Posted by Anthony on June 7, 2009
The impact that Saul Alinksy’s ideology had in the thinking of the man currently occupying the office of the presidency, one Barack Hussein Obama, is well documented. Thus, I will not document it myself, and submit the reader to Google.
Having only read excerpts of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit down and read it for myself in its entirety. Knowing how influential Alinksy was for the young Obama (and many others who now occupy seats of power) I am more worried than I was before now that I’ve actually read this book. Go to the library and pick up the book. You need to read it.
The subtitle of the book is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” It is not an inappropriate subtitle. Alinsky is all about pragmatism and realism. Alinsky is dismissive of ethical questions related to the question “Does the end justify the means?” He says:
The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them. (pg 25, chapter titled: Of Means and Ends) Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 3, 2009
In my blog entry yesterday I indicated that the reason why proportion and a sense of perspective were necessary regarding the Tiller killing was because in the liberal mind, referring to abortion as murder, etc, is inflammatory language that really is ‘hate speech.’
The current hate speech legislation coming through Congress (Matthew Shepherd Act) aims to draw exactly this kind of connection, though of course this legislation is related more to homosexuality. The idea is the same, though: if anyone person commits a crime and it can be tracked back to someone who can be perceived to have ‘instigated it’ the person who did the ‘instigation’ is equally guilty and consequently should be punished under the law.
In today’s perusal of the web I found more evidence of this attempt to condemn the entire pro-life movement because of this single event. The irony is that the day after Tiller was killed, an American soldier was gunned down at a recruitment center by someone we now know was acting on Islamicist principles. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 2, 2009
Having issued a series of posts trying to establish some sense of proportion and perspective about the Tiller murder, the question has been raised as to why the emphasis.
I have my reasons.
We can go back to a post that I made not too long ago that suggested that a ‘right-wing extremist’ attack was not merely inevitable, but something that the current administration actually wants to happen.
Here is a little quote:
Here is what I think. I think that the recently admitted NSA over-collection of American domestic communications revealed that people- even decent people- are really, really, really, really, really, POed about the way things are and the way they are going. I think that material helped drive the DHS report, but I think the DHS was just looking for an excuse.
This report is likely to produce the very thing it is warning about. With this report, every conservative American became subject to the Thought Police and a target of scrutiny by the Federal government. I believe it will put some people over the edge. I believe the intent was to put them over the edge. I think they want a ‘right wing extremist’ to engage in some sort of attack so that the Obama administration can then use the sensibilities of all those law-abiding citizens to turn public opinion against anyone with strongly held views about abortion and government and ‘hate.’ They will use any kind of incident as a justification for the imposition of the gun laws we know that the Obama administration would like to pass, and then, when people react, they can point to that reaction as justifying the need for the gun laws. It will also be used to justify increased monitoring of the ‘extremist groups,’ as well as any number of measures which if they were proposed today would make even the tea party participants blow their top, but if passed after an ‘incident’ would compel them to re-consider. Because they are decent people.
And decent people are the easiest to manipulate by authorities.
I’m not sure that the murder of a single abortionist after a decade of no similar attacks is enough to persuade most Americans to go along with draconian measures, but it is clear that the wheels are already in motion that direction. Certainly, the National Organization for Women are ready to capitalize on this incident in exactly the way I expressed concern about.
For reference sake, here is what NOW (National Organization for Women) said: Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 16, 2009
There is of late a brouhaha brewing regarding the recent release of a report by the DHS with Napolitano’s approval that warned of ‘right wing extremist’ terrorism. This is from the administration that is no longer using the term ‘terrorist.’
Read the full report.
I appear to fit into the definition of a ‘right wing extremist’:
(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Any casual reader of this blog knows that I am a single-issue voter as regards abortion and that I am deeply wary of expansive government intervention. As for ‘hate-oriented’ I don’t care at all that we have a black president and most of the people I know who are annoyed with the way things are don’t care, either. However, I am openly against homosexuality, and in today’s day and age that means I am hate-oriented. I have also warned about the demise of America, and also the decline of the Church in America.
So I guess I fit. Read the rest of the entry… »
