Show notes for episode 003 of The Conservative Christian Movement Podcast

Today on the podcast, as promised I’ll cover Rule # 2 of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals. I’ll talk a little bit about journalism and hit up the craziness that is liberalism with the meltdown over President Trump’s State of the Union address.

Let’s jump right in…

The Second Rule

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Would you act as your own surgeon? Would you take the transmission out of your car, strip it and try to put it back together? Well, someone might, but the vast majority of us do not have that skill or courage. The Rules for Radicals exist for the sole purpose to push the left agenda forward. Fighting a battle with untrained, inexperienced soldiers never works. One can get caught behind the 8-ball– outmatched if this were the case.

As I mentioned some time ago, the Rules for Radicals were based on some fact but mostly on presumption of strength on the part of the adversary. The second rule specifically details how best to win a battle, by having the tools to fight.

If you were to negotiate the purchase of a car, having data in your mind about what it is really worth, what work has been completed on it, how it has been damaged, etc. puts you more equal to the salesman. The dealership is not necessarily concerned with you getting a good deal. It is more about making the most margin on the sale of the car. Again, through the use of presumption. The more facts you present, the weaker the dealer’s position becomes.

In our Christian walk, where politics are concerned, this can be applied by understanding what is being told to you, understanding history, agendas at play and the reputation of those telling you what you are hearing. The more you know, the less likely you will be taken advantage of. Your strength in all situation is the knowledge you are able to use at any given point.

How about fake news?

No matter who you watch for news, there is an agenda at play. This is true not only of CNN or MSNBC, it’s true of Fox News as well. Though the news sounds much different. You would think President Trump is a heartless psychopath, plain crazy or he is the Anti-Christ if you only listen to the mainstream media.

Journalism is defined as:

The activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.

Liar is defined as:

A person who tells lies.

The problem we as a nation, and the world really is the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. There just isn’t that much news going on in the world. This creates the need to fill 24 hours of broadcasting with what used to be detailed in 30 minute news casts. What will we do over the remaining 23.5 hours? The so-called journalist fill the time with opinions, talk about the news, interview “experts”, of course selecting guests which agree with whoever is in charge of the network.

If networks would state the facts and forgo opinions, we would be so much better off. When I say fact, what exactly do I mean?

Going back to the dictionary again,

Fact means:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

You get this by hearing unedited audio, uncut video, memos and attributed statements. Generally when it comes from the horse’s mouth, it is most likely attributed to that person. Is it opinion or news? When it comes from a news-maker, (i.e. a Congressman, Senator, Governor, President, Councilman, Trustee, Fireman, Policeman, etc.) it’s generally attributed as news, until it becomes about someone else. Back to the trusty online dictionary.

Hearsay is:

Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

To be a good consumer of news, you MUST become proficient at determining if you are hearing Facts or Hearsay. This is generally as easy as answering two questions.

Is this person directly involved in the subject of the report?

Is this person stating fact of their own knowledge or opinion of someone else with knowledge?

Good journalism comes from the former, not the latter.

You must also consider the source. Let’s take for instance, reporting on President Trump. Love him or hate him, he is never 100 percent wrong. If your news source can never say anything good about him, it is not a viable news outlet. Granted, I am not a journalist. I do not play one on TV. I am simply a concerned individual who sees what is happening daily and decided to talk about it. Only you can decide how best to be informed.

What did Ben Franklin think about journalism?

He strongly believed a few things.

1. A free press is necessary to protect society from its government and ultimately Constitutional freedoms.

2. Press should be free to make a profit for its work.

3. The press should not refrain from printing something of need simply to prevent offending someone.

Thomas Jefferson also had an opinion on a free Press. “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

He would rather have a free press to criticize government rather than a government unchecked.

NPR, of which I find much too left leaning seems to have a very good definition on honesty in journalism.

Honesty:

Journalists who conduct themselves honestly prove themselves worthy of trust. In the course of our work, we are genuine and candid. We attribute information we receive from others, making perfectly clear to our audience what information comes from which source. We avoid hyperbole and sensational conjecture. We may sometimes construct hypotheticals to help explain issues and events, but we reveal any fabrication, and do not otherwise mix fiction with our news reporting. We edit and present information honestly, without deception, and we identify ourselves as NPR journalists when we report. Only in the rarest of instances – such as when public safety is at issue, or when lives are at stake – might we disguise our identity or intent when reporting. Before we take such a step, we engage in rigorous deliberation and consider all alternatives. Then, when we tell the story, we fully disclose what we did and why.

Your part in this process is simple. Understand there are agendas in the world, incompatible with your own. Know what constitutes honest reporting so well you get goosebumps when less than genuine reporting occurs. Cycle through news sources to find the one that give you more facts than hearsay. There is also a very fine line between full transparency, outright lies and omission of key details to sculpt the news consumer’s opinion.

Dishonesty is prevalent in some news, but journalists do not have a lock on it. One needs to look no further than the State of the Union address to see blaring examples of dishonesty inside a political party

The speech by President Trump, I thought was filled with hopeful messages, verification of positive trends and generally good news for individual Americans.

For instance:

1. The State of the Union is Strong

2. Creating 2.4 Million Jobs

3. Stating we proudly stand for the national anthem

4. Americans are dreamers too

5. Close the border loopholes

6. Extending a hand to work with both parties

7. Reminder the Congress has a duty to defend the constitution and work for Americans

8. Keep open Guantanimo Bay Cuba

9. Honored Otto Warmbier’s memory

10. Honored families of two slain daughters at the hands of MS-13

There were many more items listed in his 1 hour and 20 minute speech. To see the Democratic party simply sitting on their hands for all these accomplishments is a travesty. One Democratic member, Luis Guttierez (D, IL) walked out during the speech as GOP chanted U-S-A. Maybe his claim of “going to prep for an interview”, but I found now report of such interview. According to Time Magazine,11 other Democrats Boycotted the speech altogether joining with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also skipping the event.

The one additional item which has to be detailed is the lowest Unemployment Rate among African Americans ever recorded. This is widely reported as true, yet the Congressional Black Caucus members would not accept the fact. They would rather ignore it than to remotely credit President Trump for doing anything positive for their own people.

This is why every Christian should vote– to understand who these people are (and they are not just Democrats). They must identify these politicians who chose politics over accomplishment and work to legally replace them with Bible-Believing men and women, without respect to the color of their skin, wealth or background.

As for the specific crazy liberal of the week is concerned:

Take Nancy Pelosi, current House Minority Leader from San Francisco. I received an email from her after the State of the Union address. In it she made one statement. “What I hear Trump say last night is still ringing in my ears”. She claims his policies are divisive and leaves millions in the dust. Not one word about anything that is positive in his speech.

I’m really unclear how anyone can support her or anyone who plays politics as she does. It goes far beyond what I