Saturday, September 11, 2021

Election Fraud in Chicago 1982

There has been election fraud in Chicago for a long time.  Here are some quotes from Lapham's Quarterly, Vol. XIII, Number 4, Fall 2020, the Democracy issue, page 158.

The quote below is from a special grand jury report.  The actions of the grand jury resulted in the conviction of 58 individuals, including precinct captains, election judges, and party workers, for acts of voter fraud that were committed during Illinois' November 1982 general election.  "In some Chicago precincts, vote fraud has been routine," the report concludes, "and has occurred over an extended period of time.  The finer points of committing such offenses have actually been passed between successive generations of precinct captains."

Here is some testimony from the grand jury.

One precinct captain stated that he decided to run a learn election during the primary prior to the 1982 general election.  He didn't pay the alcoholics two dollars to vote or forge voters' names that election.  A few days after that election, he was called in before the ward committeeman and asked what his problem was and whether he was trying to go against the ward.  He told the ward committeeman that he had tried to run a clean election.  This precinct captain had been working a city job on the night shift and running a profitable part-time business during the day.  A few days after his talk with the ward committeeman, the precinct captain's shift, and the location of his job, were abruptly changed.  His shift was changed to a day shift so that he was forced to give up his part-time business.  His new job location was not accessible using freeways and was very difficult for him to reach.  After that experience, the precinct captain decided that he would commit voter fraud in subsequent elections as had had been trained to do.


You can examine current cases of election fraud at this website:  Election Fraud Cases, listed on the Heritage Foundation website.  https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search

 

Sunday, September 5, 2021

Is Truth a Naive Concept?

 In Marxism, an Historical and Critical Study by George Lichtheim, page xvii, the author writes "The naive view that doctrines are either true or false, no other judgement being allowed, takes no account of the practical significance of theory:  its relevance to the circumstances it sets out to explain."

Then on page xviii, Mr. Lichtheim writes, "The usual question with regard to the author of a systematic body of thought is: (1) What did he teach? (2) Is what he taught true?  It is questionable whether this approach can ever be very helpful, and it is quite certainly useless in dealing with Marx, the more so as his theories emerged in response to developments which he was the first to identify."

I would summarize these thoughts from Socialist writer George Lichtheim in this way:  Truth is a naive concept, and is quite certainly useless in dealing with Marxism.  I.e., Marxists do not worry about being truthful because they do not believe in truth.

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-0231054256 

https://www.amazon.com/Marxism-George-Lichtheim/dp/0231054254/
 

Friday, September 3, 2021

Famous David Rockefeller Cabal Quote

There is a famous quote from David Rockefeller.  I could not find a full citation, so I bought the book and found the quote so I could cite it accurately.  Here is the famous quote:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will.  If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.

The book is "David Rockefeller: Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.  The quote is on page 405, in Chapter  37, "Proud Internationalist", Random House, New York, 2002.  Hardcover ISBN 0679405887.

https://www.amazon.com/David-Rockefeller-Memoirs/dp/0679405887/

The Rockefellers started the Council on Foreign Relations and David Rockefeller was a globalist and working for a one world order.  He admitted it and he claimed to be a Republican.   Now you begin to understand what is meant by the term "Rockefeller Republican."



Thursday, July 1, 2021

The Establishment, Rumsfeld, and McNamara

The Establishment is a collection of power brokers who rule America from the shadows.  Some power brokers lean Left and are the Democrat Establishment, some lean Right and are the Republican Establishment, and some are faithless and amoral and are disloyal to both parties; I will call this group the Neutral Establishment.  What many people describe as the Establishment are the servants of the Establishment or the institutions that serve the Establishment.  The book, "The American Establishment" by Leonard Silk and Mark Silk describes some institutions belonging to the Democrat Establishment as though this is all there is.

You might think that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara were the Establishment, but they were just servants of the Establishment.  The problem with the Establishment goes beyond the Establishment meddling with our government, the problem lies in how they ruin the intellectual honesty of their servants, like Rumsfeld,  McNamara, and probably H.R. McMaster.

I encourage you to watch the documentary film, "The Unknown Known" starring Donald Rumsfeld, available on Netflix and Amazon.com.  He says that the "unknown knowns" are "things that you think you know that it turns out you did not know."  Even now he senses that this concept of the "unknown knowns" is important, but he does not understand it.  He talks at length about Pearl Harbor and how we suffered from a lack of imagination.  No, he got that wrong too.  As an example, consider General Billy Mitchell.  He proved that bombers could sink battleships.  His warnings were ignored.  This is an example of an unknown known.  See that it was known to General Billy Mitchell that bombers were a threat to our fleet, but the Establishment Admirals refused to listen, making his knowledge unknown to fleet operations.  This is a perfect example of an unknown known, but Rumsfeld did not see that.  Bill Mitchell rocked the boat so hard about neglect by the military of air power that he was court marshaled, convicted, and busted in rank to Colonel.  Billy Mitchell contradicted the Establishment's official line of thinking, which was intolerable.

Look at the cover of the video where the producer shows he does not understand the "unknown known."  What is on the cover is actually a description of the "unknown unknown", what you did not know you did not know.  The "unknown known" is a difficult concept, but I can explain it.

The unknown known is what is known to your employees that you refuse know, because you refuse to listen to any knowledge that contradicts the Establishment's official line of thinking.  This official line of thinking is called Groupthink.  Rumsfeld misunderstood the failings that led to Pearl Harbor even as he practiced the same mistakes on his watch.  Read the book, "The Memo" by Rich Higgins.  Mr. Higgins describes working in Iraq and trying to explain to Pentagon leadership how the U.S. could effectively counter the bombings from the Iraqi insurgency, but he was told that the Iraqi insurgency could not be mentioned.  The Pentagon was not permitted to admit it existed.  This is exactly how an unknown known is created:  reality is forbidden, only Establishment groupthink is permitted.

Later, Mr. Higgins, in the tradition of Billy Mitchell, insisted on warning America about the political warfare being waged against President Trump.  Rich Higgins wrote a memo that got him fired from the National Security Council by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster.  This is amazing because H.R. McMaster wrote a book on how the Pentagon let down the nation in Vietnam:  Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.  McMaster knows truth is a problem in Washington, yet he fires a staffer for telling the truth.  I believe McMaster has had his sense of reality compromised in order to be accepted as a servant of the Establishment.

Vietnam was a disaster on many levels, but I believe we were in Vietnam because the American Establishment, the whole establishment, Left, Right, and Neutral, wanted America in Vietnam.  Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all served the Establishment in getting us into Vietnam.

The tragedy of Vietnam is best explored by beginning with the documentary, "The Fog of War", starring Robert McNamara and directed by the same man who made "The Unknown Known" with Rumsfeld, Errol Morris.

Please consider how Robert McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, both smart men, could have been so disastrous as Secretaries of Defense.  Please consider the tens of thousands of American boys killed in Vietnam; consider the thousands killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Consider the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Iraqis killed in these ill fated military expeditions orchestrated by the American Establishment.

No matter how smart you are, like McNamara and Rumsfeld, if you must sacrifice the truth in order to serve the Establishment and receive the financial and institutional rewards you want from the Establishment, then you will make a mess out of America's affairs.  Lies lead to problems.  Institutional lies lead to institutional problems.  And an American Establishment that rules from the shadows is an Establishment that is built on lies.

Lies at the highest levels of our government are a real threat to our Republic.  The American people need to recognize and value the truth.  If we can do this, recognize and value truth, then our best days are still before us.




Saturday, October 17, 2020

The New York Times Has Been Lying to us for 100 Years

 Back in July of 2017 I published an article, "Is the Press Our Enemy? "  There I researched what left wing said about the American press.  Dr. Noam Chomsky gave detailed examples of how the press misleads us.  Walter Lippmann wrote a book in 1920, Liberty and the News, where he expressed his worries about a dishonest press threatening the foundations of our democracy.


What you should know today, in 2020, a hundred years after he published Liberty and the News, is that Walter Lippmann did a detailed study of the reporting done by the New York Times (NYT) about the Russian Revolution.  There is a good description in Wikipedia of  how and why he did this study.  Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, an editor at the New York Times, studied thousands of articles written by the NYT about the Russian Revolution and they concluded that the NYT was biased and inaccurate.  Lippmann believed the poor quality reporting was due to an attitude of wishful thinking by reporters about the Russian Revolution.  You can see for yourself, and journalism students really ought to see for themselves, the detailed evidence presented by Lippmann and Merz in "A Test of the News," published on August 4, 1920 as a 42-page supplement to The New Republic.

You can read this online here:  https://archive.org/details/LippmannMerzATestoftheNews

You can download a PDF here: https://ia801902.us.archive.org/14/items/LippmannMerzATestoftheNews/Lippmann_Merz_ATestoftheNews.pdf

 During the Presidential campaign of 2020, the New York Times has continued its 100 year old tradition of lying to the American people.  I have been reading the NYT now for 47 years.  I can testify that the quality of writing style and technique made a noticeable downturn 30 years ago.  And I have seen in the last 5 years the editors and reporters at the NYT simply lose their minds when Donald Trump started running for President.  The NYT reporters might get right some simple facts about when a hurricane hits some city, but the NYT reporters seem incapable of providing honest coverage on our President and on the lies spread by his political opponents.  The NYT is not an institution that provides truth to our citizens, it is a biased and hostile opponent to a President who loves America and serves the American people.

The Sunday NYT has a section called "Sunday Review."  The entire Sunday Review section on October 18, 2020, "The Case Against Donald Trump," is anti-Trump propaganda intending to influence the 2020 Presidential election.  The idea of the Russians meddling with our elections is laughable when compared to the lies and manipulation of the New York Times editorial board.

It follows logically that if the NYT cannot be trusted to report honestly on American politics, then the TV reporters are even worse.

I encourage everyone to turn off cable and TV "news" coverage.  It cannot be trusted and it is abusive towards us by bombarding us constantly with relentless negativity.  At the end of the Vice Presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, a child expressed despair over the relentless negativity she saw on the TV "news" coverage.  It is unhealthy to our spirit and mind to be subjected to so much negativity. For your sake and for your children, turn off TV news.


Sunday, May 3, 2020

Remember There Are Traitors

I was reading a book review of "Atomic Spy" by Nancy Greenspan.  The review is "‘Atomic Spy’ Review: The Soviets’ Secret Weapon" by Henry Hemming (May 1, 2020 online NYT).  It is in the Sunday NYT print edition on page C12.  Here is a quote from it:

Google “atomic spy” and the first name to come up is most likely Klaus Fuchs. As a result of the information he shared both before and during his work on the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union created an atomic bomb at least two years earlier than it might have done otherwise. Fuchs’s name has become shorthand for a certain type of high-minded, mid-20th-century espionage, one in which well-educated and often well-off individuals in the West were inspired to spy by a quasi-religious faith in Marxism and the potential of the Soviet Union. Either they blinded themselves to the brutal reality of life in Russia at that time, or they saw it as a necessary stage on the path to political enlightenment.

While we here in Texas work to make America the best it can be, we need to remember that there are traitors in our society.  They exist.  They are real.  They are dangerous.  I bring this article about Klaus Fuchs to your attention because some of his traits are wide-spread in America.  Here is one of the key quotes from this book review:

"...well-educated and often well-off individuals in the West were inspired to spy by a quasi-religious faith in Marxism."  And there is this quote: "Either they blinded themselves to the brutal reality of life in Russia at that time, or they saw it as a necessary stage on the path to political enlightenment."

Russia has fallen as the Pole Star for Communism, but Communists and Socialists now call themselves "Progressives" and "Democrats" and still seek to overthrow our way of life.  How can well educated people still want Socialism?  There are many reasons, but key elements are a scoffing nature and an arrogance that makes them think they are better than everyone else, certainly better than the middle-class Americans Hillary Clinton called "deplorables."  Many Progressives, like Hillary, are staggeringly arrogant.

This is why the Bible is so important, so people can see that scoffers are unrighteous.  This is from Psalm 1 (ESV):
1 Blessed is the man
    who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
    nor stands in the way of sinners,
    nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
    and on his law he meditates day and night.

Americans must understand the difference between arrogance and righteousness.

Robert Canright

Sunday, April 5, 2020

Trotsky in Mexico

If you are familiar with Communism, you have probably heard the name "Trotsky."  Leon Trotsky was the founder and commander of the Red Army during the Bolshevik Revolution.  You might have learned that he had to run for his life after Stalin took over and that Stalin's assassin finally found him in Mexico and murdered Trotsky there.

Here is a vignette, a depiction of Trotsky in Mexico.  This is from an article in the Sunday March 22, 2020 New York Times, Sunday Review section, page 6.  The online edition is dated March 21, 2020.

Lessons From My Grandma on Art, Sex and Life By Bret Stephens

 My father once asked his mother, the artist Annette Nancarrow, what she thought of Leon Trotsky. It wasn’t a political question. He just wanted her impression of the exiled Bolshevik, whom she had first met in Mexico City in the late 1930s, in the studio of her close friend (and, my father suspected, future lover) Diego Rivera.

“Well, I was surprised to see the leader of the proletariat so elegantly dressed,” she recalled, many decades after Trotsky’s murder by a Soviet agent in 1940. “His attire was impeccable, and I was particularly struck by the Parisian calf-skin gloves he took off of his beautifully manicured hands.”

The answer was vintage Annette. As a painter, she saw the part of the surface that revealed the inner man — the bourgeois fop within the fiery revolutionary. As a judge of character, she sensed why he had lost his power struggle with Joseph Stalin for control of the Soviet Union — people who take care of their fingernails don’t usually enjoy getting them bloody. And as a connoisseur of style, she appreciated good leather.


Here is a link to the article
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/opinion/sunday/annette-nancarrow-art-mexico.html

I have not said much about Communism, but I should.  The last time I wrote about Communism it was because the news media was pushing "resistance" and that made no sense until you study and discover that resistance is part of Communist ideology.  I wrote about it in this previous post:

What is this Talk About Resistance?  December 28, 2017
https://texasascendant.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-this-talk-about-resistance.html

Robert