PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION


Founding Fathers Political Spectrum

The Leftist paradigm to reinvent America different from the intentions of America’s Founding Fathers:

 

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction. (From a Fix Bayonets post)

 

Danny Jeffrey has presented a brilliant post which he attributes as submitted by Dee Fatouros. The thing is this post has a lot of the flavor of Danny’s work so I am a bit uncertain if this is the entire work of Dee Fatouros or if Danny Jeffrey collaborated in the content. Frankly it is irrelevant if this post is collaborative or the work of a sole author. Although essay wise the wording may be lengthy, the journey is quite concise in its layout.

 

This essay is entitled “PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION”. I originally wrote that I haven’t examined or did a search on Fix Bayonets to see if parts one through four are. However in trying to checkout some info on Dee Fatouros I discover that Danny Jeffrey placed all parts on a Blogger page with a Fix Bayonets look: DeeFatourosWorkUpSite. In your own investigations of the potential collapse of the America we know, it might behoove you to find parts one through four in your own research.

 

The essay begins with the foundation of a great civics lesson on American politics from inception to the present. THEN the author (or authors) explains how the American Left with George Soros as the current Leftist puppeteer deceptive pulling the strings of politics and money to transform America to a member of global totalitarian One World Government under the paradigm of Leftist altruism that is absolutely void of real Liberty and independent entrepreneurship.

 

JRH 5/11/15

Please Support NCCR

******************************

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION

 

Submitted By Dee Fatouros

May 11, 2015 6:39 AM

Fix Bayonets

 

Political Institutions:

Institutions that pertain to the governance of a society, its formal distribution of authority, its use of force, and its relationships to other societies and political units. The state, an important political institution in modern societies, is the apparatus of governance over a particular territory.

Here is a rundown of the various forms of government, with definitions provided by “The World Factbook.”

 

Absolute monarchy – a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

 

Anarchy – a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

 

Authoritarian – a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens’ lives.

 

Commonwealth – a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

 

Communist – a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single — often authoritarian — party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

 

Confederacy (Confederation) – a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

 

Constitutional – a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.


Constitutional democracy – a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.


Constitutional monarchy – a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.


Democracy – a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.


Democratic republic – a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.


Dictatorship – a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).


Ecclesiastical – a government administrated by a church.


Emirate – similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Federal (Federation) – a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided — usually by means of a constitution — between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.


Federal republic – a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.


Islamic republic – a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.


Maoism – the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.


Marxism – the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist “dictatorship of the proletariat,” to, finally, a classless society — Communism.


Marxism-Leninism – an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers’ struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.


Monarchy – a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign – such as a king, queen or prince – with constitutionally limited authority.


Oligarchy – a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.


Parliamentary democracy – a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government – a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers – according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.


Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) – a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader – a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.


Parliamentary monarchy – a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head – a prime minister, premier or chancellor – who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).


Presidential – a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).


Republic – a representative democracy in which the people’s elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.


Socialism – a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.


Sultanate – similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Theocracy – a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity’s laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.


Totalitarian – a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

 

The excerpts from the following article are detailed at the end with a link, but they are all part of the same excellent overview.

A SHORT GUIDE TO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

 

The United States is – by size of electorate – the second largest democracy on the globe (India is the largest and Indonesia comes third) and the most powerful nation on earth, politically, economically and militarily, but its political system is in many important respects unlike any other in the world. This essay then was written originally to inform non-Americans as to how the American political system works.


What has been striking, however, is how many Americans – especially young Americans – have found the essay useful and insightful. There is considerable evidence that many Americans know and understand little about the political system of their own country – possibly more than is the case with any other developed democratic nation.

In the U.S., the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests what American students are learning. It has found that the two worst subjects for American students are civics and American history. One NAEP survey found that only 7% of eighth graders (children aged 13-14) could describe the three branches of government.

On a recent trip to the United States, I was eating cereal for breakfast and found that the whole of the reverse side of the cereal packet was devoted to a short explanation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the American government. I find it hard to imagine that many democratic nations would feel it necessary to explain such a subject in such a format.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:


To understand any country’s political system, it is helpful to know something of the history of the nation and the background to the creation of the (latest) constitution. But this is a fundamental necessity in the case of the American political system. This is because the Constitution of the United States is so different from those of other nations and because that Constitution is, in all material respects, the same document as it was over two centuries ago…

 


THE CONSTITUTION:


Unlike Britain but like most nation states, the American political system is clearly defined by basic documents. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1789 form the foundations of the United States federal government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as an independent political entity, while the Constitution creates the basic structure of the federal government…

Further information on the thinking expressed in the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers which are a series of 85 articles and essays published in 1787-1788 promoting the ratification of the Constitution…

THE PRESIDENCY:


What is the Presidency?


The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. He – so far, the position has always been held by a man – is both the head of state and the head of government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. He presides over the executive branch of the government, a vast organisation numbering about four million people, including one million active-duty military personnel…

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:


What is the House of Representatives?


The House of Representatives is the lower chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The founders of the United States intended the House to be the politically dominant entity in the federal system and, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the House served as the primary forum for political debate. However, subsequently the Senate has been the dominant body…

THE SENATE:


What is the Senate?


The Senate is the upper chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The original intention of the authors of the US Constitution was that the Senate should be a regulatory group, less politically dominant than the House. However, since the mid-19th century, the Senate has been the dominant chamber and indeed today it is perhaps the most powerful upper house of any legislative body in the world…

THE SUPREME COURT:


What is the Supreme Court?


The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Originally it had five members but over time this number has increased. Since 1869, it has consisted of nine Justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. They have equal weight when voting on a case and the Chief Justice has no casting vote or power to instruct colleagues. Decisions are made by a simple majority.

Below the Supreme Court, there is a system of Courts of Appeal, and, below these courts, there are District Courts. Together, these three levels of courts represent the federal judicial system.

POLITICAL PARTIES & ELECTIONS:


To an extent quite extraordinary in democratic countries, the American political system is dominated by two political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (often known as the ‘Grand Old Party’ or GOP). These are very old and very stable parties – the Democrats go back to 1824 and the Republicans were founded in 1854.

In illustrations and promotional material, the Democratic Party is often represented as a donkey, while the Republican Party is featured as an elephant. The origin of these symbols is the political cartoonist Thomas Nast who came up with them in 1870 and 1874 respectively.

The main reason for the dominance of these two parties is that – like most other Anglo-Saxon countries (notably Britain) – the electoral system is ‘first past the post’ or simple majority which, combined with the large voter size of the constituencies in the House and (even more) the Senate, ensures that effectively only two parties can play. The other key factor is the huge influence of money in the American electoral system. Since effectively a candidate can spend any amount he can raise (not allowed in many other countries) and since one can buy broadcasting time (again not allowed in many countries), the US can only ‘afford’ two parties or, to put it another way, candidates of any other party face a formidable financial barrier to entry…

THE FEDERAL SYSTEM:

Understanding the federal nature of the United States is critical to appreciating the complexities of the American political system.


Most political systems are created top-down. A national system of government is constructed and a certain amount of power is released to lower levels of government.
The unique history of the United States means that, in this case, the political system was created bottom-up.

First, some 240 years ago, there were were 13 autonomous states who, following the War of Independence against the British, created a system of government in which the various states somewhat reluctantly ceded power to the federal government. Around a century later, the respective authority of the federal government and the individual states was an issue at the heart of the Civil War when there was a bloody conflict over who had the right to determine whether slavery was or was not permissible. With the exception of Switzerland, no other Western democracy diffuses power to the same degree as America.


So today the powers of the federal government remain strictly limited by the Constitution – the critical Tenth Amendment of 1791 – which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.



Each state has an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.


The head of the executive is the Governor who is directly elected.


The legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives (the exception is the state of Nebraska which has a unicameral system).


The judiciary consists of a state system of courts.


The 50 states are divided into counties (parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska). Each county has its court.

Although the Constitution prescribes precisely when Presidential and Congressional elections will be held, the dates and times of state and local elections are determined by state governments. Therefore there is a plethora of elections in the United States and, at almost all times, an election is being held somewhere in the country. State and local elections, like federal elections, use the ‘first past the post’ system of election.



The debate about federalism in the US is far from over. There are those who argue for a stronger role for the federal government and there are advocates of locating more power at the state level.
The recent rise of the electorally-successful Tea Party movement owes a good deal to the view that the federal government has become too dominant, too intrusive and too profligate.

Meanwhile many states – especially those west of the Rockies – have what has been called “the fourth arm of government”: this is the ballot or referendum initiative. This enables a policy question to be put to the electorate as a result of the collection of a certain number of signatures or the decision of the state legislation. Over the last century, some 3,000 such initiatives have been conducted – in some cases (such as California) with profound results.

RECENT TRENDS:


In all political systems, there is a disconnect between the formal arrangements, as set out in the constitution and relevant laws, and the informal arrangements, as occurs in practice. Arguably, in the United States this disconnect is sharper than in most other democratic systems because:



The US Constitution is an old one (late 18th century) whereas most countries have had several constitutions with the current one typically being a 20th century creation.

The US Constitution is relatively immutable so it is very difficult to change the provisions to reflect the reforms that have come about over time from the pressure of events.

Since the US adopted its Constitution, the US has become the pre-eminent world economic and political power which has brought about major changes in how the Presidency operates, most especially in the international sphere.

What this means is that, in the last century and most especially since the end of the Second World War, the reality of how the American political system operates has changed quite fundamentally in terms which are not always evident from the terms of the Constitution (and indeed some might argue are in some respects in contravention of the Constitution). The main changes are as follows:

The balance of power between the Congress and the President has shifted significantly in favour of the President. This is evident in the domestic sphere through practices like ‘impoundment’ (when money is taken from the purpose intended by Congress and allocated to another purpose favoured by the President) and in the international sphere through refusal to invoke the War Powers Resolution in spite of major military invasions. Different terms for this accretion of power by the Presidency are “the unitary executive” and “the imperial presidency”.

The impact of private funding of political campaigns and of lobbyists and special interest groups in political decision making have increased considerably. Candidates raise their own money for campaigns, there is effectively no limit on the money that can be spent in such campaigns (thanks to what is called super Political Action Committees), and the levels of expenditure – especially in the presidential primaries and election proper – have risen astronomically… this has led to some observers describing the American political system as a plutocracy, since it is effectively controlled by private finance from big businesses, which expect certain policies and practices to follow from the candidates they are funding, and big donors, who often expect preferment such as an ambassadorship from a candidate elected as President.

There has been a growth of what is called “pork barrel” politics through the use of “earmarks”…  appropriations are achieved through “earmarks” which can be found both in legislation (also called “hard earmarks” or “hardmarks”) and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called “soft earmarks” or “softmarks”).


The nature of political debate in the United States has become markedly more partisan and bitter… US domestic politics has become polarized and tribal. As a result, the political culture is often more concerned with satisfying the demands of the political ‘base’ rather than attempting to achieve a national consensus.

One final trend worth noting is the frequency of the same family to provide members of Congress. Low polling in elections, the high cost of running for election, and the focus on the individual more than the party all mean that a well-known name can work successfully for a candidate. Everyone is familiar with the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs in American politics but, in 2014, there are no less than 37 members of Congress who have a relative who has served in the legislature….continue.

Since 2004, a clear majority of Americans have told Gallup that they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed… This disillusionment is reflected in the falling number of Americans who even bother to vote….

The debate about the effectiveness of the US political system is a part of the wider debate about whether or not the United States is in relative decline on the world stage. In his book “Time To Start Thinking: America And The Spectre Of Decline” [for my review click here], Edward Luce writes: “Sometimes it seems Americans are engaged in some kind of collusion in which voters pretend to elect their lawmakers and lawmakers pretend to govern. This, in some ways, is America’s core problem: the more America postpones any coherent response to the onset of relative decline, the more difficult the politics are likely to get.”

To read the entire presentation, go here

 

Enter the primary enabler of the movement to accelerate destruction of the American ethos:

George Soros is one of the most malicious individuals on the face of planet Earth. He uses his immense fortune to undermine the political and financial systems of nations not only to line his pockets but to remake the world to his liking. He has used his wealth and influence to build a lethal network cloaked in social justice to fuel his agenda. Once America has been brought to its knees, nothing will stand in the way of the globalist agenda. His biography is far too lengthy to discuss in this writing, but go here to read much more.

 

From The Shadow Party And The Shadow Government

 

If George Soros were a lone billionaire, or if the Shadow Party consisted of a few disgruntled billionaires, these facts and achievements would not be so ominous. But the Shadow Party is far more than a reflection of the prejudices of one special interest or one passing generation. The Shadow Party has united the forces of the radical and “liberal” left while expelling moderates from the Democratic Party coalition. The Shadow Party is the current incarnation of a socialist movement that has been at war with the free market economy and the political system based on liberty and individual rights for more than two hundred years. It is a movement that has learned to conceal its ultimate goal, which is a totalitarian state, in the seductive rhetoric of “progressivism” and “social justice.” But its determination to equalize outcomes, its zeal for state power and for government control as the solution to social problems, and its antagonism to America as a defender of freedom are the tell-tale signs of a radical movement whose agenda is to change fundamentally and unalterably the way Americans have lived.  

 

For further detail on exactly how he and others have been working for decades to change the face of the American political system, go here and here. The information is both detailed and extensive in the links connected with this section, but well worth the time since they are an excellent illustration of the stealth attack on America. After reading the material, one will no longer need to ask, “How did we get here?”

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction.

The strategy of pitting various categories of the citizenry against each other is a most effective emotional technique. Minorities, women, and those comprising the LGBT aggregation are the favorite targets in the current attack in which to implant a narrative of discrimination and victimization by the created straw man of  a white, male dominated, capitalist America.

Take a grain of truth and build upon it until it becomes an an iron clad falsified structure with a siren call to the targeted groups. When such a dynamic is set into motion, it is nearly impossible to counter because currents of such beliefs often flicker below the surface and, in difficult times, can be easily ignited often leading to riots and violence between the different classes of victims as well as against the perceived enemy. The violence, if stoked long enough and hard enough by those seeking to destroy the system, could eventually lead to martial law and an outright totalitarian usurpation of governing power.

Such a takeover would be long and bloody and best avoided by the power masters. It would be far better and more easily managed if a state of collective anomie could be induced resulting in the despair of the national psyche leaving it vulnerable to such promises as “Hope And Change”, world peace (UN government), economic security (redistribution of wealth), a classless society where all are equal, (all are equally poor due to the elimination of entrepreneurship) and discrimination (free speech) is a crime.

The above is precisely what has been happening to America over past century via the gradual erosion of our major social institutions. The pillars of our culture have been infested with the corrosive elements of political mendacity as well as disinterest of the electorate, educationally induced intellectual laziness, spiritual rot, and the false promise of a benign central governmental structure that will do everything in its power to care for the cultivated dependence and/or the hedonism of its citizenry.

Total control by a world government has been inching along and is now going full throttle, unnoticed by the collective I.Q. due to decades of conditioning. Great civilizations have risen and fallen due to the ambitions of the ever increasing totalitarian, expansionist, and expensive tendencies of the governing power. The unawareness and often complicity of the citizenry contributed to the downward spirals because the governed were not fully attentive to the true meaning of the events unfolding before their eyes.

Between a sense of false victimization and bread and circuses lavished upon certain groups via the largess of the central government’s bleeding of the taxpayers, America will eventually collapse. The set up will then be complete for the UN to step in. A stifling darkness will descend upon humankind until the dormant embers of awareness, safely secured by their guardians, slowly become nascent and begin to glow once again. We must be those guardians and pass our precious treasure to future generations so that they will be ready to “Fix Bayonets” for the combat to come.

 

SHARE this essay…


This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend’s timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below.

Suggested Reading…

 

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part One

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part Two

Planned Chaos, Part III, The Attack On Our Religious Institutions

Planned Chaos Part IV, The Economy

The Captivity Of Illusion

_____________________________

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey

 

VISIT FIX BAYONETS LIBRARY

 

So … Conservatives are an Outside Group among Republicans


RINO Republican caricature

John R. Houk

© January 9, 2014

 

In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.

 

Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.

 

The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.

 

In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.

 

In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.

 

The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.

 

In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.

 

Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.

 

Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.

 

Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.

 

But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?

 

The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.

 

Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:

 

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).

By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)

 

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:

 

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.

 

 

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14

 

According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)

 

Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.

 

We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.

 

Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.

 

 

In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.

 

 

Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.

 

… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)

 

So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.

 

JRH 1/9/13

Please Support NCCR