CRT is Evil and the Obama Influence

Soledad O'Brien v. Joel Pollack 2

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2012

If you are wondering way President Barack Hussein Obama’s Harvard U student embrace of Professor Derrick Bell is important then watch this Soledad O’Brien Leftist attempt to inform CNN (known to Conservatives as the Communist News Network) viewers that Bell’s Critical Race Theory is not about calling White people supremacists in general. Editor-in-Chief Joe Pollak of handles himself quite well with O’Brien’s invective defense of BHO’s warm affection for Professor Bell.

VIDEO:The Vetting: CNN Implodes Over Breitbart’s Obama/Bell Video

Now here is the thing about Soledad O’Brien’s misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory. Pollak busted O’Brien on her inaccuracy about the White Supremacist component about the theory which cited from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for O’Brien the original Wikipedia article sided with Pollak. Evidently a large amount of people attempted to go into the article to change it to match O’Brien’s inaccurate rendering so Wikipedia “froze” the article and put an older version of Critical Race Theory. Can you say Left Wing cover-up?

The Daily Caller reports that Wikipedia has frozen its entryon Critical Race Theory, reverting to the version of the page that existed before her on-air implosion in debate with’s Joel Pollak.

At the time, O’Brien–evidently citing the first line of the Wikipedia entry–claimed that Critical Race Theory had nothing to do with white supremacy. However, the same entry she relied upon–or which producers provided via her earpiece–mentions white supremacy twice.

The Daily Caller quotes a senior Wikipedia editor as saying that the entry is being frozen for a short time because of attempts to cover for O’Brien–and competing attempts to uncover the cover-up: “Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I’m semi-protecting the article for a week.”

As for O’Brien, she has yet to correct the record, and attacked Pollak for an entire segment in her Monday show, leading even sympathetic media critics to mock her attempted “do-over.” She has asked angry viewers to “stop tweeting” her about the subject. ( 3/13/12)

So let’s look at Critical Race Theory from another source than Wikipedia. is a website that I think everyone would agree is Leftist oriented. And in being Left Wing Slate author Will Oremus defends Critical Race Theory and therefore Professor Derrick Bell and ultimately President Barack Hussein Obama.

Oremus first goes through a brief educational moment on Critical Race Theory (CRT). I am going to excerpt the part of his article that defends CRT as a non-supremacist race theory in the sense that CRT does not accuse the entire White Race of the supremacism that emanates from say the Ku Klux Klan, Arian Nation idiots and the like.

Bell in particular advanced what he called “interest convergence theory,” which holds that whites will support minority rights only when it’s in their interest as well. For example, he saw the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, as a part of a Cold War effort to improve America’s standing among Third World countries. To redress racial wrongs, he sympathized with black nationalists’ calls for separate black institutions but also pushed for affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.

On CNN, O’Brien and Pollak clashed over Pollak’s assertion that “white supremacy is at the heart of critical race theory.” It’s true that Bell often used that loaded term to describe what he saw as an entrenched racial hierarchy. He didn’t mean, however, that America is full of white supremacists, in the Ku Klux Klan sense. As Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic note in “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” those who subscribe to it believe that racism can be an everyday fact of life for people of color even if whites rarely notice it.

So is the theory radical? Yes, in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions. Critical race theorists argue that what many Americans think of as the “white race” does not describe a distinct group of people but rather a social construct that serves to benefit some groups and marginalize others. And unlike some strands of academic and legal thought, critical race theory has an open and activist agenda, with an emphasis on storytelling and personal experience. It’s about righting wrongs, not just questing after knowledge.

But Bell and his fellow theorists, who include Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, and Charles Lawrence, were not radical in the sense of advocating extreme tactics to achieve political ends, like Greenpeace or the Irish Republican Army. They fought their battles in the halls of academia, not on the streets. And many of their ideas are not radical today in the sense of being outside the mainstream: Critical race theory is widely taught and studied, not only in law but in sociology, education, and other fields. And it is part of the mainstream debates over affirmative action, immigration, and hate-crime laws. ( March 9, 2012, at 2:59 PM ET)

So Oremus is saying CRT was not advocating a Black Revolution to terminate the U.S. Constitution and redistribute power and wealth to give minority races (Bell is thinking African-Americans) a leg up on the White Race like violent White Supremacists would do to minorities to denigrate their racial existence. CRT is different than violent White Supremacists because the theory advocates a societal-cultural transformation by writing about it in academia. What? So CRT is good because it wants to destroy the American experiment in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of Constitutional government because the White Race wrote the instruments of power to remain superior to any other race on a subliminal level; ergo it must change. Change how?

Oremus DOES NOT really delve into the CRT methodology of this transformative change. I think the methodology is evident in the GramsciAlinskyObama model to use the U.S. Constitution to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

The change Bell intended for America and that President Barack Hussein Obama subscribes to may not be an immediate minority revolution to overthrow the White Race, but the Bell-Obama concept of Change is a racial theory to terminate the U.S. Constitution. After the Constitution is rendered to a relic of history the intention is to continue to whittle away the vision of the Founding Fathers to make America closer akin to a Marxist Amerika in which self-initiative, merit, power and property are redistributed in such a way that minorities tell the White majority how to exist in a kind of reverse Apartheid.

Violent or not, Professor Bell was an anti-White racist with a hatred that moved him to rip power and property from his perceived enemy race to bring equality to minorities in an egalitarian-authoritarian manner. In full disclosure I believe Bell intended to share that power and property with the enemy White Race, but only with those with a utopian Marxist like vision that eliminates property and Liberty that is still constitutional today. has a better explanation of Critical Race Theory than Oremus’ pro-CRT view. It is a bit lengthy but you need to read it to understand how anti-American Derrick Bell was and to understand that President Barack Hussein Obama totally buys into this theory to destroy the American way of life.

JRH 3/14/12

Overpopulation Stuff – Tony Newbill


Tony Newbill writes (in several emails) about Leftist utopianism in which a ruling elite desire to create circumstances in which the planet Earth’s population is reduced substantially (we are talking billions) that the Secular Humanist vision of a Green Earth maintains a sustainable population for food consumption and human waste.


If that intro is too cryptic to understand, Obama has people in places of power that is on an extra-Constitutional basis that desires to exterminate billions of people to keep earth an inhabitable planet as defined by Malthusian elitist rule.


JRH 12/27/11

Newt the Conservative Candidate

newt-gingrich-releases-new-contract-with-america. 9-23-11


John R. Houk

December 9, 2011


I have been leaning toward Newt Gingrich as a nominee choice for the GOP lately. Newt has been surging in the polls lately so I am guessing that I am not alone in that migration. Again I still like Michele Bachmann and will not hesitate to favor her again if she can get more support on board with her effort to win the nomination.


I am discovering though that Newt has many Conservative detractors that are calling him a Liberal or a Socialist in disguise. I am finding this especially among Conservatives that consider themselves among Independents and/or a Conspiracy Theorist slant.


My Conspiracy Theory buddy Tony Newbill echoes the complaint with this John Birch Society video that is a warning that Newt is not a true Conservative.


NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler in 1994 when you became Speaker or Internationalize the USA?


Sent by Tony Newbill

Sent 12/4/2011 11:37 AM



NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler as is described in this Video about when you became Speaker in the 1990s. You wanted the Congress to read this book, so was it to show the kind of ideology that was Infiltrating the USA policy making in Washington or was it to align with this ideology?


Please forward the video to the time frame 11:40:


Below is a link that is set to start at the 11:40 mark:


Kelleigh Nelson wrote a two part hit article on Newt Gingrich entitled “The Phony Right-Wing & Who is Selling Us Down the River? – Newt Gingrich: Part One & Two”.


Nelson begins Part 1 by describing Newt’s ten years in Congress as a closet communist by comparing Newt’s Congressional agenda to various Marxist ideologies. At this point Nelson calls Newt a Neocon. Evidently she considers Neocons as closet Communists because many of them actually came from a Communist background. The problem with her closet Communist assessment is that Neocons that were former Leftist Liberals abandoned Communism recognizing the utter failure of the Marxist based ideology. My perspective on Neoconservatism is that they are people that support Conservative values domestically and American Exceptionalism in relation to Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations. It is the less government – more government paradox. Neocons have rejected Big Brother control of the populace hence the less government domestically. Neocons see two objectives that need to be sustained (yes I know “sustained” is an evil word among Conspiracy Theorists). One objective is to promote any policy that protects American sovereignty as the world’s exceptionally best nation. The second objective is to spread American values internationally at all costs to promote a world that is more for us than against us. I realize these two objectives I have thought up are quite subjective and I am certain that intellectual Neocons could list quite a number of specifics; nonetheless in a nutshell I believe this is an easy to comprehend summary of Neoconservatism. Both objectives lean toward big government to maintain American Exceptionalism. Libertarians and Paleocons (i.e. more traditional Conservatives) have a problem with big government of any kind.


Then Nelson proceeds to list her perspective on Bills that Newt voted “Yea” on to contradict Newt’s Conservative bona fides.


In 1994 Newt voted:


1.   YEA to the National Endowment for the Arts


2.   YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping


3.   YEA for the presidential line item veto


4.   YEA for 13 billion in foreign aid


5.   YEA for 166 million more for the IRS


6.   Led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power.  It was, because it overrode Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.  As well, GATT reduces the amount of money we can save for pensions.  He jawed with President Clinton in NH that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents.  Remember Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax.


He also voted:


1.   China as Most Favored Nation for trade


2.   Voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets.


3.   Voted to transfer 2.2 million acres in Idaho to Wilderness status.


4.   Voted for federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China.


5.   Voted for taxpayer funds being available to foreign governments through export/import banks.


He is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were pro-amnesty.  Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.”  How about 40 million Newt…send them home, they’re an invasion!  (Link (Link Dead))


He is pro foreign aid.  In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%.


Newt also backed a strong central government, strong environmental laws, national service programs, the United Nations Goals 2000 (which many Republicans voted for), federal financing of local police, and UN peacekeeping missions for our military.


Gingrich is pro-Obamacare and even advocated it in the 90s on Meet the Press, and recently.  (Link)


He did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that is coming back to haunt him, but in reality, he is a big environmentalist. (Link)


Is pro-Gun Control — Newt is currently circulating a letter advertising a DVD called:  “America at Risk” for which you may obtain a copy if you send him $35.00 or more.  On page 3 of his six-page letter he says:  “Today the choice is yours:  You can either sit back and allow Barack Obama and the liberal elite to disarm our country, leaving us defenseless against enemies who explicitly desire to erase America from existence.”


If you are Conservative these points that Nelson is portraying should send shivers of distrust up and down your spine. Nelson’s point is that Conservatives should not trust Newt Gingrich in his current campaign rhetoric which has all the appearances of a Conservative Republican candidate.


I posted some thoughts on Newt’s illegal alien plan that included much of his 21st Century Contract with America which goes beyond the issue of illegals in America. That post is entitled, “Frankly I Like Newt’s Thoughts on Illegal Aliens”. Newt’s plan answers Nelson on the issue of the fake Conservative accusation. Frankly a comparison may connect Nelson’s indictment of Newt being a Neocon. I have Neocon leanings hence that makes Newt even more likable for me. You should note that Newt is NOT working a campaign with a Leftist message that government control the lives of American citizens. Newt is asking voters to send out their thoughts on how to improve America. Newt does not say he will use those thoughts; nonetheless it implies Newt would keep his possible Presidential Administration in contact with the little guy who actually thinks rather than is propagandized on how to vote.


Then Nelson joins many Conservatives with distrust of Newt because of the association with futurist Alvin Toffler.


Okay, so we’ve gone over what Newt has done in the past, and part of what he stands for, but we haven’t touched at all on his belief in Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s The Third Wave. To make it quite clear, Toffler’s beliefs are rooted solidly in communism, but dressed up thoroughly in neo-con speak and sprinkled with the tiniest bit of capitalism. This is why so many of our electorate are fooled by the RINOs and why so many of these RINOs go along with the communists in the Democrat party.


In 1994, Newt presented a list of 8 works he wanted everyone to read….first was the Declaration of Independence, second the Federalist Papers, and third was The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler printed by the new age Progress and Freedom Foundation. Alvin Toffler is Newt Gingrich’s mentor, so we need to take a closer look at what Toffler espouses in The Third Wave. By the way he never mentioned reading the Constitution and for good reason. He wants to be rid of it.


Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. …


Nelson proceeds to use an eight part article entitled Democrats in Drag by Steve Farrell as a data base to describe Toffler as a Marxist-Communist. Remember this is important to Nelson because Newt and Toffler are buddies at least intellectually.


Farrell compares Toffler’s book Third Wave as a futurist concept that has been used in the past. Farrell lists three people from the past he considers Communistic:


1.   Plato – The Republic


2.   Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto


3.   Adolf Hitler – “National Socialism” which is Nazism which has Mein Kampf as the primary document.


Is Toffler a Communist? A Free Republic blogger quotes a New American article in which Toffler’s thoughts run like this:


In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist”. He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented—a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”


Honestly the parts the New Republic blogger emphasizes certainly is the objective of Marxism especially as espoused by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Leninist-Marxism desires societal transformation via violence. Gramsci-Marxism desires societal transformation by infiltrating culture and government to transform society slowly by the rule of law with people not realizing what is happening to them. Incidentally BHO’s hero Saul Alinsky is kind of an American version of Gramsci-Marxism.


Here is a review of a book (Cyber-Marx – Aufheben) that includes a snippet of information of Alvin Toffler thought.



Information revolutionaries



The ‘information revolutionaries’ have revamped the post-industrial thesis as the transition to the ‘information society’ in which industry has been succeeded by information. The ‘revolutionary doctrine’ of those who have argued that this ‘information revolution’ is both inevitable and desirable, and to which one must adapt or face obsolescence is summarized by Dyer-Witheford in seven points:


1. The world is in transition to a new stage of civilisation, a transition comparable to the earlier shift from agrarian to industrial society.


2. The crucial resource of the new society is technoscientific knowledge.


3. The principal manifestation and prime mover of the new era is the invention and diffusion of information technologies.


4. The generation of wealth increasingly depend on an ‘information economy’ in which the exchange and manipulation of symbolic data matches, exceeds, or subsumes the importance of material processing.


5. These techno-economic changes are accompanied by far-reaching and fundamentally positive social transformations.


6. The information revolution is planetary in scale.


7. The information revolution marks not only a new phase in human civilization but also a new stage in the development of life itself.


Alvin Toffler is a former Marxist who has popularised these ideas and polemisized against what he now considers to be an obsolete Marxism. According to Toffler, as the information economy eliminates the factory so the legions of mass labour vanish, and with them Marx’s historical protagonist. The industrial proletariat disappears to be replaced by workers who ‘own a critical, often irreplaceable, share of the means of production’: knowledge. Thus the foundation for Marx’s theory of class conflict falls away – class as a collective identity based on adversarial relations of production will have been dissolved. (Emphasis SlantRight)

For the information revolutionaries, therefore, information technology has created a world in which communism is neither possible nor necessary.


This reviewer calls Toffler a “former Marxist.” Not so much because Toffler has abandoned the Marxist dream of a socio-political utopia, but because Toffler believes the Information Revolution (The Third Wave) will render class conflict irrelevant because the fruit of production – knowledge – will be shared across the class spectrum from the proletariat through the bourgeoisie. Toffler believes the Information Revolution will transform this world’s socio-political culture (or I guess cultures plural) in a natural evolutionary way.


So Toffler is not a Marxist in either the Leninist or Gramsci fashion, but he is a Leftist that predicts society-culture will abandon property rights and religion. I am uncertain about Toffler’s thought on free expression that would include both Liberal and Conservative having the ability to freely express thoughts on values; however it would follow that if Toffler believes there is a place for moral reprobates like homosexuals and transsexuals in his vision of a transformed society, and he does, I would have to guess religious morality (whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion) is something to be rid of.


Thus Toffler’s vision of a transformed society-culture fits closer to Obama’s vision for “Change” than does Conservative and Family Values that is usually part of Republican Party platforms. So where does Newt Gingrich fit as a Republican vis-a-vis Toffler’s vision for transformation?


Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is an awesome document of a Conservative paradigm reversing years of entrenched elitism governing our nation. A page on Newt’s campaign website lists three ways to reverse changes that have transformed Americans away from experiencing Constitutional Original Intent to experiencing the Liberal view of a Living Constitution that can be remolded to the views relativist rule that has enabled Leftist elites to morally harm America morally by attaching a European model of the rule of law.


Three large facts come from these ten specific challenges to the survival of America as the freest, most prosperous, and safest country in the world:


1.   No single, narrow solution can meet our challenges. These problems are so pervasive and so widespread that only a comprehensive strategy can break through and force the changes needed for America’s survival as a free, prosperous, safe country based on the principles of the Founding Fathers.


2.   The combined forces of the elites—in the news media, the government employee unions, the bureaucracies, the courts, the academic world, and in public office—will fight bitterly and ruthlessly to protect their world from being changed by the American people.


3.   Therefore any election victory in 2012 will be the beginning and not the end of the struggle. It will take eight years or more of relentless, determined, intelligent effort to uproot and change the system of the elites—laws, bureaucracies, courts, schools– and replace it with laws and systems based on historic American values and policies.



These three points are a part of Newt’s defense for the need of a 21st Century Contract with America. The page carefully avoids Leftist and Right Wing in his description of ruling elites. Also Newt’s defense does not specifically mention anything about Conservative-Christian Moral Values; however the implication is there with thoughts on Judicial reform and American education. One can see this implication in the last three points (of many) in a section entitled America is dramatically and frighteningly on the wrong track.


·       schools that no longer teach American history and generally fail to prepare young Americans for either citizenship or work (leading to a Nation at Risk, as the Reagan Administration described the effect of our schools 28 years ago and it is worse now);


·       increasingly radical judges who impose anti-American values on the American people in a repetition of the British tyrannical judges who were the second most frequently cited complaint of the American colonists;


·       a radical elite which has contempt for the American people, sympathy for America’s enemies, and overt hostility to American values and which dominates the universities, the news rooms, and increasingly the bureaucracies and the courts. (emphasis SlantRight)



Ergo if believe “American values” are the same as Conservative-Christian Values then we can assume Toffler’s futuristic influence on Newt is not a Left Wing brainwashing sycophancy. Does Newt believe the Third Wave Information Revolution is false?


I haven’t address this lately; however I am sure it will come somewhere around the primaries and/or the General Election if Newt makes it that far and on to victory. If I was to proffer an educated guess I would have to believe Newt still believes in a Third Wave transformation because of his past enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler’s works. The question that should be asked though: Does Newt’s thoughts on a Third Wave transformation the same as Alvin Toffler’s transforming vision?


The answer must be NO.


Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is definitely conflicts with Toffler’s vision of a New World Order based on Leftist Humanism. So Newt’s vision for a Third Wave futurist transformation has to be based more on the Founding Father’s Constitutional vision combined with American Exceptionalism. The thought of American Exceptionalism contradicts New World Order Leftist Globalism. For an Information Revolution to exist combined with American Exceptionalism, a New World Order would look like a place that is friendly to American values. The New World Order would be a collection of sovereign nations watching over their own local interests while espousing legitimate representative government based on a free market in which globalism would translate into peaceful trade and mutual support rather than carving anti-social hegemonic empires based on top to bottom elitist rule.


I haven’t talked to Newt but I am guessing a man that has put forth the 21st Century Contract with America is not a disciple of Toffler’s Leftist transformation. Rather Newt is influenced that an Information Revolution will change the way we live and that American Exceptionalism must influence that change.


If Newt wins the nomination and wins the Presidency based on his 21st Century Contract with America and Newt begins to display Left Wing ideology, it may be the last time I vote for a Republican as a member of the Republican Party. This means at this time I am going to believe and trust Newt’s word more than Newt’s past. We’ll see how definite I will be in that trust as the GOP Convention draws near to place the mantle of nominee on a Republican candidate.


JRH 12/9/11

Production, Unions, National Debt and the American Transformation



John R. Houk

© February 2011


Industrialization in America was good for America. When factories needed workers it attracted farmers, rural citizens and immigrants to urban areas to meet the need for production.


The problem with industrialization was that ownership and management were looking for the best way to optimize profits. As good as industrialization was for America’s free market economy it left a lot of room to ignore the needs and safety of employees. Increasingly employees of factories became known as laborers and workers. In the quest for optimized profits the workers were exploited to the full extent a human could experience working for pittance often in an unsafe working environment. Indeed a substantial amount of workers in factories were children working the same long hours as adults which was essentially from sunrise to sunset often with a seven day work week.


These workers were essentially regarded as a means to an end for Industrialists with the employees not well regarded. Hence when novel political ideas advanced by Fabianism and Marxism (Detail: Marxism Unmasked, Von Mises) began to be shared with uneducated workers a substantial amount of people began to fall for the utopianism in which working conditions would not be oppressive. Fabianists were socialists that believed in a peaceful evolution away from Free Market Capitalism. Marxists were socialists that believed change would only happen by an armed revolution of the worker-laborer class to end personal ownership and eventually a stateless society of mutual cooperation.


Undoubtedly the Fabian/Marxist utopian dream caught on with the horrible working conditions of the relatively low wages for long hours experienced by employees. It seems to me that Unions began to gain strength after the infusion of socialistic ideas began to disseminate from Marxist activists toward the unlearned labor force. The promise of a long range utopia seemed very attractive to short term memory.


Of course the reality of history has shown the Marxist path as interpreted by Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and Mao was a path to oppression and probably the most unpublicized genocide in world history. There was no path from violent revolution to change society into the collective means of ownership and production that would benefit the whole. Rather after the Marxist revolutions the Marxist-Communist leaders embarked on a plan to eradicate all thought of attachment to ownership, traditional family values and religion. In the view of these revolutionary Marxists the only way to change the future was to eliminate an attachment to the past. Below is a paragraph representing the genocide of people that lost their lives in the name of social transformation from the two largest Marxist/Communist nations of the 20th century:


Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and their successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tse-tung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii’s Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, “Death by Government.” A wealth of information is provided at his website. (Leftists, Progressives and Socialists; October 21, 2010)  


Did you do the math? The sum of genocidal deaths was 138 MILLION people. My friends this is the failure of Socialism/Marxism.


Unsuspecting exploited American workers had no idea the long term promise of a collective Socialist or Marxist utopia would lead to oppression that made profit margin Capitalists look like a picnic.


In one sense the rise of powerful Unions was part of ending the mistreatment of workers via government regulation that benefitted better work hours, better wages, better safety, better health benefits and the elimination of child labor in industry. Unions brought parity between the employed and their owner/managers. Indeed, it was discovered that better conditions actually improved the means of production which increased profits which increased wages and benefits.


I will not go into the bitter bloodiness that occurred between owner/manager and Unions. There were atrocities of violence on both sides until a symbiotic relationship proved beneficial.


I will go into how Unions began to be both a detriment to their Collective members and the means of production as it affected the American economy. Just as Industrialists became greedy Capitalists in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution so also Union leadership became greedy for more benefits, more wages and more power which meant more money in the coffers of the Unions. The big Unions began to be haunted by corruption. The Socialist utopianism espoused by early Union leaders turned powerful fiefdoms in which thuggery was used to keep members in line or to brutalize those who did not want to join the Unions. The combination of Union high demands and Union corruption led to a point in which owners found it cheaper to move the means of production to nations where the wage demand was a fraction of the American Union demands. Eventually America moved from a producer nation to a consumer nation.


Just as Capitalists needed government regulation, it is time for government regulation to enable Right to Work laws that give workers a better opportunity to land a job eschewing a Union. It is time to regulate the power of Unions. That symbiotic balance between owner/manager and Unions must be found again or America’s lack of production combined with America’s increasing National Debt will explode to America’s detriment.


As much as I am concerned about Marxist principle and Islamic theo-politics robbing America of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; it could all become irrelevant as National chaos turns America into something that will discharge the U.S. Constitution and lead to another form of government that will lead to the decline of the Pax Americana. The historical lesson is the Roman Republic devolving into a populist cult leadership that led to civil wars which led to a Roman Empire that was lucky enough to have a capable first emperor in Augustus. After Augustus the Roman infrastructure slowly deteriorated until it was divided into two spheres of influence. The Western Latin sphere degenerated into the last powerless emperor that lost his Imperial throne in 476 because the only area of rule was the area of Italian Rome itself (The capital city actually being Ravenna). The Eastern part of the Roman Empire eventually became a Greek speaking empire that acquired the appellation of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine East became weaker and weaker due to wars with Persians which exhausted its Empire. The Byzantine/Persian wars actually left both empires depleted and were eventually overrun by conquering Muslims. In the case of the last vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine capital of Constantinople was overrun on May 29, 1453 ending the Byzantine Empire.


I suspect a similar slow demise will begin if lack of production and an unsustainable National Debt collapses the greatest political experiment the world has ever seen.


I became lost in these thoughts because I was the recipient of a mass email by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). The purpose of the email was to raise support for the National Right to Work Act. The Act would enable the potential for businesses to be created in which production is made in America rather than American debt owner Communist China. Check out the Senator Paul rally for the petition and I encourage you to sign it.


JRH 2/26/11


Sign the petition Obama fears


From Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 2/24/2011 10:36 AM


Dear Concerned American,


I didn’t come to Washington, D.C. to buddy up to Big Labor and continue decades upon decades of “politics as usual.”

I came to turn this place around.

And if there’s one thing I learned during the historic 2010 elections, it’s that good folks like you and me can make a real difference.


So won’t you please agree to sign the petition I link to in a moment urging your Congressman and Senators to cosponsor the National Right to Work Act to finally END Big Labor’s stranglehold on our government and our fragile economy?

The truth is, there may be nothing President Obama and his union boss pals fear more than a public roll-call vote on this bill.

You see, right now, more than 11 million American workers are forced to pay union dues just to keep their jobs.

That’s just plain wrong.

But every bit as bad is the toll forced unionism is taking on our economy.

Just in the past few years, UAW union bosses armed with forced-dues privileges nearly drove the Big Three automakers to insolvency — until they were bailed out by American taxpayers.

Of course, the thousands of small businesses who were forced to shut their doors due to Big Labor militancy weren’t so lucky.

In the government sector, out-of-control union bosses’ outrageous demands, cushy pensions and bloated benefit packages all helped push California and dozens of other cities and states to the brink of bankruptcy.

And more stories like these are sure to come.

So, especially during these tough economic times, why has forced unionism been allowed to continue?

Well, thanks to their forced-dues privileges, the Big Labor bosses rake in eight BILLION dollars every year in forced union dues.

Every election year the union bosses spend one BILLION of that to elect and reelect their own handpicked politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Then, once elected, these tax-and-spend politicians fight for even MORE union-label power grabs like:


*** The “Card Check” Bill to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot election and FORCE millions more American workers under union boss control;


*** The Police and Firefighter Forced Unionization Bill which is designed to force EVERY first responder in the country under union boss control — and is just the first step toward turning all state and local government workers nationwide over to Big Labor;


*** New, TRILLION-dollar “stimulus packages” and social welfare boondoggles like ObamaCare all laden with Big Labor goodies — sending our already soaring deficit through the roof and increasing pressure for economy-crushing tax hikes;


*** Taxpayer bailouts for everything from failed unionized companies to Big Labor’s own mismanaged “Cadillac” union pension funds.


I hope you agree something’s got to change.

The good news is, passage of a National Right to Work act would end the forced-dues mandates in federal law and finally put an end to this vicious cycle.

So please, join this fight by clicking here to sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman.


You see, just getting a public, roll-call vote in both houses of Congress would be a huge victory.

Nearly 80% of the American people are opposed to forced union dues.

So if the union bosses’ pals in the U.S. House and Senate want to vote against our National Right to Work Act, they can be my guest.

They’ll pay the political price at the ballot box when faced with reelection — and 2012 could be an even worse year for forced unionism and the union bosses than 2010!

Just imagine the price the union bosses’ allies will pay once the American people come face-to-face with the fact that:


*** Millions of workers are forced to surrender part of every paycheck to Big Labor just to keep their jobs.

This cash funds aggressive “organizing” drives, a limousine lifestyle for union bigwigs, and bankrolls radical, tax-and-spend politicians like Barack Obama;


*** Big Labor’s power is poison to hundreds of thousands of small businesses.

Union-label politicians and Obama-stacked bureaucracies are strangling small businesses with confiscatory taxes, destructive laws and straitjacket regulations;


*** Union thugs terrorize workers and communities with violent strikes where they get away with beatings, arson — even murder.


But this fight won’t be easy.

The union bosses are going to do everything they can to try and suffocate the National Right to Work Bill quietly behind the scenes without even a public vote.

That’s why I’ve agreed to help the National Right to Work Committee mobilize Americans from all over the country to force Congress to vote publicly on the National Right to Work Act.

They’ve been leading the fight to end forced unionism in America for more than 50 years.

The Committee has drafted a petition to your Congressman and Senators that
I hope you’ll agree to sign IMMEDIATELY by clicking here.


This petition is a vital part of the Committee’s plan to turn up the heat on Congress and force a vote on a National Right to Work law.

Using their sophisticated direct mail, email and phone mobilization programs, they’ll make sure Big Labor’s allies in Congress know they won’t get away with sweeping the forced-unionism issue under the rug.

In fact, over the next few months, their goal is to contact up to fourteen million Americans!

And in the days before the vote, the Committee will prepare hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads to make sure my colleagues understand the political price they’ll pay should they choose to betray the nearly 80% of their constituents who oppose forced unionism.

But such a massive program isn’t cheap — and none of it can happen without the support of good folks like you.

So, in addition to your signed petition, I hope you’ll agree to a generous contribution to the National Right to Work Committee.

Some folks have given as much as $2,500 or $1,000.

That’s a lot, I know. Only a few folks can make that kind of contribution.

All I ask is that you please contribute as much as you can.

Perhaps you can give $500 or $250. Or perhaps $100, $50 or $35.

Friend, folks like you and me who truly believe in freedom must make sure that victories at the ballot box aren’t wasted.

Instead we should capitalize on them — and one of the best ways to do that is to force a vote on the National Right to Work Act.


So please, click here to sign the petition to your Congressman and Senators right away!

And after signing your petition, will you agree to a generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to the National Right to Work Committee today?

I’m counting on your support.


The Hon. Rand Paul
U.S. Senator (R-KY)


P.S. There may be nothing President Obama and his Big Labor allies fear more than a public roll-call vote on the National Right to Work Act to END forced union dues nationwide.


With nearly 80% of the American people opposed to forced unionism, should Big Labor’s allies choose to vote AGAINST this bill, they’ll go down in flames at the ballot box.


So please sign the petition to your Congressman and Senators urging them to cosponsor the National Right to Work Act — and make your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to the National Right to Work Committee TODAY!


Production, Unions, National Debt and the American Transformation

John R. Houk

© February 25, 2011


Sign the petition Obama fears