Laus
Deo:
Selections From My Articles In
Canada Free Press
By Jim O’Neill
Published by Jim O’Neill
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2012 Jim O’Neill
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Contents
1. Heather Mallick is a Poo Poo Head
2. A Well groomed and Polished Trojan Horse
6. Rules for Radicals: a Blurred Vision
8. George Soros: Republic Enemy #1
10. Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Freedom (The Plan)
11. Hey, Let’s Talk About Islam!
12. The Constitution, Nazis, and the Corpse Man
13. The Real American Narrative
14. The Intelligentsia, Intellectuals, and Other Idiots
15. It’s the Illegality Stupid
16. Racism and the Never-ending Storm
17. What Exactly Is It We Are Doing In Afghanistan?
18. Semper Fidelis: Jerry McConnell at Guadalcanal
19. Timothy of Baghdad’s Lost Christian Empire
21. Atheism Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
23. Harvard, Homosexuals, and Far Left Fabians
25. Atheism 101: Trickle-down Poison
27. So Long, See Ya, Sayonara, and Slán Agat Bill O’Reilly
28. The Homosexual Agenda and the US Military
29. The Mad Marine of Matareva: A Cautionary Tale
30. Nazi Homosexuals and the Slow Steady Seduction of America
31. United in Hate vs. United We Stand
33. Oslo and Profanity for Profane Times
34. Tea Party Hobbits vs. Sauron and His Minions
36. America’s Slow Turning from Freedomphobia
37. The Mob, We the People, and Arrogant Aristocrats
38. Breaking Apart the United States
39. Salute Her While She Sinks
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank Judi McLeod, editor of “Canada Free Press,” for welcoming me there and keeping my stay as easy and rewarding as it has been. A tip of the hat is also in order for Brian Thompson who has done a yeoman’s job of formatting and adding graphics to my articles (I saved the one of me looking like a hobbit).
Thanks are in order to Arlen Williams at “Gulag Bound” where I have also submitted my articles. I have no idea where Arlen gets the time and energy to do all he does.
I would like to thank the men and women of our armed services, who have sacrificed, are sacrificing, and will sacrifice so much for America. In addition I would like to extend a heartfelt and hearty hooyah! to members past and present of the UDT/SEAL community
I wish to thank my lengthy list of faithful email correspondents: Tom, Kelleigh, Ernest, Wanda, Vic, Van, Dave, Duke, JB, Sarge, Molly, Joan, Jan, Bob, Rob, John, Linda, Diane, Pat, Carmel, Carlos, Carmen, Mary, Joyce, Scotty, Michael, Robert, Tony, Vonda, Barb, Butch, Holly, and the many others too numerous to name -- you know who you are (I just know I have forgotten one or two that I should have mentioned). Your input and feed-back are always valued and much appreciated.
Thank you to my fellow writers on the Internet (especially the ones on CFP) who have kept me informed and inspired.
My thanks go out to Lucianne Goldberg who pointed me in the right direction toward a literary agent, and her sons Jonah for writing “Liberal Fascism” and Joshua for his help with “Lucianne.com.”
Special thanks and love go to my mother -- my best friend and most avid supporter. I have been blessed with her comforting, encouraging, and inspiring presence for many years. Thank you God.
Thanks and love goes to my step-father Bob for being a solid rock, a loving anchor for us all for so many years. To my siblings: Clark, Kate, and Mike -- you have each in your own way made my life fuller, happier, and more interesting then it would have otherwise been -- I love you all. My love to their families as well, especially Susan, Xana and Becky. And I send a prayer out in loving memory for my father Michael J. O’Neill.
My love to my daughter Shaner -- I have considered her to be a blessing since the day of her birth. My love also to her husband, Pastor Britt Johnson.
Love and thanks to Jayne and her family, especially her mother Martha. Jayne is a blessing in my life that came, as Bonnie Raitt sang, in the “nick of time.” I love you sweetheart.
I wish to give special thanks to my spiritual mentors. Especially Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan with whom I was privileged to share dashan in 1975, and the writings and teachings of Alan Watts, Dr. David R. Hawkins, Don Miguel Ruiz, Jelaludin Rumi, Ekhart Tolle, Paramahansa Yogananda, Roy Eugene Davis, Ram Dass, Brother Lawrence, Henry Drummond, Ken Willber, D. T. Suzuki, Eric Butterworth, Emmet Fox, and the many others who have had such a profound and positive impact on my spiritual growth over the years.
Last, but certainly not least, I wish to express gratitude to my Creator -- especially for the balm of power, peace, and love poured upon me by Jesus my savior. May God bless America.
Laus Deo!
Preface
One of the benefits of writing for the Internet is the ability to link to material related to my articles. I once asked a friend how long it took him to read one of my articles and he replied “about 5-6 hours.” I was somewhat taken aback but realized “of course, if you read all of the links it could easily take that long.”
Researching the links for my articles often takes about as long as writing the article itself -- and that is saying something, for like Nathaniel Hawthorne I find that “easy reading is damn hard writing.”
In any event, since this publication is for profit I decided to dispense with the links included in the original articles lest I inadvertently stray into legally treacherous territory. (Not to mention the “difficulties” involved in trying to link on hard-copy). :)
A few words on my habit of ending my articles with “Laus Deo:” I first read about the words “Laus Deo” (Praise God) being inscribed on the top of the Washington Monument in Newt Gingrich’s little book “Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future.”
I was struck by how the words, and where they were placed, tied together God and country; faith and the Founding Fathers in a beautifully succinct and understated way. Shortly after reading Gingrich’s book in 2009 I wrote an article and ended it with “Laus Deo.” I consider the return of America to its spiritual roots and Constitutional rule of law to be of such importance that I have since made it a habit of ending most of my articles with “Laus Deo” ever since.
Introduction
I have been told by those who know about such things that “books of articles don’t sell” and that “you need to write a real book, not a compilation.”
Nonetheless, I have chosen to publish a book consisting of some of my past articles because (1) although some of the references that they contain are dated, they are by and large still quite topical (and in any event of historical interest), and (2) I see no need to reinvent the wheel just so I can put my thoughts into a more marketable format. The articles work fine together as either stand-alone chapters or as an overview of a crucial period in America’s history.
If it will help the reader the articles can be viewed as comprising the chapters in a non-fiction account of the ongoing destruction of the United States and Western civilization -- and how that destruction was resisted. They can also act as a primer for those not up to speed regarding some of the more glaring problems we face today.
I have arranged the “chapters” in chronological order with the dates given when they were first published. I have revised each of the articles that appear here and taken the opportunity to fix any typos, and polish sentences and paragraphs.
Perhaps the main problem with self-editing for me is that I tend to see what I meant to type instead of what I did type. Consequently, I as often as not find a few typos and such in my articles after they are posted. To be afforded the opportunity to revise them once more is something I value.
Any changes that I have made have been largely stylistic ones, and the fundamental content and direction of the original articles remains intact. In addition I have deleted some paragraphs that I felt were unneeded, and I have added a brief introduction to each article.
Godspeed and Laus Deo, Jim O’Neill -- January, 2012
1. Heather Mallick is a Poo-poo Head
This was the first article that I wrote for CFP, which makes it my first article period. I was researching a vicious hit piece that Heather Mallick wrote about Sarah Palin and I came across an article written by Judi McLeod, the editor of “Canada Free Press.”
I wrote to Judi complimenting her on the article she wrote, and to make a long story short, ended up submitting my own article to her on the subject. The title is by way of underlining the immaturity inherent in ad hominem attacks. Not my finest article by any means, but not bad for a first attempt, IMHO. Feel free to skip ahead to the next “chapter” if you would prefer a topic with more gravitas.
As is now well known, Heather Mallick posted a childishly malicious attack against Sarah Palin on Mallick’s CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) sponsored blog-site. I generally don’t like ad hominem attacks at all – whether they come from the left or the right of the political spectrum, but I found Mallick’s comments about Governor Palin to be especially mean and distasteful.
Ad hominem attacks are nothing new – especially in political circles, and they will be with us for the foreseeable future. That being the case, it behooves us to better understand what they are. Ad hominem means “against the person” and is a type of fallacious (illogical) argument that attacks a person instead of the issues. It is a type of reasoning that says, “I can’t attack your logic, so I’ll attack the way you look, sound, and live – I’ll attack you.”
A few of Mallick’s ad hominem comments will suffice to show the tenor of her article: “…she [Palin] isn’t even female really.” “Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look…” “Palin [is] vicious and profoundly dishonest.” “[Palin adds] nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote.” And so on, ad nauseum.
Mallick’s rant against Governor Palin is close to being a parody of an ad hominem attack, and is almost funny in its excess. Almost. If Mallick’s article had appeared in some extreme left-wing blog-site I’d have said, “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion,” and let it go. But her article was not relegated to some fringe-element website – it was published under the auspices of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that is disturbing.
That the publicly funded (your tax dollars at work) CBC would publish trash like Mallick’s article is indefensible. It does not matter which political candidate we endorse, we should find mean-spirited, vulgar, vitriolic slander to be objectionable, if not repulsive. The CBC should be fostering a national consciousness of fair play and tolerance, instead of propagating such venomous propaganda.
No doubt the CBC explains away Mallick’s comments under the banners of “thought provoking” and “controversial.” The CBC might as well call Nazi Joseph Goebbels’ efforts “thought provoking” and “controversial.” That the CBC has chosen to infect others with this type of inflammatory soul-sickness is troubling indeed.
I watched Canadian journalist David Warren offer his comments about Mallick’s article, when he appeared on Fox News. Mr. Warren straddled the fence so adroitly that by the end of the interview I was not sure if he was condemning or condoning Mallick’s article. One point he made, however, I found very especially interesting. He said that Mallick’s article merely put into print what everyone says around the water-cooler at work.
I would suggest that Mr. Warren start frequenting a different water-cooler. I find it hard to believe that all Canadians spend every free moment gossiping about how horrid and tacky Governor Palin is. Good God, what a myopic viewpoint!
As we all know, the left-wing media (read that as almost all media) is startlingly blind to opinions that differ from their own. Their condescendingly antagonistic idea of “fair reporting” is laughable. If your opinion differs from theirs, then obviously “You just don’t get it”—either because of mental deficiency, bad genes, or a poor education. That a conservative person might actually have important, valid, and sensible things to say “does not compute” with them.
So it does not come as a shock to me that the CBC would pander to the extreme left-wing. But it should bother Canadians on both sides of the political fence. Using tax dollars to promote hate-mongering is not something most Canadians would condone – I suspect. Then again, maybe I’m hanging around the wrong water-cooler.
2. A Well-groomed and Polished Trojan Horse
This article written before the Presidential election of 2008 begins with the question “Who is Barack Obama—really?” It is several years later, and I am still asking that question. Who is he -- really?
Who is Barack Obama—really? He appeared on the national scene, seemingly out of nowhere, and became the Democratic Party’s candidate for President. He has a laughably thin political track record. His major accomplishment while in office has been running for another office. We know he’s an uncommonly slick snake-oil salesman, who’s adept at writing disingenuous, self-promoting books. What else do we know? The Presidential Election is fast approaching, and time’s running out. So, who is this guy?
In regard to his higher education; we know when and where he went to school—Occidental College, Columbia, Harvard—but that is about it. Obama’s school records are kept under lock and key. Is there something in these records that Obama wants kept hidden?
How about the elusive thesis Obama wrote while at Columbia? His thesis would give the electorate some insight into his ideology during that formative period in his life. Obama is silent on the subject and, golly-gee, Columbia says it can’t find any copies of the thesis – if it they ever existed. Obama’s professor at the time claims that Obama spent a year writing this nonexistent thesis. Curiouser and curiouser.
What about Obama’s religious values? What sort of faith guides his decisions, and acts as his moral compass? Let’s take a look at reverend “God damn America” Wright—(I use reverend with a lower case “r” because Wright does not deserve the honorific “Reverend.”
Anyone who has heard Wright’s inflammatory, venom-filled rants knows that the “reverend” is about as spiritual as an anti-personnel mine. The warped and twisted logic that spews forth from this bigoted and treasonous demagogue would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that his “flock” buys into his garbage.
This is the reverend who claims that the U.S. government invented AIDS as a means of waging genocide against Afro-Americans. This is the reverend who is on record and video saying, “Not, God bless America—God damn America!”
This is Obama’s spiritual mentor. This is the reverend that married him and Michelle. This is the reverend that baptized their two children. This is the reverend that was Obama’s religious teacher for twenty years.
When reverend Wright’s hate filled propaganda became public knowledge, Obama tried to downplay it. He compared Wright to “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” The public didn’t buy Obama’s ploy—so, for politically expedient reasons Obama cut Wright loose and disavowed him.
After twenty years of close association Obama “discovered” that reverend Wright was wrong? At the best, Obama does not appear to be a very astute judge of character.
What about Bill Ayers—unrepentant homegrown terrorist? In the 1960s and 70s Ayers was a prominent member of a group of violent radicals called the Weathermen. Ayers summed up his philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home; kill your parents.”
A notable quote from Ayers: “There’s something about a good bomb...” Something indeed. Most people would consider the term “good bomb” to be an oxymoron – but not Ayers.
Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois; he served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years, and hosted a dinner at his home to help launch Obama’s political career in 1995.
Obama says that he hardly knows Ayers. Listening to Obama one would think that he and Ayers only have met briefly, while waiting in line at a grocery store long ago, in a galaxy far, far away. There’s more if you like fairy-tales.
Why does Obama deny being associated with so many of his associates? Why do Middle East terrorist groups support him? What about Obama’s close ties with ACORN, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? What about his relationship with the racist Louis Farrakhan? What about his associations with Rashid Khalidi , Rezco, and Nadhmi Auchi? Why do we know so little about this man? What is he hiding? What is his real agenda?
In an article he wrote about Obama, Ed Lasky pointed out the dangers of an uninformed electorate being lead by an unexamined candidate. Time is running out people. We need to know the truth about Obama before it is too late.
I do not believe that Obama is merely an under-qualified and opportunistic politico. If only it were that simple. I have come to believe that Obama is a well-groomed and polished Trojan Horse poised to enter the White House. If Obama is elected President it will not be “God bless America,” it will be “God help America.” Don’t say you weren’t warned.
3. A Clear and Present Danger
As you can see, I was still “playing nice” with Democrats at the time I wrote this article. My attitude in that regard has undergone a sea change since then -- as has my attitude toward the GOP.
Strange days indeed.
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines a “clear and present danger” as being “a risk or threat to safety or other public interests that is serious and imminent.” You may be sure that Barack Obama’s agenda poses a serious and imminent threat to the United States.
Before I explain that charge, let me make a couple of facts very clear: I am not a right-wing extremist, nor am I a racist. I do not have much patience for left or right extremism, and I find racism of any type moronic and evil.
I have no axe to grind with moderate Democrats. I find some of their ideas sound, and worth looking into. I am a Republican not because I think Republicans have a monopoly on the truth, but because I identify more strongly, more often, with the Republican viewpoint.
I have no interest whatsoever in slamming Obama because he is a Democrat, or black, or liberal. I do believe he is a serious threat to the United States, however—a threat of historic proportions, and potentially catastrophic consequences.
While the media pundits have been parsing statements made in the Presidential Debates and discussing “issues,” Obama has been steadily positioning himself to destroy the United States as we know it. Hiding in plain sight; this trojan horse for Marxist Socialism, Islamic Extremism, and Black Racism is now poised to enter the White House. How many votes do you think Obama would get running on the “Marxist/Islamic/Black Panther” ticket? He is not stupid, you know.
Behind Obama’s facade of “liberal Democrat” is a sly, intelligent, charismatic, dishonest, and implacable enemy of a free, democratic, capitalistic, and powerful United States of America.
The above paragraph is not ideologically driven hyperbole. Let us look at some of the facts. Because of the large number of areas of concern surrounding Obama, I will list only some of the more troubling areas. Every one of these areas is deeply disquieting, and should disqualify Obama from becoming POTUS.
Honesty: Obama lies like it is an Olympic event. Yes, I realize that all politicians lie at times, but Obama has raised the bar so high that even Bill Clinton is probably in awe. Obama has never met a fact he could not obfuscate; an attack he could not sidestep, or a truth he could not twist. The guy is more slippery than an eel in a vat of K-YJelly.
He lies, and lies to cover his lies, with such speed, style, and savoir faire that I freely admit I’m impressed. I’m concerned, angry, and distrustful—but impressed. Obama’s undeniably a world-class fibber, but do we really want a President with an almost supernatural flair for mendacity?
ACORN: The “Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” is a government funded, ballot-box stuffing, front for the Far Left. Their modus operandi revolves around radical activism which includes, but is not limited to, threat and intimidation.
Obama has worked for, helped organize, and legally defended ACORN. He is in ACORN up to his neck, and ACORN is committed to destroying capitalism from within. Again, that is not hyperbole, but simply the truth.
A strong case has been made that ACORN is one of the key instigators of the current financial chaos. ACORN cajoled and threatened banks into issuing loans to unqualified people – i.e. subprime loans. Banks were intimidated into making loans that no sane financial institution should ever issue. Destruction from within.
Look at what a mockery ACORN is currently making of the election process. If Obama wins, this may well be the last free election the U.S. ever holds. He is not even President and look at what ACORN is doing. Imagine what they will do with Obama as President. Please do not dismiss this as overblown rhetoric – investigate ACORN with an unbiased eye and see what conclusions you come to.
Racism: Black Liberation Theology (BLT) got off the ground with the publication of Reverend James Cone’s book “Black Theology and Black Power” in 1969. BLT is a complex issue, but one may be forgiven for feeling that the following quote by Cone is a tad racist: “If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.”
If you check out Black Liberation Theology on the Internet you will find a wealth of apologia. I have not seen such “bobbing and weaving” since the last Sugar Ray Leonard fight.
My favorite “bob and weave” comes from Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Hopkins defends BLT Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, by saying that the word “damn” in the original Hebrew “means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation.”
OK, then—”God damn” all the egomaniacal demagogues from Bin Laden to Wright who twist, pervert, and debase spirituality so that they can further their own sick, intolerant, hate-filled agendas. I mean that, of course, in the ancient Hebrew sense.
The point here is that Obama was married by a Black Liberation reverend (Jeremiah Wright), and had his children baptized by Wright, and attended services led by Wright for twenty years. To hear Obama tell it, every service of Wright’s he attended consisted of holding hands and singing Kumbaya. I don’t think so. I think that hearing twenty years of sermons espousing black racism and anti-American sentiment would leave an indelible mark on anyone.
Rabid racist and “Nation of Islam” leader Louis Farrakhan has called Obama “The Messiah.” Here is a quote of Farrakhan’s worth pondering: “Barack has captured the youth…That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”
On multiple levels, this is really dangerous stuff— “The One,” “The Chosen One,” “The Messiah.” Do we really want a demi-god Messiah in the White House?
Terrorism: The United States of America is currently involved in a global war with Islamic terrorists. Ring a bell with anyone?
Obama has, I believe, carried on a clandestine relationship with unrepentant terrorist Bill “just a guy in the neighborhood” Ayers. Obama’s wife Michelle worked at the same law firm as Ayer’s wife Bernadine (“just a gal in the neighborhood”) Dohrn. Dohrn herself is no slouch when it comes to radicalism. Do you think it is a coincidence that there is a connection between these four?
Raila Odinga, Kenya’s Prime Minister, is a radical Marxist, and militant Muslim; he also belongs to the same tribe (Luo) as Obama’s late father. Obama has conferred with Odinga in person, by phone, and by e-mail. Odinga claims to be Obama’s cousin.
Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim, as is Obama’s half-brother Obongo (Roy) Obama. Obama’s family tree is chock full of members of the Islamic faith. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, but we are at war with rabid fringe elements of Islam that hide their all too worldly hatreds behind a cloak of religion.
I just do not think that it is real smart to have a Commander in Chief with such myriad close ties to Islam and unrepentant terrorists, when we’re in the middle of a war with Islamic terrorists. Call me peculiar.
The biased liberal media will not investigate Obama. A hard-hitting, in-depth liberal media “investigation” would sound something like this:
Liberal Media: “Excuse us sir, but uh, well there are rumors that you have lied. “Are these accusations true?”
Obama: “Of course not.”
Liberal Media: “That’s what we thought—sorry to bother you.”
Obama: “Not a problem.”
No problem, indeed. The liberal press will give Obama a “free pass” on these issues until it is too late. In the meantime “Truth squads” will intimidate; liberal comedians will ridicule, pundits will dismiss, and Obama will charm.
It is up to readers such as you to get the truth circulating among the general public. A wide and rapid dispersal of the truth about Obama is urgently needed. Time is running out.
This is not some sideline distraction from the main issue. This is the main issue, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Maybe I am wrong; maybe Obama is simply some hapless bad judge of character with an unfortunate proclivity for stumbling into radical extremists. But I would not bet my country on it.
4. The Death of Journalism
Written in my callow “still friendly to Fox News” period. Ah, the halcyon days of youth -- such trust, such innocence, such stupidity.
“During
times of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
Welcome, fellow revolutionaries—let us share some truth. Sean Hannity has said that “Journalism is dead,” by which Hannity means that objective journalism is dead—journalism that attempts to be fair and balanced. In its place we have partisan journalism—journalism that acts as a mouthpiece for a particular party, candidate, or social agenda.
Okay, we have partisan journalism. The question is why is almost all journalism, liberal journalism? Why is the main-stream media (MSM) almost universally in the tank for Obama?
Look at some figures: Pew Research – considered the “golden standard” of polls -- recently confirmed that 70% of Obama’s press coverage is positive. The same poll showed that 60% of MSM’s coverage of McCain has been negative. The MSM doesn’t just give us biased or slanted news – they feed us “news” with quote marks around it. It is partisan propaganda, pure and simple.
Fortunately, the American people are becoming more and more aware that the MSM is feeding them a dishonest leftist version of the political scene. The same Pew poll found that 70% of voters felt that the MSM favors Obama, whereas only 9% felt that the MSM favors McCain. The MSM is solidly behind Obama, and anti-McCain. The facts and figures prove it and common wisdom acknowledges it.
To get back to my original question – why? Why does the MSM lean so heavily to the left? Is it because reporters tend to be liberal by temperament, or because the professors who taught them are so liberal, or is it peer pressure?
I believe it is all the above. I have researched polls going back to the early 1960s and they show that the vast majority of reporters have historically been liberal. It appears that reporters tend to be liberal by temperament – the profession draws liberals to it. That being the case, it is axiomatic that most journalism professors will be liberal and will teach journalism with a liberal slant.
That peer pressure is a factor almost goes without saying. The majority of “news” organizations are liberal from top to bottom – from the editor down to the copy boy.
Don’t you think there is pressure to conform; to be “one of the gang;” to be intelligent, hip, and “enlightened?” Of course there is pressure – intense pressure.
We know that the MSM is an Obama mouthpiece and we know why. The question now becomes why does the MSM continue to claim that they are impartial purveyors of the news when it is obvious that they are no such thing?
The MSM is not impartial; not objective, and not balanced
The only major network with any legitimate claim to having “fair and balanced” coverage is the Fox network, and they are in a league of one. They have no serious competition —every other network is, to a greater or lesser extent, a propaganda outlet for Obama. The MSM’s lack of investigative enquiry into Obama’s background has put the USA at grave risk and the MSM is mostly oblivious to it.
There is reason for hope though. Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando stumped Senator Biden recently, by asking him a real question. The Obama camp is still sulking about it.
So fess-up MSM. Stop pretending you are real news reporters and admit that you are merely leftist sycophants who have given Obama a free pass throughout the Presidential campaign.
5. Country First
This article is a personal embarrassment -- best swept under a rug and forgotten --but I include it because I want to show that the articles about Obama that came afterward were not done out of any malicious spite -- I sincerely hoped that he would turn out to be no worse than Bill Clinton.
A pretty low bar I grant you, but I was perfectly prepared to put up with four years of liberal nonsense. Except that what we got, of course, was not liberal nonsense but straight, undiluted, Marxist/Fascist destruction and a historically corrupt, inept, and tyrannical regime. (The less said about my support for McCain at the time the better -- live and learn).
I fully intended to hang up my writer’s hat after this, and not write any more articles for the foreseeable future. If you would like to see an example of “attitude adjustment” read the rest of this book.
The United States of America has a new Commander and Chief. A new President that I did my best to see defeated in his bid for the Presidency. So, how am I dealing with it? How do I feel about it? I am cautiously hopeful.
President Obama does not appear to be the extreme left-wing radical that I had feared he was. Actually he seems to be pretty pragmatic and grounded. True, he’s a leftist Democrat, and that’s regrettable, but it is certainly not a cause for anger or despair.
We have dealt with Democrats in the past, and we will deal with them in the future. Democrats are sometimes unbelievably dense and misguided, but they are nonetheless a vital part of the fabric of our free and Democratic Republic.
I have seen ten Presidential Administrations come and go—six of them Republican, and four of them Democratic. Now we have the beginning of the fifth Democratic Administration of my lifetime. So the administrations are now about evened out. Which is as it should be.
Over and over I’ve watched the pendulum swing back and forth from one extreme to the other. The long-term end result is a nation that is balanced and on even keel. Sinking—but balanced and on even keel. It is time for us, as a unified nation, to start bailing with a will and raise our Ship of State once more.
Yes, I would have been happier if John McCain had been elected, and yes the Democrats have an inordinate amount of benighted scatterbrains in their ranks—but Obama has been elected President, and elected by a large undeniable margin.
He is now POTUS, President of the United States. I respect the fact that he was freely elected and that the majority of Americans voted him in.
The pendulum will swing back; the Republicans will regroup, rethink, reinvent themselves, and return. Sooner rather than later one hopes.
But for now President Obama is the freely elected leader of my country, and my Commander in Chief during time of war. I wish him good luck and Godspeed.
During the election I wrote an article for CFP in which I said that I would apologize to Obama if he turned out to not be the extreme radical that I feared he was. Consider this article to be that apology.
Now, lest some of you radical-left, tree-hugging nitwits think I’m going soft in my dotage, let me assure you that I fully intend on continuing to oppose your lame-brained left-wing lunacies with gusto and vigor.
I have become cautiously hopeful, not an idiot.
6. Rules for Radicals: A Blurred Vision
This was the first piece that I wrote after my kumbaya farewell article following Obama’s Inauguration in January. I had resigned myself to the Obama Administration and was planning on not writing any more political commentary for some time -- but like many Americans I sat up and took notice as one puzzling, confusing, and/or outrageous bill after another wound its way through Congress during the first half of 2009.
I said to myself “whoa -- all stop -- what in the world is going on here?” Knowing of the popularity that Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” enjoyed among the intelligentsia and liberal elites I decided that perhaps I had better start there if I was to uncover what was happening to America.
I bought a copy of “Rules for Radicals” and read it carefully and thoroughly, page by page, line by line, making annotations and comments as I went along. It took me about a week of painstaking reading to untangle its obfuscating web of lies and deceit. I was amazed that seemingly intelligent people would give such garbage more than a passing glance. What I found was essentially a manifesto for narcissistic sociopaths.
Alinsky, because of his formal education, was able to put a thin (very thin) veneer of sophistication on what is otherwise a crude Machiavellian mish-mash of Marxism and Chicago Mob-style extortion tactics designed to create havoc and destroy civilized institutions in order to grab power. Two of the signature ideas that he was so very proud of were the world’s first “Fart In,” and its first “S--t In.” Liberals have all but canonized this thug.
My article was reposted when I found out that the NEA, (the teacher’s union -- the nation’s largest), was promoting “Rules for Radicals” as suggested reading for America’s teachers.
“Everyone
thinks of changing the world,
but no one thinks of changing
himself.”
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” first published in 1971, has been read and assimilated by a number of those who espouse a Far Left agenda. Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky while at Wellesley College. The following excerpt is from that paper.
“Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’ His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers.”
Perhaps in your world, Madam Secretary -- certainly not in mine.
My point here is that “Rules for Radicals” has had a far-reaching impact, especially on “community organizers” from Chicago -- Alinsky’s home turf. America’s current POTUS, for example, is no doubt familiar with Alinsky’s “blurred vision.” This is a term I have taken from the book, where Alinsky describes the organizer’s mental map as a “blurred vision of a better world.” Blurred indeed.
Running throughout “Rules for Radicals” is a whiny refusal to take personal responsibility for anything. It is always “their” fault. Who “they” are, and what “their” faults are, changes from scenario to scenario, but one thing is constant -- the “haves” are to blame for the state of the “have-not’s.”
It is a perpetrator/victim dualistic mythology straight out of Marx and Lenin. This “professional victim” mind-set caters to the infantile narcissistic ego, at the expense of spiritual and emotional growth, integrity, and character. But I’m getting ahead of myself, let me start at the book’s beginning.
Alinsky begins “Rules for Radicals” with a dedication to Lucifer: “...the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”
Right at the start of the book we get a foretaste of the vapid illogic that permeates “Rules for Radicals.” Alinsky, an avowed atheist, inadvertently implies God’s existence. After all, in the Luciferian mythos who does Lucifer rebel against? God, of course -- a God that does not exist according to Alinsky. So God does not exist, but Lucifer who opposes God does? You figure it out, I can’t.
This is as good a time as any to point out that Alinsky’s book promotes what is sometimes called the Luciferic inversion -- where good is bad, morality immoral, and ethics unethical -- and one might add, where thinking is thoughtless. More about that in a bit.
In order to get to the essence of the subtle venom that infests “Rules for Radicals,” I would like to bring attention to one of the more poisonous heroes in the Alinsky pantheon -- Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).
Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” has the distinction of being perhaps the most evil book ever written. Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of many millions of his country’s men and women kept a copy of “The Prince” on his nightstand -- just the thing for bedtime reading.
Alinsky knew his Machiavelli so well (so he thought), that he felt qualified to point out Machiavelli’s “weak spots” -- where Machiavelli dropped the ball, so to speak. “Machiavelli’s blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives,,,was his major weakness,” Alinsky says.
Au contraire Saul; Machiavelli had it covered. In “The Prince” Machiavelli writes that actually having morals and ethics was to be avoided like the plague, but the appearance of having such values (moral clothing) should be assiduously cultivated.
“[It is] not necessary for a prince to have [mercy, faith, compassion, honesty, and spirituality], but it is necessary to appear to have them. ...Having them...is harmful...appearing to have them is useful.” (Italics added)
Compare that to Alinsky’s tenth rule of Ethics of Means and Ends, “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
In other words, appearance is everything. The truth must be cloaked in glamour, verbal legerdemain; smoke and mirrors. Sound like any politicians you know?
Alinsky quotes Machiavelli in support of his (Alinsky’s) position regarding selfishness, (after quoting that renowned advocate of egotism, Jesus Christ).
“Machiavelli with whom the idea of self-interest seems to have gained its greatest notoriety, at least among those who are unaware of the tradition, said, ‘This is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, fake, cowardly, [and] covetous…” (Italics added)
Charming. Alinsky’s point here is that Machiavelli is notorious only among us clueless sheep who don’t comprehend the great value of the “tradition” of self-centered megalomania. Tradition? How about an infantile narcissistic pathology.
(An aside here: Freud called this sort of self-centered grandiosity the King Baby. A human infant, unable to fend for itself, comes to expect that all its needs will be taken care of – food, milk, diaper change, etc. This is all well and good so far as it goes, but when the infant grows into a child, and then an adult, and still expects the world to cater to his or her every need then we have a problem – the King or Queen Baby. Such people invariably have a God complex -- more about that in a moment).
Regarding egotism Alinsky says, “Ego, as we understand and use it here, cannot be even vaguely confused with, nor is it remotely related to egotism.” (Methinks he doth protest to much). (Italics added)
In the very next paragraph he writes, “ The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to be a great creator, to play God.” So sayeth Saul “Not Vaguely or Remotely Egotistical” Alinsky.
I am speechless before such transparent duplicity. I am not sure whether to drop my jaw in awe before Alinsky’s outrageous chutzpah, or shake my head in pity at his delusional blindness.
Machiavelli promotes another vile dictum -- the end justifies the means. Combine an ego “playing God,” with an “end justifies the means” mentality, and you have the recipe for disaster. Karl Marx combined these two attitudes; as did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot -- to name a few.
Combined, these individuals have been responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. This unholy pathological mentality is known as “malignant messianic narcissism.” Sounds like something you definitely do not want to step in. Alinsky not only steps in it, he wallows in it, and urges his “organizers” to follow suit.
Does the end justify the means to Alinsky? You bet. This is from his book, where he quotes Bertrand Russell, “...obviously nothing has any value as a means unless that to which it is a means has value on its own account. It follows that intrinsic value is logically prior to value as means.” Actually, Bertrand, it does not follow at all.
When you cut through Russell’s pretentious jargon, what he’s saying is that the end is of more importance than the means -- that the goal is more important than the means you use to get there. This is akin to saying that it doesn’t matter how you get from New York to San Francisco -- flying or crawling -- getting to the destination is what is of paramount importance. After about a week of crawling you might change your mind about that.
Contrary to what many might believe, in circumstances involving moral values the means used to get to an end are of vital importance to one’s emotional, mental, and spiritual health.
Alinsky’s stance regarding the ends being more important than the means is rather odd, because earlier in his book Alinsky states that the organizer’s raison d’être -- a secular utopia -- is a non-attainable end. “If we think of the struggle as a climb up a mountain, then we must visualize a mountain with no top. [Like Sisyphus we are] pushing a boulder up an endless mountain.” (Italics added)
So the “end” in Alinsky’s blurred vision is nonexistent -- but the end justifies the means? You figure it out, I can’t.
All glibness aside, the whole “end justifies the means” attitude can, and has, lead to horrendous consequences. Lenin and Stalin justified their brutal regimes by claiming that all the horror they inflicted upon their “comrades” was done in order to bring into existence a worker’s utopia. If you were suspected of being a hindrance to the realization of this utopian pipe-dream then you were shot or sent off to the gulags. No joke.
Alinsky would excuse such behavior, because “...in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent with both one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. He who sacrifices the mass
good for his personal conscience...doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”
So according to Alinsky, people like Hitler and Pol Pot must have been extremely caring people indeed. Gives me the warm-fuzzies just thinking about how caring they were.
What else can we add to this poisonous Machiavellian mix? Let’s throw in some relativism -- why not? Alinsky writes, “All definitions of words, like everything else, are relative.” (Italics added)
“Like everything else” -- got it?
This does not stop Alinsky from quoting dictionaries when he wants to define words in “Rules for Radicals.” You figure it out, I...never mind.
Alinsky quotes Lewis Carroll in his book, and I’ll swap quotes with him.. Here’s my quote by Carroll, “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” Carroll was ridiculing such nonsense; Alinsky takes such nonsense as gospel.
When Alinsky says “like everything else,” he means everything. He writes, “[The organizer] knows that all values are relative, in a world of political relativity.” (Italics added)
It is such an attitude that enables Alinsky to write, “[Knowing] the universal principal that the right things are always done for the wrong reasons...the organizer...should search for and use the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals. He should be able to use irrationality...to progress toward a rational world.” (Italics added)
That doesn’t even look good on paper -- let alone as a reality. Let me see if I have this right: A community organizer uses the wrong reasons and irrational thinking in order to achieve a rational but nonexistent goal? Oy vey.
Remember when I mentioned “thinking is thoughtless?” Well, although Alinsky was intelligent and widely read, he was no friend to logic and reason. In fact, as might be obvious by now, they were barely on speaking terms. You won’t find me ever accusing the Far Left of being rational. Clever, duplicitous, and often intelligent? Yes. Rational? No.
Alinsky writes in “Rules for Radicals,” “...a revolutionary or a man of action does not have the sedentary frame of mind that is part of the personality of the research scholar. He finds it very difficult to sit quietly and think.... He will do anything to avoid it.”
Alinsky is speaking of himself. Lest we miss the point, he underlines it by writing “...the fact is that I did not want to come to grips with thinking. I welcomed...excuses to escape the ordeal of thinking” (Italics added). Ordeal indeed, if “Rules for Radicals” is anything to go by.
The logical fallacies that keep cropping up in “Rules for Radicals” are so numerous that one comes to expect them at every turn, and begins to feel something is amiss if a page or two goes by without some sort of bogus premise.
Alinsky’s view of the “man of action” or Übermensch (Alinsky admiringly quotes Nietzsche), as being superior to the person who thinks things through before acting, is infantile at best. Contrary to Alinsky’s opinion, being reasonable and logical does not automatically condemn one to a lifetime of wearing milk-bottle glasses, tweed jackets, and parsing ancient Greek.
Alinsky -- no friend to thinking -- advises his protégées to get arrested periodically, so as to force themselves to gather their thoughts. Good avuncular advice. He writes that being thrown in jail is good because, (1) it gives you that extra caché that every “revolutionary about town” needs, and (2) you have no option but to think, so you may as well write a book.
We are not talking about any serious jail time mind you-- just enough to give you a certain je ne sais quoi, and maybe write a bestseller. Why not? It worked for Hitler.
Speaking of Hitler -- Adolf wrote “Mein Kampf,” while serving jail time (as per Alinsky’s instructions), after a failed putsch or revolution. Given Alinsky’s description of what makes a good revolutionary -- sorry, “organizer” -- you would think he would be praising Herr Hitler from the roof tops as the ideal community organizer template.
Hitler inflamed, agitated, organized, and was a rabble rouser par excellence -- and to top it off, he overthrew the establishment! He is a pitch perfect example of Alinsky’s man of action -- the Übermensch! -- but nary a word about Adolf in “Rules for Radicals.” No doubt Alinsky was only following the Far Left’s dogma that the Nazis must always be incorrectly associated with the right-wing, and that their roots in Mussolini’s left-wing totalitarianism forever be denied and hushed up.
Moving on...but, before I move on, I should forewarn you that the next few paragraphs may seem crude to some readers. If so, please accept my apologies in advance, and feel free to skip ahead a bit.
Now moving on, let us discuss some of the s--t Alinsky tries to pile up. I mean literally, as in his aborted (thank you Lord for small favors) plan to tie up the restrooms at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in order to extort some concessions from the city. (Alinsky associated with Chicago’s criminal element, and it shows in his extortion-racket tactics). He envisioned the proposed O’Hare technique as “...the nation’s first ‘s--t in’.” Ha, ha.
He also writes about another plan that never materialized, which revolved around a bunch of folks eating huge quantities of beans and then attending a black-tie affair where they would commence a “fart in.” Ha, ha.
Alinsky says that the planned “fart in” didn’t happen because, “The threat of this tactic was leaked (there may be a Freudian slip here...so what?).” Ha, ha. Alinsky’s rapier-like wit never fails to send a trickle down my leg. Ha, ha.
We are not out of the excrement yet. In “Rules for Radicals” we read that “The one thing that all oppressed people want to do to their oppressors is s--t on them.” So sayeth Saul “Poo Poo” Alinsky, mentor to the liberal intelligentsia. Thanks for the visual Saul.
One cannot help but wonder what type of unfortunate potty training young Alinsky suffered through in order to have such a scatological view of life. I think that he had some unresolved issues to deal with. Rather, I know he had some unresolved issues.
Be that as it may, we now come to the actual “rules” in “Rules for Radicals.” Here they are, all 13 of them from the chapter “Tactics:”
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of your enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
I am not going to go into each of these rules one by one. There is ample information on the Internet for those who wish to delve into them. I do, however, wish to discuss a couple of the rules.
First, a few words concerning Rule #5 -- ridicule. The radical Left has taken this one to heart and polished it to a glowing luster. Alinsky calls ridicule humorous, although it usually is not. It is most often a mean-spirited venom that masquerades as humor, and its pernicious effects permeate our culture.
Ridicule in its most common guise is expressed in vitriolic ad hominem attacks. Ex-President Bush and Governor Palin are two of the best known recent recipients of such “humor.”
(A short aside: One of the few bright spots to emerge from the vociferous attacks against Governor Palin has been the “outing” of the women’s movement. Their blanket silence in the face of the attacks against Palin is extremely telling -- you can hear crickets chirp and grass growing).
That is enough about Rule #5 and ridicule. The key rule in “Rules for Radicals” is Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
I say it is key because Alinsky spends a minimum amount of time explaining all of the other rules -- sometimes giving no explanation at all, and at most a paragraph or two. But with Rule #13 he spends several pages describing it. Clearly he felt it was important, so I’ll take some time discussing it.
“Pick a target” is basically self-explanatory. By “freeze it” Alinsky means to isolate it on its own. By “personalize it” Alinsky means to give a “face” to your enemy, and hopefully a derogatory nickname as well. That is, he wouldn’t attack the Republican Party as such, he would attack George W. Bush, or Sarah Palin, and he would call them snide names and ridicule them. Say, that sounds familiar.
By “polarize it” Alinsky means to ignore any “common ground” you might have with the enemy, and paint him or her all black, and yourself all white. As he writes, “[The organizer must be] a well-integrated political schizoid. [He] must be able to split himself into two parts -- one part...polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, and the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference...”
“Polarizing” in Alinsky’s view is brain washing your followers into believing that they are 100 percent on the side of the angels, and the enemy is 100 percent aligned with evil. But, and here is the truly diabolical part, the organizer himself does not buy into any of it. He is not concerned with political ideology – he is above such things.
Alinsky continues, “[The organizer] has a strong ego, one we might call monumental...[though] clearly differentiated from egotism. ...Having his own identity, he has no need for the security blanket of an ideology....” (Italics added)
So if we connect the dots in Alinsky’s portrait of the Übermensch, the ideal revolutionary/organizer, what do we see? What does Alinsky’s blurred vision of the ideal community organizer look like?
A nihilistic schizophrenic with a monumental ego who uses the wrong reasons, irrationality, and any means necessary to reach a nonexistent goal.
People buy this garbage? You bet -- and they passionately promote this dangerous insanity.
Some readers may have noticed that I have been using Alinsky’s techniques of ridicule and polarization throughout this article -- just following the rules, you know. Truth be told, Alinsky does have some good ideas and intelligent observations sprinkled throughout his book.
It is this mixture of the sensible with the evil and illogical that makes his book so insidiously dangerous. There is a name for such a mixture of truth and falsehood -- propaganda. Hitler’s henchman Goebbels was a master at it, and so was Alinsky.
“Rules for Radicals” is a clever trap for the naïve, the idealistic, the gullible, and the unwary. And it is a clarion call for the nihilistic, the arrogant, the greedy, the self-centered, the amoral, the chronically malcontented, and those with an anti-social mind-set.
Mankind’s long climb from the caves of pre-history to civilized governments has been a slow painful process (and very much an ongoing process). Alinsky’s cavalier dismissal of “the establishment” as evil; is puerile, duplicitous, and socially irresponsible -- to put it mildly. One need only look at the Machiavellian antics of ACORN to witness where the teachings espoused in “Rules for Radicals” lead.
In closing, I mentioned earlier that Alinsky quotes Jesus, and indeed he does -- more than once, but there is one quote in particular that I wish to address. I’ll include the sentence immediately before, and a few words that follow, in order to put it in context.
“The importance of self-interest has never been challenged; it has been accepted as an inevitable fact of life. In the words of Christ, ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ Aristotle said in “Politics...,” and on Alinsky goes.
I mention this in order to show how spiritually clueless Alinsky was. He quotes a verse about love and self-sacrifice in order to support his “me first,” egocentric views? How ignorant is that?
Atheists are ipso facto spiritually naïve, and Alinsky is no exception. In another part of his book he writes, “No organization, including organized religion, can live up to their own book of morality and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote...’Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth’.” [Cor. 3:6]
Great, an atheist explaining scripture to me -- Jesus wept.
Alinsky would have done well to have contemplated the verse immediately preceding the one he quotes: “Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God (II Cor. 3:5).
At any rate, Paul’s words are about the importance of experiencing an inner spiritual transformation; as opposed to merely following outward formulas and customs by rote while leaving the inner-self unchanged.
It is the same issue Jesus raised with the Pharisees: “Blind guides; who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! ...For you cleanse the outside of the cup...but inside...they are full of robbery and self-indulgence” (Matt. 23:24,25).
I believe that Paul would agree that the most important thing that we can change and improve is ourselves, our inner selves, and that is the absolute truth.
Laus Deo.