not know what you think my beliefs are, but I'm a Carlist, a traditional and Catholic group rooted in values that predate modern conservatism. I don't want tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, in fact I despise capitalism and market liberalism, they are liberal constructs that are neither moral nor Christian. I want a distrubutist economic model in which the means of production are owned by families and communities, where corporations are heavily regulated by the state to uphold morality, prevent the exploitation of workers, prevent environments and local communities from being harmed, and from creating deviant or obscene products like pornography.
I am sure Alinsky was very liberal, probably a socialist. However, after a short amount of time researching Alinsky, many of the assertions in this article are not true. For instance, Obama never mentioned him in his book, "Dreams from my Fathers" or Alinsky never advocated increasing poverty level as high as possible to advance his ideas. Although it's true Hillary wrote her college thesis about him, she was actually quite critical of his methods. She did not think his divisive tactics would work. Hillary, surprisingly, was very critical of the 1960's govt antipoverty programs because she said they had been ineffective. Given what I found in just 10 minutes, I am not all that confident many of the so-called facts in this article are any more correct.
This doesn't mean I subscribe to any of the stuff Alinsky wrote about since he was espousing far-left viewpoints. My only point, as a conservative, is that we do not need to engage in misinformation to win over people to our side.
Funny how we read about Alinsky back in the Obama years, then Hillary, then Bernie and now Biden again, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and the Dem party is not neck deep in socialist sympathizers, right?
I know I did. I was way left; full hippy,surfer,artist,environmentalist, then Jimmy Carter came along. I had just built my first house, interest rates went from 8 to 18 per cent, Iranians had our hostages,, cars were lining up for gas on Milpas. I turned into an independent and have stayed so. These times remind me of those
If Mr. Stoker can show a legitimate source that "Alinsky stated there are several levels of control that must first be obtained before one is able to successfully create a socialist state. The first is the most important: healthcare" or actually any list of these levels I'll donate 10 bucks to his next election or charity of his choice. Alinsky's writings and methods were focused on grassroots organizing and empowering communities, not top-down government control.
The rules for radicals aren't that radical. The sound like any political playlist.
Here there are :
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
"Never go outside the expertise of your people."
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up."
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
Here is Hilary's college essay on Alinsky. Its release was embargoed by Wellesley College while Madam Clinton was in the WH. Why a college of higher learning embargoed a political figure's thesis is anyone's guess. State Secrets, perhaps? https://ia801201.us.archive.org/1/items/HillaryClintonThesis/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf
The modern Democratic Party has become the Treason Party. Clearly, based on a Socialist agenda, dividing people based on race/income/religion/gender.
They have weaponized confrontation and playing the race card or climate denial as a basis to intimidate and coerce those who oppose them.
Our job is to not let them. They can't play the "race card" when no one choses to play their games.
Humanity is good, but, when we let our GUARD DOWN we allow darkness to infiltrate and destroy.
Like past battles fought, we now face our greatest battle at present, a battle to save our Republic, our way of life, and what we decide (each of us) now will decide our future.
Will we be a free nation under God?
Or will we cede our freedom, rights and liberty to the enemy?
We all have a choice to make. .
Evil [darkness] has never been so exposed to light.
They can no longer hide in the shadows.
Our system of government has been infiltrated by corrupt and sinister elements.
Democracy was almost lost forever…
Their thirst for a one world order [destruction of national sovereignty] serves to obtain control over America [and her allies [think EU]] by diluting your vote to oblivion and installing a new one world ruling party.
The start of this concept began with organizations such as: world health org, world trade org, united nations, ICC, NATO, etc., [all meant to weaken the United States] also the formation of EU through threat [con] of close proximity attack [attack on one is an attack on all – sales pitch to gen public – fear control].
Their thirst to remove your ability to defend yourself serves to prevent an uprising to challenge their control. There is a fundamental reason why our enemies dare not attack [invade] our borders [armed citizenry].
Only when we stand together, only when we are united, can we defeat this highly entrenched dark enemy.
Their power and control relies heavily on an uneducated population.
A population that trusts without individual thought.
A population that obeys without challenge.
A population that remains outside of free thought, and instead, remains isolated living in fear inside of the closed-loop echo chamber of the controlled mainstream media.
This is not about politics.
This is about preserving our way of life and protecting the generations that follow.
We are living in Biblical times.
Children of Light vs children of darkness.
United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity...
Alinsky’s beliefs originated in his worship of Satan. This rejection of God is the basis of Marxism and is the inspiration of many in current political power. Clinton and Obama come to mind. Light dispels darkness and truth will ultimately kill lies. We need to persist in the pursuit of the one who is “the way, the truth and the life.”
Sorry Paul, Alinsky was born an reared a Jew but later in his life considered himself an "agnostic Jew'". Where do you get this Satanic stuff?
Thomas John, here literacy will be better than wikipedia- Rules for Radicals is a Luciferian manifesto, it is a satanic guide book, one need only read and understand the author through his work that he is a satanist, perhaps not in the formal sense that satisfies the modern google investigator, but without a doubt the man was in the service of satan. The hate, malice, and viciousness has been normalized today, so I would understand if many today wouldn't not understand, but that is the work of the devil, simply to get us to self-reference and then begin to normalize our disordered desires. It won't do to judge by today's standard of morality, but by the enduring objective standard it is glaringly obvious.
OK, so 'not in the formal sense'. I'm at a loss to understand. Is the connection here that socialism is equivalent to Satan?
The reason it is confusing is that the word "formal" has been hollowed out of it true meaning, so interestingly, the answer would be, "so not in the nominal sense" but indeed in the true formal sense. Socialism is formally satanic, not nominally satanic. The essence of socialism is a rebellion against authority (the very formal image of lucifer rebelling against God) and the aim is to make one's own kingdom apart from the kingdom of Heavan. The socialist aim is to "make a heaven on earth."
Look what Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: 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. "— SAUL ALINSKY
The US was founded to give acknowledgement to God as the source of our inalienable rights, Alinsky credits man for this gift and this is satanic formally, socialism nominally and normalized increasingly.
So socialism is not equivalent to satanism or satan, it is a diabolical form of government akin to communism because its essence or formal cause is Luciferian. What the democrats call this diabolical system is "democracy" and they characterize as equity, inclusion, diversity, empathy, and tolerance, the very constituent ideologies of a satanic society that tyrannizes on a praetor-natural scale.
I know the Lucifer quote. But I think that was a one off of any mention of satanic anything - and was being used as an example of a rebel that won his own kingdom. If you could call Hell a kingdom. I don't think Alinsky was trying to stretch anything more out of that analogy. I find the argument kind of thin to take one sentence he wrote and kind of run wild with it. Let me think about your last paragraph some more.
Thomas John, I hear you, but nearly every line of Rules for Radicals is satanic is essence, not in name. Far from a literary "one off" it was a nominal "one off" - The argument is thin today because we have rejected true literacy and all things immaterial and Alinsky's work is satanic in spirit.
We know that there are 4 explanatory factors for understanding things- the material, efficient, formal and final. We live in an age that has rejected authority, nature, and objective reality, this eliminates formal and final causality as they were meant to be understood- so for anyone who recovers all 4 causes in their fullness is likely to easily and clearly see the nature of Alinsky's work- unfortunately, we have all been conditioned (educated) to see and understand the material and efficient causes and that is how the argument looks so thin.
I fear that when most read Rules for Radicals they will not see the satanic form, because we have been like the frog in the slowly boiling water, certainly not uncommon today.
"Alinsky’s beliefs originated in his worship of Satan. This rejection of God is the basis of Marxism and is the inspiration of many in current political power." Yes, you're right in noting Alinsky's rejection of Christianity was no doubt of result of his socialistic and revolutionary aspirations, but my challenge to you is this; As someone who embraces democracy and the foundational principles of America, how do you reconcile the fact that these ideals and beliefs and in direct post to Christian values historically, which valued a hierarchical and religiously influenced government as a means of upholding moral principles? The founding fathers promoted the separation of Church and state, and while you may argue it was intended to prevent religious persecution, it is precisely the lack of an objective moral and religious framework in our government that had consistently failed to uphold traditional and religious values historically and today. Moreover, while the founding fathers stated their government only works among a virtuous and religious people, they created a very weak government that can only exist when the majority embraces moral absoltuism, we are subject to the mercy and whims of the majority. A Catholic monarchy would not have this weakness and consistently be able to uphold moral truths despite an atheistic majority. How do you reconcile that the "Americanism" you champion has ironically created all the conditions necessary for the decay in morality, social cohesion, and even the erosion of your rights you decry as a conservative? Alinsky and his beliefs are affecting America thanks to our democratic system.
My opinion is that voting in national politics is an illusion of choice. It pacifies those that believe in the system...yet perfectly divides us. I believe this country and most others have been hijacked by a monolithic global "cabal"....much like what JFK described in his famous speech to the press club. The evidence is everywhere....yet we still get sidetracked by this red vs blue thing.
I think the country got hi-jacked by the growth of government employee unions, whose members we are required to fund with our own tax dollars. Ironically, it was JFK who authorized their existence by executive order in 1962. This unilateral action alone ultimately makes JFK's final record very checkered.
This was the time when we created an unelected "deep state" within our ship of state, which has only grown in power and control since 1962. Today this state within our state has reached a critical tipping point in sheer numbers alone and has become independent political power.now aligning completely with only one political party.
Today government employee union members are now dedicated to their own survival , in opposition to our founding ideals when we the people act as an independent whole.
Bottomline, with the growth and power of this unelected fourth branch of government - the massive administrative state of government employees, all 22 million of them - the majority of them union members - the fundamentals of the US constitution no longer work because no provisions in the US Constitution were made for this possibility.
In fact this current state of affairs was not even contemplated. Who even considered after our original fight for freedom, we would eventually succumb to internal self-inflicted government tyranny, just like King Georg had held over us. Yet all this happened within our constitutional form of governance, since we voted for those who encourage this to happen along the way and even mandating that we continue to fund it.
Perhaps we will learn can overtake this decades long drift into a greater centralized government power, depending on the direction voters take this November. This is a critical election. Do we vote to defund and defang this administrative deep state, or do we let it grow even more tenaciously until there is nothing left of our original founding principles. Are we in fact voting to "escape from freedom"?
I'd like to hear your rationale for this assertion - could be interesting.
JL’s or mine?
This statement in the author's article.... "It is my opinion that many of the critical steps have been completed or are almost complete." is correct. I would add one other item.
The American Revolution was achieved by "LIBERALS" intent upon a free society. The "CONSERVATIVES" (King of England etc.) opposed a free society and wanted continued absolute power over the people and more importantly the wealth of the nation. When people came together under a Liberal Banner stating they wanted freedom it was powerful. The Conservative factions reaction was and is to Brand Themselves as Liberals. The Political Left in this nation is clearly the supporters of big government, more and more social controls, more taxes, etc. Yet what does the Left call themselves? Liberals.
In 200 years they won the PR fight. What was Up is now Down and what was Down is now Up. Give it to the dictator faction of the nation politic!!!
New people coming to the nation hear the Left spouting "Liberal" doctrine and it is a lie. Vote for us and we will protect you from "Government" .... while they enact more and more punishing laws and when they cannot justify destruction of social policies they then create "regulations."
Mr. Stoker is correct. one Democrat at a time. It is good reading.
I'll end with this. Destruction of efficient and rational transportation grids in the City of Santa Barbara was done one street at a time and took less then 2 decades. Is taking your rights of auto ownership and form of transportation by force a "Liberal" stance?
"The American Revolution was achieved by "LIBERALS" intent upon a free society. The "CONSERVATIVES" (King of England etc.) opposed a free society and wanted continued absolute power over the people and more importantly the wealth of the nation." This is false and is historical revisionist rooted in a romanticized perspective promoting "Americanism".
King George III was not a tyrant. He actually sympathized with the plight of the colonists in America, but England was in massive debt from its engagement in the seven years war, and they needed the funds to not simply pay off debt but also continue funding their armed forces. King George III was the rightful monarch and the colonists were his subjects, he imposed taxes not to "oppress" but continue supporting the Empire that the colonists were a part of. And unlike many Americans historically who held anti Catholic biases, King George III despite being the head of the Anglican Church was very friendly towards Catholics unlike his predecessors.
Theo you are always an interesting read.
Divine Right Monarchs by definition had dictatorial control. The Magna Carta while historic left intact much of iron-fisted government control. It was when the colonies failed to generate cash that the real intent of England was exposed.
Might I suggest you find a direct path when driving to get your groceries. Otherwise it will take you forever to get there.
Nothing about possessing absolute authority makes one inherently a tyrant. It is the abuse of power that does so, not merely possessing it.
Absolute Monarchs like St. King Louis IX used his power to uplift his people through legislative reforms (like establishing the presumption of innocence), promoting social welfare and defending the poor and vulnerable through the creation of hospitals and promotion of charity, and defending the Christian faith through his participation in the crusades.
God is the King of the Universe, and yet despite being able to fo as he pleases he doesn't force us to love him, we can't truly love him if we are forced to. And he allows us to commit grave evils in respect for our free will. Would you call God a tyrant?
I can even look to a non-Christian Monarchist like Cyrus the Great, he did not impose the Zoroastrian faith common among Persians among the Jews or any other conquered group, indeed he respected the ability of different peoples to practice their faith and engage in their cultures. Is Cryus the Great a tyrant from being the uncalled head of his Persian Empire?
What do you think about the democracy and the tyranny of the majority? Laws and leaders are enacted and elected based upon the whims of the majority, without any regards to objective moral truths. Abortion is a grave evil that had been allowed thanks to this tyranny of the majority, abortion was never legal (let alone considered morally acceptable) under any Catholic monarchy, yet America embraced it thanks to our "righteous" democracy. And surely you oppose 'Preident Biden' as a Trump supporter, if he was truly elected fairly and freely, it again highlights the failure of democracy in being able to elected a senile man, who can hardly form a coherent sentence, or even truly support Catholic principles.
Like many conservatives on here, when I engage your beliefs from a traditionalist perspective you deflect from my arguments, ignore them, or simply poke fun at me. I challenge you to address them instead of engaging in intellectual laziness, you are hardly better than the liberals you so often decry if you continue with these tactics.
Merle Haggard has a song out with the lyrics "Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for Hell?" How very appropriate for these days we find ourselves living in. Our country is so divided most fear it will never be united again. I believe we are finally living in what the Bible calls "the last days of the church age". Yes, things look pretty grim everywhere we look. But instead of losing our heads like most others around us.....we should look up to Heaven for guidance, and find our comfort & security there. We sure as heck won't find it in the world around us. As each day passes, we are getting very close to a world shaking event...and people who are left behind will have much more to worry about.
Charles - the next line in that song: "With no kind of chance for the flag or the Liberty Bell"
The Commie-Dems have f---d up everything ! But don't worry - it's America and there are still plenty of good people who will rally behind the muscle Trump will bring to Washington when he's elected. I just hope for 2 things:
a) Trump becomes the iron-fisted dictator everybody says he will - that's what it's gonna take to get our beautiful country back on track.
b) I just hope he doesn't 'turn the other cheek.' I want retribution, revenge and payback from that idiot Biden the Commie-Dems who have screwed up our country !
The Sheeple, how do we get through to those that blindly follow and those that choose to keep their heads buried in the sand?
The radicals are the loudest most aggressive voices , like dogs nipping at the heels of the sheep to keep them in line when they wander.
The Sheeple are afraid to think, afraid to speak up. How did we become such a weak minutes country?
Right, left wing “education”.
It all starts with parents and schools. That is why the Dem stronghold refuses to let go of education.
Do Democrats refuse to give up education (K-12 indoctrination), or do we refuse to take it away from them? Nominally we control public education through our elections. We choose to keep funding it. We can change both. Time to ask, why have we not?
Brian, I would argue that as a contemporary conservative you are among the "sheeple" your criticize for ultimately supporting the same democratic and secular foundations and institutions America was built on, which are themselves (classical) liberal innovations. Your failure to align yourself more fully with traditional and religious groups who were the first to fight against the predecessors of modern liberalism is ultimately a great weakness of the conservative movement (yes even the populist MAGA republicans) do not understand), and by embracing elements of liberalism you undermine your own beliefs.
Interesting. Perspective. Who are the more traditional religious groups?
Reality all are Sheep. The real question is who is their shepherd?
Some follow God & Jesus’s teaching and examples.
Our forefathers wrote, Declaration states, “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.”
What do think God & Jesus intended for us?
Do you think the stewards of Gods people, the current political democrats & Rinos sitting at the head of the table are pleasing God?
Do you think God is happy how his people follow the current politicians & bureaucrats?
Or do you think he views them as Jesus viewed the Pharisees?
Did God wipe out the planet 2,000 years ago? Did Jesus remove the politicians of his day? Jesus went direct to the people, the sheep, and urged them to wake up.
A more traditionalist group would the Carlists, George Orwell wrote about their immense commitment to fighting the Republican, Socialist, and Anarchsist coalition and maintaining the purity of their own monarchist and devoutly Catholic ideology. The Carlists were better motivated and equipped than the communist militias fighting in the Spanish Civil War.
The founding fathers while appealing to a "creator" explicity omit "God", the True Christian God, in favor of a more nebulous "creator" which given their own support of freemasonry and deism (a heresey) for at least kne founding father), makes sense. Freemasonry is a secret society that promotes ideas counter to Christian beliefs, including the appeal to rationalism and relativism, in contrast to divinely revealed truths and absolutism.
God intended for us to follow him and I belive that he desired our human government's to express a commitment to uphold his laws and Christian morality as well. This was the case for traditional Catholic monarchies who sought to uphold divinely held truths and promote them in their rule to ensure a moral society.
Most politicians are not known for personal piety, moral absolutism, or righteousness, I do think God is immensely disappointed by most world leaders, especially those who claim to be Christian yet are pragmatic in their approach to governance while also not expressing a true commitment to Christian beliefs. God did not wipe out the planet 2000 years ago, he redeemed it through his death and resurrection, opening the gates of heaven to all men.
I enjoy your points.
The declaration does state, “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” … “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator”
They acknowledge God is the Creator.
They acknowledge Jesus’s teachings
“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.-“
They acknowledge that man is corrupted and cannot be trusted with power. Which is why they designed our government to try & prevent any one person or group from usurping the people’s freedom.
The Masons were not welcomed by organized church. Considering how corrupt the Church was I do not consider that a bad thing. Just like the Pharisees were power hungry & not centered on God.
Free masons believe in God, a Creator. Throughout the ages God has had many names complicated by different languages.
Just as all the main religions believe in the one true God and heaven, the immortal soul. We as humans get hung up on terms, words, semantics and personal issues. So much so we ignore the teachings in the Bible and the fact that God does exist.
We agree that “God is immensely disappointed by most world leaders, especially those who claim to be Christian” Most people wear Christian or Jew as a label but do not actually believe. This is very apparent with a short conversation.
"Considering how corrupt the Church was I do not consider that a bad thing. Just like the Pharisees were power hungry & not centered on God."
You need to explain not only how the Church was corrupt, but also how rejecting it's authority despite being a divine institution founded by Christ (and thus confering his authority to it's leaders, our earthly shepherds) is a good thing. Judad was a part of the ministry of Christ, should we reject Christ because he affiliated with Judas, no that's an outrageous thing to likewise simply having corrupt officials in a Church does not negate the authority or truthfulness of the Church and it's teachings as divine institution.
Moreover, the Pharisees actually possessed valid teaching authority, Christ even tells us to fo as they said, NOT as they do. With the New Covenant, however, Christ appointed authority onto his Apostles by the laying of hands, and that tradition was passed on by the Apostles to their own successors and students, Bishops of the Early Church. These bishops have continued the laying on of hands today and grant validity to the sacraments that all Valid local Churches (those in communion under the Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East).
We are meant to follow God & his word over a “church”.
As Jesus was disappointed with the Pharisees we have seen the same corruption in many churches.
Let the k back through the dark ages at how much gold & expensive carvings & stained glass windows there are while the people lived in poverty.
Jesus told us we do not need to attend a church to pray to god.
Did Jesus instruct his disciples to go to temple to preach his word? No, he said instructed them to go to the people directly. And what designation did Jesus give to his disciples that preached his word? Did God provide them with altars & churches & titles?
I'd be really interested to know what percent of the US population believes in the biblical calendar. Brian - did God wipe out the planet 2000 years ago?
No the Earth was not wiped out even though God was so disappointed in humans. He sent his one & only son, Jesus to lead by example. To show how God intended us to live.
The percent of people who identify as Christian is much more than people who actually believe in God.
All the major religions believe in God, they differ at how they perceive Jesus.
Most of the world believes in God, yet you can’t have a conversation with most people you see every day.
Very important article Mr. Stoker! I was inspired by Ira Gottleib to slowly read Rules from Radicals from start to finish. It is shocking how that book was not only inspired by Lucifer, but articulates the bent one's game plan. I wrote in an article that Alinsky dedicated the book to Lucifer, Snopes and Gottleib contended it was only a literary allusion, but it is worse than both of those. It is worth reading that book just to know the mind of the enemy but you will clearly see the game democrats play and play well. Part of that is to accuse those across the aisle of the same tactics which is never quite true. Most of Alinsky's diabolical tactics are normalized and at play in all our institutions, education, political, medical, and even in the corporate. Think carefully of C.S. Lewis' words against the kind of subjectivism that undergirds Alinsky's and the modern democrats diabolical schemes: the movement “will certainly end our species (and in my view damn our souls) if it is not crushed; that fatal supposition that men can create values, that a community can choose its ideology as men choose their clothes.” Four more years of Biden diversity, Biden's race baiting, open boarders, gender ideology, and perhaps worse of all the fake climate alarmism, the green agenda, and exponentially more damage will be done than by the Clintons, Al Gore, and Obama combined.
We know Geriatric Joe isn't running the show - it's being done by unelected 'advisors', family hustlers, party hacks and various hanger's-on. It's like you and I running California from a back room because our gov was disabled. "Hey, I have a good idea - let's shut the freeways down an hour each day - just think how much the left-wing weenies and woke freaks would love us!"
HA! Exactly Earl!!! There is just too much to say in response, but good comment!
Time to track down Hilary Clinton's college thesis on Alinksy -wonder which way she went back then. She was a Goldwater Girl at one time, having been raised in a conservative family.
great article Mike. I support what you say all the way. How do we get the conservative to be more active in making sure socialism doesn't happen?
Thank you, Mike. Reading this and the comments I'd like to say this about Satanism: I know a lot of people who think Satanism doesn't exist. It does. There are Satanists. And instead of acting as though it's some sort of conservative Christian fantasy, people should research and explore the various strands of Satanism, its origins, and how Satanists are in many fields of important work, not just politics. We all live among Satanists, just as we live among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists. I grew up in Santa Barbara and Pasadena. In the 40s, before my time, there was a house in Pasadena known as The Parsonage. Jack Parsons, who owned it, was a brilliant rocket scientist, part of JPL. He was a follower of Aleister Crowley and married Marjorie Cameron, who was regarded by many people in LA as a witch. Parsons held Satanic rituals at The Parsonage. Among the people who were there was L Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology - an extremely powerful cult in Hollywood. So, if you ever think there no connection between Satanism and politics and Hollywood, you would be quite ignorant. To show you how close all of us are to knowing actual Satanists, one of my childhood friends was related to Marjorie Cameron - his mother was her cousin and apparently, his mother's introduction to the rituals at The Parsonage drove her to Evangelical Christianity. It's time people started studying Satanism and understanding it in a rational way. It is a part of our politics, our entertainment, our schools, our future.
Absolute BULLSHIT!!! …. This country has about as much chance of becoming fully Socialist as it does creating universal healthcare, which will never happen as long as obesity continues to be rampant.
Just another example of clueless conservatives blaming all their own failures and conspiracy theory nonsense on everyone and everything but themselves.
Keep trying!
You must "llike" your own comments, thus the jealousy over the "red hearts" I get it Mark.
For such a smart guy, you use so many words to say so little. Is there a point you can disprove? Alinsky has been a great influence on your favorite politicians and in your psychopathic party, and your only comeback is to call it "bullshit" and call the people who clearly see it "conspiracy theorists?" And you call those who see clearly "clueless"?
And what does obesity have to do with socialism? Body positivity is one of the mechanisms to break down society, just what socialism needs to take in. They cause the problems they pretend to solve.
There is no need to keep trying, it is done. The cat is out of the bag. Calling everyone a racist, a white supremacist, a bigot, a conspiracy theorist has worn out its shelf-life. You keep trying.
Mark: What is "health care" first, before you demand it is universal. aka funded by OPM and the services of others.
Serious question: define "health care" before you demand a blank check. Is it everything you demand, is it rationed and by whom, it is only what medical professional decree is non-futile? is it just for trauma, or for wellness, or repair or merely surrogate endpoint tweaking?
Is it what got exposed today in WSJ "home health visits" by a paraprofessional diagnosing the need for "diabetic cataracts" surgeries, even in those who already had cataract surgery? At one time "health care" was defined by providing health care insurance to everyone. How did that work out? (See example above.)
The devil is in the details, but Lucifer (D) himself is the one who keeps dangling the promise.
Why can't I be a patriot and believe in social security and Medicare? Why do you think the Constitution is more important than the Bible? Why do you think America's birthday is more important than Jesus? Isn't the first commandment to not place any idol before God?
HAHA! Justin, you can believe in social security and Medicare- others have had stranger gods. You seem intentionally obtuse, like the idiots in the media who claimed hoodies, ice tea and skittles had anything to do with Trayvon Martin's tragic death. Socialism is an evil at odds with American. No one said the Constitution is more important that the Bible, this is a political article, not a religious article, again, so obtuse. The reason you cannot be a patriot is that clearly you don't understand the terms of the debate- I blame public schools for your lack, but now you own it so it is yours to amend.
You certainly like to insult my intelligence and straw man my arguments. I find that you are an expert in straw manning, because that is the only way your arguments will hold any water. You know what I mean when I say I believe social security and Medicare have been good things for the American public, but if you need insult my intelligence and education to feel like your arguments are lending to the conversation, by all means continue. I can take it. The point of my comment was worship of the Constitution is a mistake and not what the authors intended. Instead, try seeing it as a living breathing document that can grow, change, and in my hope, get better. The Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. The Constitution in 1788. So with a couple years, the framers realized they needed to change and grow their document to improve it.
Justin, I could never do more to insult your intelligence but to repeat what you write- and there are no strawmen, if there were, I am sure you would attempt to reveal them. The Constitution is not a living document. It is not a breathing document, morality does not evolve, the objective truth does not change. To add to it, and clarify is something radically different.
What does limited government look like to you, Justin. It is not no government.
Patriots believe in the original constitutional fundamentals. Good place to ground your concerns since the US constitution is "government".
Explain how patriotism is unwavering, non questioning belief in the Constitution? Which, if any, one of the amendments counts? Can it be amended further? Your argument is beyond silly. I'm the biggest patriot you will meet. I love this country. And I think it can get better.
Article V - US Constitution - Amendments Clause
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
NB Justin: Six Amendments have been passed during my own life time.
"The ratification dates for each of the 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are as follows:
First 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) – December 15, 1791
11th Amendment – February 7, 1795
12th Amendment – June 15, 1804
13th Amendment – December 6, 1865
14th Amendment – July 9, 1868
15th Amendment – February 3, 1870
16th Amendment – February 3, 1913
17th Amendment – April 8, 1913
18th Amendment – January 16, 1919
19th Amendment – August 18, 1920
20th Amendment – January 23, 1933
21st Amendment – December 5, 1933
22nd Amendment – February 27, 1951
23rd Amendment – March 29, 1961
24th Amendment – January 23, 1964
25th Amendment – February 10, 1967
26th Amendment – July 1, 1971
27th Amendment – May 7, 1992"
Justin. fundamentals of the US Constitution assume it can get better too. Of course, it can be amended further. That is why the original US Constitution intrinsically allows for amendments.
Being "patriot" is not carved in stone. Not sure where you are going with that question - do you think the term has one fixed meaning and is some sort of litmus test applied by writ of law?
My old boss is always a thoughtful writer for the conservative point of view. I’ve said this before, but after decades as a card carrying Republican (I voted in my first election by absentee ballot from Vietnam) I re registered as an independent when the party was hijacked by the likes of Santos Greene, Boebert, Cawthorn et al. I have GRAVE concerns about Project 2025 and despite DJTs denial of having anything to do with it, his name is mentioned numerous times and most of the framers are past Trump staffers. Great choices this year. The third party candidate admits a worm ate his brain to boot.
When a leading conservative humor site Babylon Bee spoofs Project 2025, it might be time also to take it less seriously as well: https://babylonbee.com/news/12-most-horrifying-plans-in-project-2025
"when the party was hijacked by the likes of Santos Greene, Boebert, Cawthorn et al. I have GRAVE concerns about Project 2025 and despite DJTs denial of having anything to do with it, his name is mentioned numerous times and most of the framers are past Trump staffers. Great choices this year. The third party candidate admits a worm ate his brain to boot."
Not that I care for these people as a Catholic Monarchist, but how exactly are they hijacking the conservative movement from your perspective as far as I'm concerned they just happen to oppose the conservatism that had been watered down by secularism and a focus on purely economic conservatism with an emphasis on at least marginally more conservative beliefs. They are far from extreme. I have made it clear my own desire as a Carlist to establish a confessional state in America.
Two out of three of your alleged GOP party hi-jackers already got booted, and the remaining too are actually pretty sharp ladies. Not sure your worries about the GOP are well-grounded. Or any less worrisome than the "other guys".
Could go on forever. The Project 2025 document and its tenets pretty much cover the hijack.
What is conservatism to you, because it should be about protecting traditional and religious values and desiring a moral and effective government, not a movement that caves into secular and liberal pressure.
Or one that caves to Christian Nationalism and unbridled tax breaks for the rich and corporate donors?
I don't care for Christian nationalism, Andy, I want a genuinely Christian movement to reflect Catholic social teaching. Nationalism is a modern and liberal creation, I want people centering their identity around God first and foremost, than after him a Catholic monarch reflects authentic Christian tecahings aimed around uplifiting the poor and marginalized and ensuring the peolle are nourshed both materially and spiritually. I do not know what you think my beliefs are, but I'm a Carlist, a traditional and Catholic group rooted in values that predate modern conservatism. I don't want tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, in fact I despise capitalism and market liberalism, they are liberal constructs that are neither moral nor Christian. I want a distrubutist economic model in which the means of production are owned by families and communities, where corporations are heavily regulated by the state to uphold morality, prevent the exploitation of workers, prevent environments and local communities from being harmed, and from creating deviant or obscene products like pornography.
I am sure Alinsky was very liberal, probably a socialist. However, after a short amount of time researching Alinsky, many of the assertions in this article are not true. For instance, Obama never mentioned him in his book, "Dreams from my Fathers" or Alinsky never advocated increasing poverty level as high as possible to advance his ideas. Although it's true Hillary wrote her college thesis about him, she was actually quite critical of his methods. She did not think his divisive tactics would work. Hillary, surprisingly, was very critical of the 1960's govt antipoverty programs because she said they had been ineffective. Given what I found in just 10 minutes, I am not all that confident many of the so-called facts in this article are any more correct.
This doesn't mean I subscribe to any of the stuff Alinsky wrote about since he was espousing far-left viewpoints. My only point, as a conservative, is that we do not need to engage in misinformation to win over people to our side.
Funny how we read about Alinsky back in the Obama years, then Hillary, then Bernie and now Biden again, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and the Dem party is not neck deep in socialist sympathizers, right?
Or Fox News recycles boogey man because it can't come up with anything real to talk about.
Wow,Justin, you scared the hell out of me, My son's name is Justin and I thought he had become a lefty all of a sudden
Thoughts and prayers he will make it out ok.
I know I did. I was way left; full hippy,surfer,artist,environmentalist, then Jimmy Carter came along. I had just built my first house, interest rates went from 8 to 18 per cent, Iranians had our hostages,, cars were lining up for gas on Milpas. I turned into an independent and have stayed so. These times remind me of those
If Mr. Stoker can show a legitimate source that "Alinsky stated there are several levels of control that must first be obtained before one is able to successfully create a socialist state. The first is the most important: healthcare" or actually any list of these levels I'll donate 10 bucks to his next election or charity of his choice. Alinsky's writings and methods were focused on grassroots organizing and empowering communities, not top-down government control.
The rules for radicals aren't that radical. The sound like any political playlist.
Here there are :
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
"Never go outside the expertise of your people."
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up."
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."