The Gospel Truth

A Pauper Nation

September 21, 2015
2 Comments

The Prince and the Pauper is a novel by Mark Twain, which was first published in 1881 in Canada, a year before its American debut.   Set in 1547 it tells the story of two English boys, a pauper named Tom who lived with an abusive father and Prince Edward, son of King Henry VIII.

Through a series of plot manipulations the boys switch identities for a temporary period of time.  This literary device has serious allegorical overtones and has been a standard in literature ever since.

How surprising it is that the respective historical legacies of such disparate figures, such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Saul Alinsky have come to be intertwined in an intergenerational relationship that has had lasting consequences for American society.

Just look what their acolytes in the Democratic Party have done to the United States in the person of Barack Obama and the still potentially dangerous Hillary Clinton.

Machiavelli was born in 1469.  According to historian Jacques Barzun, even his name evokes visions of fiendish conduct. It has evolved to mean a cynical approach to government. This disdain revolves around his seminal work, The Prince, written in 1513.

16th century Florence was the cultural hub of the Italian peninsula.  Yet Italy was a miasma of violence-ridden principalities where the people lived in constant fear and trembling.  Assassinations, murders, and pillaging were daily occurrences. Machiavelli thought it was time for a new prince, who would establish peace and order.

Machiavelli was disturbed because most people lived according to the immorality of the day, even though they espoused Christian principles.  He believed that since the Italians of his day were morally weak, cowards, or poor, traditional rules had to be altered.

According to Arthur Hippler, writing in the Wanderer, Machiavelli was the first Western thinker to promote the idea that moral evil is necessary for political good or as we paraphrase it the ends justify the means!

It has been almost five centuries since Machiavelli’s death in 1527.   According to Barzun, Machiavelli’s legacy has lived on in the minds and hearts of scholars and deep thinkers, such as John Adams, philosophers, Charles Montesquieu, and David Hume, as well as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. They all believed that the state should be neutral on moral issues.

It is obvious that his spirit has deeply influenced the minds of many current American leaders, who employ the same antinomian rationale that has led the Supreme Court to render its historic decisions on abortion and homosexual rights that have rent the fabric of American civilization.

Saul Alinsky main importance was that he adapted Machiavellian tactics to his own brand of social justice. He was a superb social organizer, who believed in the power of numbers.  Grass roots organization and community organizers were the open door through which he hoped to accumulate power for his disciples, the legions of poor people he witnessed every day.

Like his Italian forbear, Alinsky was not a utopian visionary. He believed that the organizer should be a neutral agent, a kind of ideological agnostic, seeking no particular outcome and advancing no philosophy, other the gaining of power.

Nor did Alinsky lose any sleep over doing dark deeds for the good of the have-nots. To him ethical standards had to be elastic enough to stretch with the times.

Unlike Machiavelli Alinsky did not want power for the rich and the well-connected. His goal was to turn Machiavelli on his head and usurp power for the poor and the downtrodden, thus upending the historical way that life had worked.

But Alinsky was not a doctrinaire cultural Marxist. He was more concerned with strategy. In his books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals he created an amalgamation of ideas and plans adapted from the dusty pages of Marxist, Socialist, anarchist even Fascist texts.

In essence his thinking mirrored that of the Philosophes of the French Revolution in their deep abiding contempt for Christianity, the business world, private property, and the traditional American political process.

It is not surprising that Tom Paine, the voice of the revolution, was one of his heroes. He had no tolerance for compromise.

One of his early converts from the middle class was a former Goldwater Republican from Park Ridge Illinois. Alinsky saw great promise in the bespectacled college student from Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham.

The future Mrs. Clinton thought enough of Alinsky to write her senior thesis on his ideas and strategies, after working for him one summer.  Unfortunately, the voting public will never know what she wrote.

According to the book, Hell to Pay, by Barbara Olson, a passenger on American Flight #77 that was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, as soon as Bill Clinton became president, Hillary’s thesis was put under lock and key at Wellesley.

In her 2003 best seller, Living History, Senator Clinton briefly acknowledges her intellectual debt to Alinsky. She took great pains to point out that she disagreed with his idea that one had to work from outside the establishment. Clinton prides herself on working from within an organization to reform it.

Alinsky has had no better acolyte than Barack Obama, who from his perch in the White House has put himself above all rules of law, moral and judicial. His tenure has worked to instill Alinsky’s Rules and Principles in health care, gun control, education and religion.

A former Alinsky community organizer, Obama has instituted a Marxist plan, the work of two Columbia University professors from the 1960s, the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy whose intent is to purposely collapse the U.S. economy with huge deficits, an uncontrollable nation debt and a welfare system bursting with millions of new recipients, immigrants and mentally ill homeless people, essentially turning the United States into a Pauper Nation, at the mercy of its creditors and foreign enemies.

According to philosopher, Leo Strauss’ classic, Thoughts on Machiavelli, the Florentine was essentially a teacher of evil. This epithet should also apply to Alinsky.  All Americans should be aware of what these teachers of evil taught and to whom they taught it.

This should surprise no one since Machiavelli was and atheist and Alinsky praised the first known radical, who rebelled against the establishment and did so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom. Who was the first radical? Why Lucifer himself!

Advertisements

Dirty Barry

August 22, 2012
7 Comments

One of the most controversial movies of the late 1960s was a film called, Dirty Harry.

It starred Clint Eastwood, who was fresh from making a series of Spaghetti Westerns in Europe.

He played Harry Callahan, a San Francisco detective who often ignored the police manual, the courts and even the Constitution in pursuit of his one-man crusade to rid the city of most of its evil-doers.

Harry made his own rules

His character eventually appeared in a number of sequels that made him a minor cult.

Not unlike our current president, whose familiar name used to be Barry, Callahan, assumed a reality larger than life.

Unlike our president, Harry became a symbol of a society, sick and tired of being pushed around by liberal courts that coddled its criminals and allowed cases to paralyze the system that justice was often denied.

In reaction to this, Harry often acted as an avenging angel, with a badge.

In the eponymous Dirty Harry, Eastwood was eating his lunch when an armed robbery erupted.

Using his Magnum-44, the most powerful handgun in the Western world, Harry shot down all of the perpetrators.

The last one lay wounded on the ground with his weapon within his grasp.

Harry stood triumphantly over him and sensed what he was thinking.

Should he grab the gun or not was the question.

Harry succinctly put his Hobson ‘s Choice to him.

Did he shot six bullets or just five?

Then he posed the crucial question to him:

Are you feeling lucky?

LIke the wounded felon, I believe that is the choice facing the American people.

We have experienced four of the worst years in our nation’s history with regard to economic productivity, employment, investment, consumer and business confidence and general optimism about the nation’s future.

President Obama has consistently postured against business interests, except those whose loyalty he has purchased with lavished government hand-outs, or what they called crony capitalism.

This to me is euphemism for plain and ordinary fascism.

Obama’s promises of hope and change were 100% accurate but this is not the change that American’s hoped for in 2008 when he was a virtual unknown.

The new slogan for us should be we are all hoping for presidential change.

Four years later how much do we really know about him.

We know more about Paul Ryan in two weeks than we have learned about him in six years.

Paul Ryan Brings His Mom Into the Medicare Debate

We already know a lot

I finished reading David Maraniss’ epic biography of the president.

It was very favorable to Obama.

It painted him in erudite, almost mystical tones, relying heaving on hundreds of interviews, his personal letters to Genevieve Cook his primary lover in New York City, while matriculating at Columbia University.

Genevieve Cook, Barack Obama

But what about Frank?

The book filled in many loose-ends about the private and hidden Obama.

His membership in the Choom Gang in Hawaii, a group of his high school friends who regularly got stoned on marijuana has not been as visible as George W. Bush’s alcoholic problems.

 Maraniss treats this the way we might have regarded drinking a little beer while in high school.

Have times changed that much?

The book is more important for what it does not say.

Granted it concluded with the end of his formative years and spent as much time on his parents and their parents than on Obama proper.

But it does not elaborate on his grades at either Occidental, where he did a little more drugs or at Columbia.

One of Obama’s friends had told a friend that he had a B+ average.

In 2004 we knew both John Kerry and George Bush’s actually Grade Point Average and their college board exam score.

For the record Bush was some points higher than the Junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Also though he does mention Frank Marshall Davis, as being important to Obama’s early development, for some reason he fails to mention that Davis, was an avowed member of the Communist Party with a FBI dossier to his credit.

Obama’s mentor

How could a detail like this fail to make the final cut since the author tells us Obama’s phone number, street address and favorite diets in New York?

To me it is a historical dishonesty, intentional or otherwise, like this that raises several questions about our sitting president that no one on the left will even address.

To leads me back to issue at hand, Dirty Barry and the luck of the American people.

We don’t really know what a Romney presidency will bring.

We do not know if his policies will be able to stem the tide of enormous government debts, a recession that threatens to come back but we do know what Obama has done and what he has failed to do.

And we do know a lot more about Romney’s abilities than we ever did about Obama’s.

And I can also say that the Dirty Barry fits the president because his means to achieve his ends border on the worst kind of Chicago politics this country has seen on a national level since Jefferson and Adams fought it out.

It is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that is the president’s tactical playbook, which makes him the biggest radical this country has ever faced and elected.

Rules for Radicals.png

Obama’s playbook

According to Alinsky to win and maintain power you have demonize your opponents.

Just think back to the long primary campaign and how the Democratic machine of personal destruction came out to go after any and all Republicans who showed any sort of momentum.

This was right out of the Alinsky Playbook, which says one must demonize and isolate one’s political enemies.

I am thinking, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and anyone wearing a Republican uniform.

To them politics is war by other means and they shoot to kill and then have the temerity to blame it on their opponents.

Since he took office four very long years ago, Obama has set race against race, rural against urban, Catholic against Catholic, straight against homosexual, poor against the wealthy.

We are more divided than ever before and it is this president’s doing.

They have already been savaging Romney with false claims about his taxes, his experience at Bain Capital and the like.

Paul Ryan pushes little old ladies off cliffs.

I think Ryan’s choice was a bold one for several reasons–one is that the Obama machine has already unleashed its angry and destructive attacks on him when his plan for reforming the Obama mistakes, excesses and socialistic laws on Health Care.

But just wait until the Obama forces reve up their hate machine.

They will make Ryan look and sound like the devil incarnate.

Obama will fight dirty.

He learned those lessons on the streets of Chicago from the Alinsky acolytes.

So we now have Dirty Barry—-running our lives and aspiring to make greater intrusions …thus the making him the mirror reflection of Dirty Harry.

I wasn’t the first to think of it

He has shown a spleen of anger,  and near-contempt for anyone who dared to challenge his authority.

I have never seen nor heard such a unanimity of apocalyptic musings from so many leaders.

Their mood is as serious as a heart attack.

So the choice posed to we the American voters is precisely the one that the wounded felon was given by Dirty Harry...are we feeling lucky about our chances of survival under Obama II?

The choice is ours!


Les Americaine’ Communards

October 17, 2011
3 Comments

Unless you have been pulling a Rip Van Winkle these past few weeks, you might have noticed that we have a new wave of protesting going on.

No, it’s not our three wars or the green revolution that has energized these young, unwashed and woefully uninformed masses but capitalistic greed.

Yes I am talking about Greed and that’s with a capital ‘G’ and it rhymes with ‘d’ and that stands for ‘Democrat,’ right here in River City.

Sound familiar?

While it is supposed to be a spontaneous uprising, I wonder why their rhetoric is quite similar to that drivel emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The protesters call themselves the 99 percent, in contrast to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

450

Did he run out of crayons?

This diverse group has multiple reasons for the protest, ranging from taxes to debt.

However, there seems to be one common enemy: Wall Street.

The protesters are speaking out against what they perceive as the corrupt 1 % of Americans who make the majority of the financial decisions in the country.

Why do you think there are protestors on Wall Street and other financial centers of the country?

This is what community organizers do!

As an active student of history, I am forced to harken back to something I read this past summer in The Greater Journey, David McCullough’s wonderful rendition of Americans studying abroad from roughly 1830-1873.

His best work was reserved for near the end of the book when he greatly detailed the uprising of the French Communards.

Even Karl Marx took notice and went back to the drawing board to revise his communistic theories and strategies.

The Communards were members and supporters of the short-lived 1871 Paris Commune formed in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War and France’s defeat.

Following the war’s conclusion, according to historian Benedict Anderson, thousands fled abroad, roughly 20,000 Communards were executed during the Semaine Sanglante (“Bloody Week”), and 7,500 were jailed or deported.

McCullough says that nearly twice as many people died in this rebellion than in the entire French Revolution.  (35,000 vs. 19000)

I think we can all learn something about the Occupiers from reading McCullough’s incisive section.

America

Just who are these Occupiers?

Well you might say they have taken their marching orders from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

They have targeted the bastion of freedom in this country–private property and entrepreneurs, who pay far more than their fair share.

Karl Marx and Alinsky have been writing their sound bites and their vapid rhetoric.

If they really cared for this country, jobs and their future, they would have milled outside the White House, which is largely responsible for the economic debacle we are all suffering instead of wasting their time on the business community.

You can add Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank to this equation as well.

In effect they are insuring that we suffer through a double-dipped recession and maybe something even worse, shades of 1933.

As the new year dawns in January, look for these mobs to turn ugly.  Violence and destruction will become their watchwords.

They are community disorganizers!

To compare them to the Tea Party people is an egregious abuse of the language and a true distortion of the reality of the American scene.

Demonstrations and riots are part of the Obaman strategy.

To see it anyway else is to court national disaster.

They organize the rabble to disorganize society so there will be less democracy and the man with the biggest guns will run the entire show and then he wont have to listen to his children’s complaining, and whimpering about his failed presidency.

Is America headed for another Civil War/

This is all part of his re-election strategy.

Just what do these protestors want?

Below is the complete list of their demands that are circulating on the internet.

I reprint in case you would like to add some to your flames of skepticism about their motivations.

Check out each demand and do a reality check on their ideas.

Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage, ending what they call free trade and raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. (Note: People who have never paid taxes think $20 an hour is a lot of money.)

Demand 2: Institute a universal single-payer healthcare system. (Note: Hey now. That’s original.)

An Obama Clone?

Demand 3: Guaranteed living-wage income regardless of employment. (Note: Wait — what?)

Demand 4: Free college education. (Note: With straight As for everyone, to keep it fair.)

Demand 5: Begin a fast-track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. (Note: Fast track. LOL.)

Demand 6: $1 trillion in infrastructure (water, sewer, rail, roads and bridges, and electrical grid) spending now. (Note: These must be the folks who want those high-speed trains!)

Demand 7: $ 1 trillion in ecological restoration and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants. (Note: It’s like the Austin Powers movies: one trillllllllion dollars.)

Image Detail

One trillllllllion dollars!!!

Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. (Note: But only if you’re already born.)

Demand 9: Open-borders migration. Anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. (Note: And free unicorns to ride there!)

Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper-ballot precinct, counted and recounted in front of an independent and party-observers system. (Note: Hanging chads.)

Demand 11: Immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness for all. All debt must be stricken from the “books.” And they don’t mean debt that is in default, they mean all debt on the entire planet. Period. (Note: In other news, Greece fails.)

Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. (Note: Because, of course, there’d be no credit to report.)

Demand 13: All unions, all the time.

I sincerely think that anyone with half a brain will conclude that are seriously lacking in maturity, reasonable judgment and anything even approaching the realm of reality.

Their ideas are virtually incoherent and most of those interviewed on site didn’t have a clue why they were there or what they believed in.

In fact some were paid to be there and MoveOn, a Democratic advocacy group was represented.

Some bloggers have tagged George Soros, ACORN and the SEIU groups as behind this.

Somehow I am not surprised! 

Image Detail

Surprised?

These are the unattainable and unsustainable demands of petulant children, who fancy themselves the new revolutionaries during Obama’s Autumn, when his chickens finally come home to roost.

Did President Obama write all these himself or did he receive some additional help from Bill Ayers?
That’s the real question

The Woman Liberals Love to Hate

June 28, 2011
2 Comments

With the publication of her latest book, Demonic : How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, the liberal establishment just got another good reason to pile the hate on Ann Coulter’s tall, thin body.

For the uninformed or those living in Lost Nation, Iowa, Ann is the antithesis of the dumb blonde.

No dumb blonde

She is an incisive writer with an undergraduate degree from Cornell and a law degree from Michigan.

The best of Democratic women would be no match for her in a debate.

But what Ann does is write books and she writes them well with cogent arguments and a rapier wit that can send any liberal into the throes of death from a thousand cuts.

I had the pleasure of interviewing her five times on my old program at WGNU and once for Phyllis Schafly, the woman who inspired her to become the potent force that she is.

More importantly I had the honor of meeting her at a pro-life Vitae dinner a few years ago in St. Louis.

The first thing you notice about her is that she is very tall.

After shaking her blonde locks a few times because of a failure to immediately recognize my name until I mention radio, I told her she was much taller than her doll.

View Image

Much taller than her doll

While most people problem probably think Sarah Palin is the most hated woman in American, the contest is not even close.

Palin is cute, bouncy, a live-wire exponent of conservative virtues but she fights back in feminine niceties and memorable metaphors and images.

She is more of a symbol for the kind of woman the liberals hate.

She is a pro-life mother of five children with a supportive husband, while she found time to run the state of Alaska and secure the vice presidential nomination in 2008.

View Image

Why the left fears and hates her

And to make matters worse, Palin delivered a Downs Syndrome baby late in life when according to the liberal creed, the baby would have been better off being aborted so not as to have reminded liberals of the imperfectability of the human condition.

And down the road her child might have needed special care at the state’s expense.  This money would have been better spent buying votes in future elections.

If my prose seems a bit cutting for me, I just finished reading Ann’s book last night.  Her style wears off on you sometimes.

Palin’s grasp of hard-core intellectual attacks, laced with hyperbole, and sarcasm pales by comparison with that of Coulter.

Should there ever be such a contest it would be reminiscent of the boxing match years ago between Paula Jones and Tanya Harding.

Before the battle

Before two minutes had elapsed Harding had broken Jones’ already prominent nose into a  million pieces.

As for her aforementioned book, I have read virtually every one of her books and I can say that by far this is her best and one that I will keeping coming back to for reference.

View Image

Her best by far

I advise every one and even liberals to read it and read it slowly because she will test your liberal faith to its very core and if you honestly and openly answer her objections about your credo you will understand better what it is you believe.

If you simply go into denial, that will only affirm her accusations.

When I had my own show I loved the challenges that my most astute liberal callers made to me–all three of them–Jim from Ferguson, the Roosevelt Man and Dave the cab driver.

A priest friend once told me that within the first two weeks after ordination, he had heard every sin in the book, except suicide in the confessional.

The same was true for me concerning my own beliefs.

Every thing I ever believed had been challenged and assaulted.  I either learned to counter their arguments or risked the disgrace of being in the wrong.

The caveat is that you have to be serious about finding the absolute truth of things and not just in winning political power by any means necessary, which I believe is the marching orders of most liberals.

If denial is your defense strategy then there should be no surprise why you never win any arguments without resorting to shouting, violence, innuendo and character assassination, which I think is Rule #11 from the Saul Alinsky playbook, Rules for Radicals.

The first thing Coulter suggests is that you check you history–the French Revolution in particular.

Of course as she points out if you attend an elite university like her Cornell or Michigan, you will not be able to take a course on that part of the liberal heritage.

It would be as if one could not find any suitable biography of our founding fathers.

As Ann recounts in bloody detail, during the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution 600,000 French citizens were butchered and mutilated while an other 145,000 fled the country in fear of their lives.

Icon on the French Revolution

An orgy of pornographic violence

It also equals the number of military fatalities during the American Civil War, some 70 years later.  And this was in a country of under 26 million people.

As Coulter points out it is hard to establish an accurate chronology of the revolution itself because it revolved around the mob.

This is the precise reason most of America’s founding fathers were frightened by the turmoil in France on the heels of their own rebellion against Great Britain.

They feared the lack of order and the mindless violence that characterized the mobocracy, as they called the Paris throngs.

In his Little Richard’s Almanac, Benjamin Franklin opined that a mob is a monster with many heads and no brain.

View Image

The Paris monster

To understand this, just think back to 2008 when the Obama campaign mobilized its own brand of the sansculotte with their purple-shirted SIEU and the orange clad ACORN mobs to terrorize Tea Party goers and other Obama opponents.

The French Revolution gave liberals a legacy of death while its counterpart in America gave us a Republic of freedom.

The former gave liberals a heritage of the show trial, regicide, and the guillotine.

It gave them a Satanic orgy of pornographic violence and disfigurement that deaden the French soul.

Thousands of priests and nuns were slaughtered and the Catholic Church nationalized.

The French Revolution was the forerunner of the concentration camp, the crematoria, the gulag and the abortion clinic.

It wrote the playbook that gave us Stalin, Hitler, Pot Pol, Mao and Fidel.

The French Revolution helped us establish a the culture of death that Pope John Paul II warned against.

If you don’t believe me or Coulter, I suggest you read up on the liberal heritage or study it in school if you can find anyone who will teach it.

Like so many unfavorable things liberal colleges and professors have assigned that segment in history to the Orwellian memory hole.

But my faith in the future was reenforced last night when my eight-year old granddaughter was able to tell me who the Grant of our local attraction, Grant’s Farm was.

I quickly asked her then if Grant was the 18th president, who the 19th?

She knew it instantaneously and my jaw dropped.  She just finished the 2nd grade.

View Image

Do you know?


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds