When I was a kid, the most often heard phrase was, "I want a better world for my children." It was our parents' main goal to make sure that we had a great America in which to raise our children -- their grandchildren.
Nowadays, it's more likely to hear parents say something like, "I want health care. I want it now. I want the government to pay for it." The problem with that sort of thinking is that it's not good for your children to have to be burdened with the cost of your desires. That's like saying that you're horny so your child should have sex with you. Not a good idea.
Your children shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your desires. Not for health care, not for sexual satisfaction. And yet, more and more parents are demanding of their children the cost of the parents' desires. Whether those desires be for nationalized health care at an enormous cost to their children and grandchildren, or their parents' desire for "fullfilment" as the mother and father both trudge off to work daily as the child is raised by a multitude of babysitters and before- and after-school programs. If the parents' desire is to have "social justice", the child is stuck with a world in which he or she gets promoted even when not ready, leaving the child feeling panicked due to not understanding the work; or, on the other side, being not chosen for college due to another child's preferential treatment based on "social justice": the children pay the price, no matter which parent is dreaming of "social justice".
The children of today are paying the price of four decades' worth of parental selfishness. Since the sixties, parents have been into "peace, love and rock and roll", leaving the child to pay for the "peace" by not having a missile defense system or enough airplanes to defend them. The child paid first for the "love" because the child had no father in the home and it was "okay" to break social norms of the time and to raise a child without having a husband. "Okay for whom?" was never asked and the child grew up feeling different and intimidated, or followed Dear Ol' Mom and did the same thing and became sexually permissive and wound up presenting Mom with a grandchild to help raise because Mom put herself first, why shouldn't the daughter? Or, why shouldn't the son be sexually permissive, that's the way Mom and/or Dad were, so if it's good enough for them... They pay the price in rock and roll in learning what they live, not what they're told. If Mom and (or) Dad are into the kind of music that is infamous for the drug scene (Jimi Hendrix, etc. for the older generation; I don't know who for the younger), then that's the way the child will grow up. Don't expect your child to not impersonate you in most things, or at least in the big things. As long as they live it, they will learn it.
Nowadays, it's children having children because the parents are too busy working: parents putting their reputation for having nice things is more important to them than having a solid family where the child feels important and knows that Mom and Dad love them. I've heard parents say that they love their child and would do anything for them, but those same parents don't have time to sit and talk to the child who needs advice, who has a heart ache, who has been abused by someone -- all in the name of "I have to go to work, I'll see you later." What is more important? Your savings plan for your new car, or the fact that your daughter was just pressured into having sex with her boyfriend for the first time even though she's just thirteen?
Selfish parents think that a bigger, better, more world (bigger house, better car, more designer name fashions, etc.) is better for their children than a small house with an older car and Wal-Mart brands with Mom at home and Dad working to support all of them because they put their children first. It's no use blaming "the world we live in" because it wasn't the world who taught your children that it should be that way in the first place. It was you!
When you have children, it's your job to raise them, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them right from wrong, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about sex, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about God and your belief system, not someone else's and it certainly isn't someone else's job to tell them that they can't believe, either!
Putting your children first in this world means not only putting off that BMW until you are retired, but it means having the patience, determination and courage to do what is right for your children and their future and your grandchildren's futures in every instance and every decision you make. That's being a parent. Thinking of the "here and now" and only the "here and now" will do no good for your children's futures because they will be the ones paying the price for you thinking of only the "here and now".
Consider the fact that with health care, it will currently cost the average American family of four almost twenty thousand dollars a year for Pelosi's HR 3962 if the Senate agrees with it and this thing goes all the way through. Think of how much it will cost your children's average family of four in twenty years from now. We all know that the costs of government plans always go one way: UP. So how much will it cost your children when they're thinking of having children? It's estimated at almost twenty thousand annually now, how much more will it be in twenty years? Thirty thousand a year? Do you even make thirty thousand a year? If your child does, what will your child live on, buy food with, do for their children what they want to if all of their money is going toward this nationalized health care plan? How will your child survive? Obama won't be in office in twenty years. Pelosi hopefully won't be in office in twenty years. Who will do for them? You? Will you then pay the price for your current selfishness? If not, then who?
Are we to provide everything for your child via a government program? Is that how selfish you want to be? If that be the case, then what will your child have to pay in taxes in order to be able to have everything from the government? Or, what will your child have to do for the government in order for the government to be so magnanimous toward your child? Do you want your child to do without because you wanted health care now? Sounds to me as though your child will not only do without, but your children's children will, too. If your children have to pay thirty thousand a year for the health care system you wanted now, then how much more will their children pay? Fifty thousand a year? Sixty? Does that sound like a loving thing to do to your grandchildren?
I thought you were supposed to love them, take care of them, prepare for them, protect them, not burden them with your desires. Plan for your children and your grandchildren, not just the "here and now" or your grandchildren will be paying the price for your selfishness.
What will they think of a grandparent who burdened them with so much government debt that their economy is ruined and the cost of bread is twenty-five dollars a loaf? What will they think of a grandparent who made it impossible for them to go on vacations because they can't take time off of work due to their tax burden and the resulting economy? What will your grandchildren think of how you treated them and their futures when it didn't have to be that way? What will they think of you then?
Will they think that you made a mistake? Will they think that you were misled? Will they think that it's all the government's fault, or will they wake up to the fact that it was you who helped push this thing through and it was you who made their lives a miserable, joyless, slavish burden because their freedoms were gone via Cap & Trade, their banks were gone via government takeover, their health care took most of their pay and what wasn't taken via health care was taken in other taxes to pay for vehicle production and unions? What will they think of you as they work fourteen hour days to pay for your desires?
It's not right to be a selfish parent. It's not right to think of only yourself when you are trying to get something from the government. It's not right to think of just the "here and now". You must think of the future for your children's sake and stop thinking only of yourself and your desires.
You consider nationalized health care good for your children's futures? Not when you look at the big picture and the money involved. Not when you look at it objectively and unemotionally. It cannot be. Any time you add a burden to future generations for the satisfaction of the present, you are putting that burden on your children and making their debt to the government bigger each time. There's a number out there that is about $38,000 and is the amount of taxes each child will owe thanks to this administration's plans and deeds. That's not a very auspicious beginning for your child's future. Add to that the health care plans and it's even more debt already owed. When will it end?
In today's America, your child has the option to be whatever he/she wants to be. There have been people all across this land who started with nothing and rose to power, prestige, leadership positions, riches even because of their God-given talents, determination, drive and intelligence. They didn't rely on the government to get them there; they relied upon themselves. If they needed help, they went to family, friends and -- if nowhere else could help them -- the government as a last resort. People who dream big and aspire to be something can accomplish their goals and dreams in today's America. In tomorrow's America -- with health care, Cap & Trade, etc. -- that won't be even remotely possible. Why? Because no matter what aspirations your child may have in your selfish tomorrow's America, the government will have to step in and take most of their money, delineate what they can and cannot do because of Cap & Trade emissions laws, prevent them from living where they wish to live because a gopher turtoise was just found on the property's border and work will be the focus of their taxpaying lives.
All of this is the result of your selfishness; your "here and now", live for today attitude. To think that it could have all been prevented if you had stopped, thought about the future and thought about how it will effect your children and your children's children. To think that your children could have lived in a FREE America, instead of one that is burdened with debt, extreme environmentalist laws, and no hope for making it better, or getting out of it, all thanks to your selfishness.
I think your children deserve better. That's why I have my website, write this blog and encourage parents to have Mom stay at home with their children during their school years. Because it's selfishness that will bring about a worse world for our children, not a better world. Selfishness is demanding health care reform now so that you can feel better about yourself later. How you can feel better about yourself bringing all of that upon your children and grandchildren, I do not comprehend. But you will. My question is, will you even see what you have done as your child works so hard for your desires?
How selfish are you? Will you think of your children? Or will you say, "I want it and I want it now!"?
It's simple. Think of their future tax burden. Think of their lives and how they must live them in order to pay for your desires. How long will they have to pay for you? Wouldn't it be better to have just said, "No. I'll find a better way. I don't have to do that now."?
Grandpa, Grandma, Mom, Dad and Aunts and Uncles: do not burden the younger generations with your desires. Have mercy. Have mercy.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Don't Call Me "White"
Well, I've reached my limit. I'm so fed up with the idea that I have to kowtow to someone else regarding what words I can use in this "free" country, that I have decided to rebel. I will not use the term "African-American" unless and until I am given the same considerations.
If I have to use the terms that keep changing (used to be "negro", then it was "black", then "African-American" [even though born here, thus making people AMERICAN-AMERICAN), then others have to refer to me as the term I choose. Fair is fair, right?
So, I have decided that I shall from now on be referred to as being -- not white -- but "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person." If someone can't refer to my race as what I want them to refer to me, then they better not refer to me at all, or I'll take offense. It has to be my way, or the highway. After all, I have rights, too. I am going to take offense and be upset if anyone refers to me as anything besides, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
Why, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."? Because I can. I can change it at my whim and I can make it known throughout the world (internet gives internationality, right?) and if someone screws up and calls me "white", then they're hate mongers. They're race baiters. They're racists because I'm not "white". I am, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
Don't the rules apply equally to all of us? Isn't that what everyone wants: equal rights? Well, if that's going to be the rule, then why should I put up with someone using an erroneous color designation as my race delineation? I will no longer stand for that! I am not "white". Even my teeth are not "white" since I can apply a treatment that will make them "whiter". That means that they are not purely "white": off-white, maybe, not "white". So why should I be called "white"?
It's a racist thing to call me "white". It does not designate my race (there is no such thing as a "White" race), it doesn't designate my color (and we're all supposed to be color blind anyways), it doesn't designate anything about my origins since those formerly-known-as-"white" do not come from one particular place, just as those who designate themselves as "African-American" do not always come from (ancestrally speaking) Africa.
Strictly speaking, since ancestry is a supposed designation for others, then I should be called something besides "white" sinceI am part Cherokee (NOTE: I found out via finding someone on Ancestry.com who had done the research that our oral family history is incorrect and I am NOT part Cherokee). If I can consider that portion of me as others can consider their supposed ancestry out of Africa, then I should be called exactly what I requested, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person.", anyways since "red" (as in American Indian: red man) and "white" make pink. Or perhaps I should go for my full great-grandparental designation. I would then be, "Bohemian-Cherokee-British-Irish-American". People can call me that and I would not be offended. After all, that's equal treatment, isn't it? Wouldn't you love to go around asking everyone their ancestry before referring to them?
So, if I can be internationally referred to as "white" even though it is not my desire and it is racist, inaccurate and offensive to me, then I can call others whatever designation I desire to call them. Therefore, I shall refer to whomever I wish as whatever I wish when it comes to race and color designation. If others can do so to me, and they want equal treatment under the law, then I can do so to them unless and until they call me, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
If I have to use the terms that keep changing (used to be "negro", then it was "black", then "African-American" [even though born here, thus making people AMERICAN-AMERICAN), then others have to refer to me as the term I choose. Fair is fair, right?
So, I have decided that I shall from now on be referred to as being -- not white -- but "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person." If someone can't refer to my race as what I want them to refer to me, then they better not refer to me at all, or I'll take offense. It has to be my way, or the highway. After all, I have rights, too. I am going to take offense and be upset if anyone refers to me as anything besides, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
Why, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."? Because I can. I can change it at my whim and I can make it known throughout the world (internet gives internationality, right?) and if someone screws up and calls me "white", then they're hate mongers. They're race baiters. They're racists because I'm not "white". I am, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
Don't the rules apply equally to all of us? Isn't that what everyone wants: equal rights? Well, if that's going to be the rule, then why should I put up with someone using an erroneous color designation as my race delineation? I will no longer stand for that! I am not "white". Even my teeth are not "white" since I can apply a treatment that will make them "whiter". That means that they are not purely "white": off-white, maybe, not "white". So why should I be called "white"?
It's a racist thing to call me "white". It does not designate my race (there is no such thing as a "White" race), it doesn't designate my color (and we're all supposed to be color blind anyways), it doesn't designate anything about my origins since those formerly-known-as-"white" do not come from one particular place, just as those who designate themselves as "African-American" do not always come from (ancestrally speaking) Africa.
Strictly speaking, since ancestry is a supposed designation for others, then I should be called something besides "white" since
So, if I can be internationally referred to as "white" even though it is not my desire and it is racist, inaccurate and offensive to me, then I can call others whatever designation I desire to call them. Therefore, I shall refer to whomever I wish as whatever I wish when it comes to race and color designation. If others can do so to me, and they want equal treatment under the law, then I can do so to them unless and until they call me, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Prize Very Revealing
As obamination (cough cough) "won" the Nobel Peace Prize today, everyone except himself wondered "Why?" He didn't say, "What? What are you talking about?" when he was told. He said, "I am humbled," as though he thought of himself as worthy, or as though he wasn't totally surprised.
Speculation was rampant as to why the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee would choose obamination. One of the most oft heard speculations was about obamination's apology tour and how he was so apologetic for "American arrogance." Actually, I have no problem with him apologizing for arrogance, but I do have a problem with him apologizing for the arrogance of anyone besides himself, his wife (on a scale of one to ten I'd giver her about a thirteen), and his ilk's arrogance. Those of his "bird" (as in "birds of a feather flock together") are as arrogant as anyone has ever been.
In fact, if you watch the video on my video page that is titled, "The History of Political Correctness" (and has anyone ever been more politically correct than obamination and his birds?), you will see the evidence that proves that the Progressive Leftie Liberals are arrogant from the get-go and learn even more arrogance as they progress up the ladder of power and corruption. And, yes, I say corruption because I believe that most are.
The supposed "arrogance" of America is not in thinking that we are right to defend ourselves against attacks -- external or internal -- any country has the right to do that and most (except the Norwegians, Swedes and perhaps France who usually refuse) would defend their own right to do so. That is not arrogance. The arrogance of America is in the Left's ideology and in their desire to have everyone agree with them, think like them, accept them, give in to them, etc. That is arrogance: arrogance cubed!
When your whole idea is to make others shut-up and not disagree with you because if they disagree, then they are the ones who are wrong, when your whole history shows that it is the mindset, the power point, the teaching of the Left since the 1920s, then the arrogance obamination is apologizing for is apparently his own and that of those birds like him.
Consider his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He said that he views his win as, "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
Sorry. Was that a slip of the tongue? Did he just say that it was an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations"? He did, didn't he? Is he saying that he views this Nobel Peace Prize as an affirmation that "people of all nations" want "American leadership", i.e. himself to lead them?
Well, my, oh, my.
The official press release of what obamination said quoted him as saying the Nobel Peace Prize was "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." So he's saying that he wants to rule the world. Right? That's what he said. People of all nations want American leadership. Who is the leader of America? B. Hussein O. is the leader of America. If "people of all nations" want "American leadership", then who would lead them if not the ACORNed president of America, B. Hussein O.? A boy scout? (Probably a better choice, but not what his arrogant ego is saying.)
So obamination wants to be the world leader? Or should I say he wants to rule the world, is that more appropriate? Considering his way of doing things, his arrogance and his ego (lifelong ego if you read his books), should it surprise us that he wants to rule the world?
It doesn't surprise me. I saw that in the obamination from day one. He has this enormous ego in him, reflected in his wife, and he has a constant need to feed it. Consider a July 30, 2008 article titled, "Obama Arrogance Watch" in which this is the first sentence, "The chorus of voices suggesting that Barack Obama might be getting ahead of himself and more than a little full of himself is growing louder." obamination is quoted as saying (not just a little arrogantly, I believe), "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Oh, my!
Even in July of 2008 there was an "arrogance watch" over obamination. Doesn't that speak volumes of his own hat size? The recent Olympics debacle as reported on Topix is another example of obamination's arrogance having a detrimental effect. The title of the article? "Danish News: Obama Arrogance Turned Off IOC". It's not just America who has taken notice of his uppity, self-aggrandized state. Other countries are not liking his arrogance and we are paying the price for it.
Do a Google® search for "obama arrogance" and you get about 2,220,000 results. If obamination were not perceived as being arrogant that number would not be that high. Yet, there it is in Google®, undeniably measured in the number of results for that combination of words. Shouldn't that tell people something?
Throughout the entire campaign "season" of last year (and 2007 since that's when "His Arrogance, THE obamination" announced; Feb. 2007), it has been reported that he is arrogant. Not my words, the words of reporters in regular newspapers and magazines. The "arrogant" label is still applied today as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.
It is proven when we look at his acceptance speech. We see that arrogance again in one single statement that his being given the prize is "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
World leader, B. Hussein O.; His High and Mightiness, B. Hussein O.; Ruler of the World, B. Hussein O.; Supreme World Being, B. Hussein O. The Ego, B. Hussein O.
Mm-mm-mm.
A slip of an arrogant tongue that speaks volumes.
Speculation was rampant as to why the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee would choose obamination. One of the most oft heard speculations was about obamination's apology tour and how he was so apologetic for "American arrogance." Actually, I have no problem with him apologizing for arrogance, but I do have a problem with him apologizing for the arrogance of anyone besides himself, his wife (on a scale of one to ten I'd giver her about a thirteen), and his ilk's arrogance. Those of his "bird" (as in "birds of a feather flock together") are as arrogant as anyone has ever been.
In fact, if you watch the video on my video page that is titled, "The History of Political Correctness" (and has anyone ever been more politically correct than obamination and his birds?), you will see the evidence that proves that the Progressive Leftie Liberals are arrogant from the get-go and learn even more arrogance as they progress up the ladder of power and corruption. And, yes, I say corruption because I believe that most are.
The supposed "arrogance" of America is not in thinking that we are right to defend ourselves against attacks -- external or internal -- any country has the right to do that and most (except the Norwegians, Swedes and perhaps France who usually refuse) would defend their own right to do so. That is not arrogance. The arrogance of America is in the Left's ideology and in their desire to have everyone agree with them, think like them, accept them, give in to them, etc. That is arrogance: arrogance cubed!
When your whole idea is to make others shut-up and not disagree with you because if they disagree, then they are the ones who are wrong, when your whole history shows that it is the mindset, the power point, the teaching of the Left since the 1920s, then the arrogance obamination is apologizing for is apparently his own and that of those birds like him.
Consider his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He said that he views his win as, "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
Sorry. Was that a slip of the tongue? Did he just say that it was an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations"? He did, didn't he? Is he saying that he views this Nobel Peace Prize as an affirmation that "people of all nations" want "American leadership", i.e. himself to lead them?
Well, my, oh, my.
The official press release of what obamination said quoted him as saying the Nobel Peace Prize was "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." So he's saying that he wants to rule the world. Right? That's what he said. People of all nations want American leadership. Who is the leader of America? B. Hussein O. is the leader of America. If "people of all nations" want "American leadership", then who would lead them if not the ACORNed president of America, B. Hussein O.? A boy scout? (Probably a better choice, but not what his arrogant ego is saying.)
So obamination wants to be the world leader? Or should I say he wants to rule the world, is that more appropriate? Considering his way of doing things, his arrogance and his ego (lifelong ego if you read his books), should it surprise us that he wants to rule the world?
It doesn't surprise me. I saw that in the obamination from day one. He has this enormous ego in him, reflected in his wife, and he has a constant need to feed it. Consider a July 30, 2008 article titled, "Obama Arrogance Watch" in which this is the first sentence, "The chorus of voices suggesting that Barack Obama might be getting ahead of himself and more than a little full of himself is growing louder." obamination is quoted as saying (not just a little arrogantly, I believe), "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Oh, my!
Even in July of 2008 there was an "arrogance watch" over obamination. Doesn't that speak volumes of his own hat size? The recent Olympics debacle as reported on Topix is another example of obamination's arrogance having a detrimental effect. The title of the article? "Danish News: Obama Arrogance Turned Off IOC". It's not just America who has taken notice of his uppity, self-aggrandized state. Other countries are not liking his arrogance and we are paying the price for it.
Do a Google® search for "obama arrogance" and you get about 2,220,000 results. If obamination were not perceived as being arrogant that number would not be that high. Yet, there it is in Google®, undeniably measured in the number of results for that combination of words. Shouldn't that tell people something?
Throughout the entire campaign "season" of last year (and 2007 since that's when "His Arrogance, THE obamination" announced; Feb. 2007), it has been reported that he is arrogant. Not my words, the words of reporters in regular newspapers and magazines. The "arrogant" label is still applied today as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.
It is proven when we look at his acceptance speech. We see that arrogance again in one single statement that his being given the prize is "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
World leader, B. Hussein O.; His High and Mightiness, B. Hussein O.; Ruler of the World, B. Hussein O.; Supreme World Being, B. Hussein O. The Ego, B. Hussein O.
Mm-mm-mm.
A slip of an arrogant tongue that speaks volumes.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
What the Left Has Forgotten
The obamination's Czars, advisors, financial supporters, confidants and mentors are either writing books, have written books, or are planning on doing so in the future. All have one favorite theme: the overthrow of America as we know it. Between Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the "Radicals for Obama" group, there must be fifty books either already in print, or soon to be.
(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)
One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.
To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:
(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."
He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?
Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.
Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.
Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,
"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."
Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?
The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.
The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.
What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.
Well, lah-ti-dah.
It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?
Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.
If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"
The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.
Alinsky wrote:
(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."
As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.
Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".
(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)
One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.
To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:
(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."
He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?
Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.
Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.
Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,
"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."
Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?
The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.
The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.
What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.
Well, lah-ti-dah.
It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?
Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.
If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"
The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.
Alinsky wrote:
(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."
As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.
Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".