Fuzzy’s Faux News: President’s Obama’s Racial Parity Plan

April 11, 2014

Among the announcements that the Obama administration made today was the exciting mention of a plan to ensure racial fairness and equality in America.  Distressed that African Americans make up only 14% of the American population, the Obama administration is in talks with the designers of China’s “One Child” policy to hammer out a means of growing this important segment of our population.  The goal is to limit the number of children that whites and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics and other non-African Americans can have, so that the African American population can grow to equal the number of whites over the next three decades.  The details of this plan have not been revealed, but some that have been released include a halt to all births of whites for a decade and a restriction on the number of children whites (and others, not African American) can have in the two decades that follow.

Another detail that was revealed is the potentially-controversial banning of abortion among America’s African American population; however, this ban will not affect access to this vital healthcare treatment for whites and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics, Asians, and those races that are difficult to codify but that are definitely not African American.  “This is a matter not only of national security, the nation’s economy, the environment, childhood obesity, and gun control” Obama noted at a recent fund-raiser/golf outing, “but it is a vital step in ensuring that the black voice is heard in America.  Can you imagine any other nation on earth allowing such a disparity in numbers of its voting demographics population segments as we have here? It just doesn’t happen in the 21st century.  This racial injustice, this disenfranchisement of the black voice must be remedied!”

Some have noted that this will mean a sharp decline in abortions because African Americans make up the majority of all aborted babies in many states.  Noting the concern of abortion care providers who are worried they will lose tax payer funding and other revenue, President Obama explained that he was going to make up the loss by requiring that all white women who are carrying a white, potentially white, or suspected white baby have an abortion.  This, he assures us, will only be in place for one decade, to “give others a chance.  It’s only fair that the African American population meet the numbers of the white population.  How can anyone reject this fundamental premise that Jesus talks about in the Bible and that such stars as Pajama Boy and that guy with the hat extol in tax payer funded rap videos?”

There is also some push back from progressives who are, according to President Obama, not adjusting their eugenic vision for the new world order and are “stuck in the 19th Century.”  Upon hearing this charge, the recalcitrant progressives promptly blushed, shuffled their feet uncomfortably, voted by finger up twinkles, and began hailing the president’s wonderful new plan for racial equality.  In a subtle message to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the president beamed at them and gave a special “shout out” to them for their proper response to his corrective taunt.

April 17, 2014

Responding to outrage from conservatives who are already saying that they will refuse government-mandated abortions and forced sterilization, President Obama remained his usual unruffled, calm, majestic self.  “Some people are calling me a fascist and are talking me about me like I’m a dog because I champion equality, because I stand firm in transforming this nation into the one I envision,” President Obama intoned at a recent pre-taped press conference at which we all watched a video of the president’s remarks.  “These people are unAmerican and are clearly brainwashed by Fox News.  Any white person who does not volunteer for the government sterilization program or agree not to have children for 10, possibly 30ish, years is clearly a racist, maybe even a traitor. All these so-called ‘black conservatives’ who are outraged should add themselves to this list; I hereby deem them no longer black.  And that’s official!”  The video is paused here, and we in the press corpse cheer enthusiastically!  After we quieted down, Jay Carney pushed the “play” button for us.  President Obama concluded, “How can anyone reject the sensible plans for racial equality that I have laid out?  They cannot! Luckily, I have my pen and my phone, and with these, I will ensure that my racial justice, equality, parity, fairest fair fairness for all plan be enforced by every agency from the DOJ to the IRS to the EPA to NASA!”

Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.

Chick-fil-A, Gay “Marriage,” Religious Freedom, and God

So, we’re seriously debating whether or not the government has the right to deny licenses to businesses who don’t have the right “values” (actually lack thereof, but whatever)?  We’re having a “national discourse” about whether or not free people in a free society have a right to their own thoughts and beliefs?  Seriously?

“Corporations aren’t people” is the rallying cry of the radical left . . . unless said corporation is headed by a person with whom they disagree.  Yes, okay, Chick-fil-A is privately-held, but when has that stopped the radical left attacking “corporations” before?  But now, now corporations aren’t just people, they’re person.  One person.  Stupefying.

The heartening thing about this whole Chick-fil-A “debate” is the revelation to many Americans–who’ve not been paying attention–of just how fascist and totalitarian today’s “Democrats” are . . . and they are not Democrats, not in any sense of the word as Americans understand it, but their posturing as such has certainly fooled a lot of Americans.  But that may be changing.  Finally.  People rallied around Chick-fil-A in support of free speech, freedom of religion, in support of traditional marriage, and perhaps most importantly, against fascism.  (For those in doubt, fascism is exactly what Mumbles and Twinkle Toes were embracing: the government dictating who is acceptable and can have a business and who is–and can–not.  Fascism seeks to destroy all opposing viewpoints, control all business, and of course, strive for a “perfect” union of “perfect” people.)

The radical left (aka commie fascists) were truly surprised at the show of support for Chick-fil-A this past Wednesday.  They really don’t get it.  The ones who truly believe that supporting traditional marriage equals hate are befuddled that this Christian nation apparently disagrees, and the ones who know better–who know what this is all really about–are shocked, stunned even, that we can’t be bullied into silent complicity any longer.  That’s the real problem for them, of course.  They knew we were out here, in flyover redneck country, bitterly clinging to our guns and God, but they thought they had us cowed.  The race card worked so well, they just knew that the gay hate card would be a winner.

It’s not.  The race card expired while they were busy drumming up new bludgeons with which to beat us into submission, so they didn’t even notice that we weren’t playing along this time.  In some ways, we can thank the dinosaur media for this, of course; without their downplaying traditional American values, the TEA Party, and anything remotely resembling patriotism and Judeo-Christian morality, their little friends in the fascist “community” wouldn’t have been so gob-smacked.

Now, many conservatives are still thinking that the far left is really interested in gay “marriage.” Let me assure you that they are not.  As many have noted, heterosexual leftists often choose not to marry as either a way to “stick it” to the “man” or simply as a way to save their money (marriage is increasingly penalized in our tax code, with 0 and his horde wanting to make it still more financially taxing–as it were–to marry).  As long-time readers of this blog know, I once believed that they were after civil rights and equality, but I was very much mistaken.  They are not.  This is about destroying religious liberty; indeed, about destroying religion itself (and yes, all religions, they’re just starting with we Jews and Christians; communism requires complete submission to the state, no God can be permitted.).

How do we know they are not after civil equality?  Because the gay marriage crowd refuses to even discuss civil unions for everyone, gays and straights.  Civil unions are all that are needed to meet the “civil rights” claims of the gay “marriage” proponents, but these are rejected out of hand.  Why not move marriage out of the government sphere and back into the religious sphere?  Why not have everyone–gay, straight, religious, atheist, whatever–count equally under man-made law?  Because equality is not the goal, civil rights are not the goal.

To destroy religion, you have to put man, not God, at the helm.  You have to have man rewrite God’s law, and you have to force people to accept it.  I can’t “approve” gay “marriage” for God; I can’t say, “why, yes, God does believe that marriage can be between members of the same sex.”  He just doesn’t.  That’s God’s Word.  Not mine, not any man’s (or woman’s).  Do I think that civil unions should be recognized for gays and straights by the government?  Yep.  Do I “hate” homosexuals”?  Nope.  But that’s not acceptable to the radical left, so they have to force religious people to, in essence, refute the Word of God, to denounce Him.  And it’s got to codified in man’s law: that’s why 0 is forcing religious institutions to provide birth control and abortions, that’s why blocking businesses whose owners are religious will become the norm (oh, we haven’t won that one, not by a long shot), that’s why military chaplains are being forced to perform gay “marriages.”  The more people who turn away from God in thought or deed, the better for the commie fascists who think they are gods.

Never forget that for the radical left the personal is political, and the political is always about forcing their totalitarian “utopia” on the rest of us.  When they can do so through the political process, so much the better, but if that doesn’t work, they’ll use other means.  That’s why the far left seem to be so schizophrenic in touting the wonders of “democracy” one minute and then stating that “democracy” doesn’t work the next.  They resort to the courts, to ugly bullying and fascist totalitarianism when “democracy” doesn’t go their way Remember, when the people are able to vote on gay “marriage,” they’ve/we’ve voted it down. That’s when “democracy” is not so desirable to the far left, so they rationalize forcing their beliefs on us against our will via passing laws and penning executive orders.  And yes, banning Christian businesses.  Or trying to do so.

The radical left has taken to saying that they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  This is really all you need to know.  They happily embrace and gleefully engage in exactly what they claim to be against.  But remember, this is not hypocrisy, this is literally how communism and fascism work.

It is inconceivable to them that someone might define marriage according to their grounding in the Bible and not hate, literally want to see dead, those who support gay “marriage.”  This isn’t a mystery; it’s how they think.  If they disagree with you, they hate you.  Period.  So they can’t understand that normal, rational people can be opposed to some belief, act, etc. without hating someone who holds that belief or perpetrates that act.  It’s not in their petty little beings to be able to disapprove of something for themselves yet let others do as they wish.  Their whole worldview is about homogeneity of thought and action; everyone must be exactly the same in every way, and if someone strays from their narrow path, they must be reviled, destroyed.  And yes, they project their hate and intolerance of diversity on everyone else . . . in the name of tolerance and diversity.

A more self-deluded crowd you’ll never meet than the radical leftist (commie fascist) “community.”  That delusion, for now, works in our favor.  They truly believe that they are superior, not only in thought but in numbers.

They are wrong.

On both counts.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3

So we’ve seen the Number 5 (Conservatives are fascists) and Number 4 (Conservatives are anti-science Neanderthals) lies that Leftists believe about conservatives, so let’s explore Number 3:

3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.  A personal fave because what more clearly illustrates the inherent logical fallacy that denotes the majority of leftist thought than “anti-government war-mongers”?  Let’s get this straight, we hate government and don’t want any (they think/say/whine), but we, simultaneously (miraculously) want sufficient government to “police the world” and wage war on a whim (after all, if they can’t understand it, then it’s always insupportable, belligerent for the sake of belligerence (or oil), and “imperialistic”).  Uh huh, no contradictions there.

First, obviously, if we are Constitutional conservatives (and I am), then we (duh) support the Constitution, and the Constitution, in its turn, establishes our form of government.  Therefore, we support the form of government established by our Constitution (see how cleanly that works?  No faulty syllogism, no convoluted crap designed to obscure the obvious).  Our Constitution, of course, establishes a particular form of limited government, a form that leftists loathe because it doesn’t give them total control over every aspect of our lives (actually, our Constitution gives little control to the federal government and much more to the states and to the people), so to their tiny little minds, if we don’t want totalitarian control (the only type leftists like), we must be, have to be “anti-government.”

Clearly that’s not true, but they like to say it because it makes us sound . . . well, rather like they actually are (yes, more leftist projection.  As always).  Conservatives do believe in government (well, not in the Santa Claus kind of way that leftists believe in big government), but we think its powers should be, must be, limited in order to preserve individual liberty, and yes, even a moral sort of order that “infringes” on government’s right to dictate our religious, political, and other forms of free expression.

Far from being “anti-government,” we conservatives are very pro-government, even pro-authority–as long as that authority is limited and truly dedicated to American principles.  Conservatives support our troops; leftists don’t, not really, they make noises, but it’s more Code Pink-style than actual support of our guys’–and girls’–mission; they’re the ones who limit funding, tie our troops’ hands with ridiculous ROE, and otherwise handicap our troops’ ability to do their job.

They’re the ones who chant: “Kill the pigs” (and I can’t hear that without thinking Charlie Manson, it’s so evil and so ’60’s that it’s right in line with our current president’s destructive, divisive ideology . . . and with his past); they’re the ones who poop on cop cars, take cowardly pot shots at police, and otherwise provoke the police. Conservatives not only respect the police and military, but we actively support them. Leftists truly hate them, always have, always will.

Further, the notion that America is an “empire” is patently absurd.  America does not take land, rule peoples, or otherwise build an “empire,” much less one upon which the sun never sets.  No, we give back lands, we give the power to the people, and we leave.  Or if we stay, it’s merely as a base, a presence, not as an empirical ruler, demanding fidelity to the “empire” of America.  We don’t tax our “conquests” and new “commonwealths,” we don’t make them adhere to the laws of our land, we don’t demand that they recognize our president as their sovereign ruler, we don’t, in short, have, build, or maintain an “empire.”

Second, there’s the war-mongering thing.  Equally silly.  Conservatives tend to be “peace through strength” types who don’t run from the idea of war if and when it’s absolutely necessary.  We aren’t afraid, but we don’t like war, and we certainly don’t relish it as leftists purport.  Oh, we intend to win any war we get into, but that’s not the same thing.  Leftists, on the other hand, tend to create disastrous situations that can only be corrected by war; shunning peace through strength, they embrace peace through subservience, disarmament, and appeasement.  This never works.  Never has, never will.  But they keep doing it, weakening our position in innumerable ways and then wondering why we end up in another war.  Look at the mess that BO has made of the entire world (yes, the Middle East, but also empowering Russia, China, even Venezuela.  It won’t be pretty when it all blows up, and it will all be BO’s fault, the blood on his hands).

Republicans, historically, haven’t even “waged war,” at least no where near as often as have Democrats (and this before the Dems became nothing more than closeted communists).  Look at America’s larger 20th Century’s wars (and its not-wars, only Congress can actually declare war, and this hasn’t been done since World War II):

World War I: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

World War II: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Korean War: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Vietnam War: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Gulf War (1991): Democrat-controlled Congress, Republican White House

Iraq War: Republican-controlled Congress (worth noting: only 1 Dem voted against it), Republican White House

Anyway, you get the picture.  The faux-pacifists who love to bash Republican leaders for “war-mongering” are actually the ones who embrace and actually create the conditions that make war inevitable; look no further than the utter silence from leftists about BO’s war in Libya and his on-going actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, throughout the Arabian Peninsula and who knows where else. Bush supposedly went to “war for oil” (even though we actually get more oil from Mexico and Canada than from the Middle East), but BO is not.  You know, somehow.

Leftists shriek for violence in the streets, the rape and murder of American citizens with whom they disagree, and every level of genocide imaginable, yet they have the audacity to point at conservatives as “war mongers” . . . and to, without the slightest bit of irony, use that to justify their own calls for violence, rape, slaughter.  It’s almost laughable.

Almost.

Pragmatics, Organizing, and Fundamental Transformation

Okay, I haven’t paid much attention to the BO Organizing for America machine.  I’ve not read anything about it on conservative blogs except about the “flag the fishy” campaign and then, during the Scott Brown campaign, a link was tweeted and retweeted to OFA so that Coakley supporters could go there, read a message from BO about how she’s such a great progressive (BO calls her, “progressive champion Martha Coakley“).  Yeah, yeah, whatever, right?  Wrong.  I think wrong,  very very wrong. 

We were elated last night and rightly so, but as I was watching Coakley’s concession speech last night, for the second time, my ears perked up at the conclusion.  Not the part about her quoting Teddy Kennedy’s “the dream lives on” mantra.  The part right before that:  Coakley concludes by saying that there is “plenty of work to do here in Massachusetts and as we continue to organize for America” (my emphasis). 

Not being a radical, I didn’t know about Alinsky until the BO ascendancy and everyone began talking about it in the conservative blogosphere, so it’s no surprise that not being a marxist I wouldn’t know much about “organizing” for social change, for “fundamentally transformative change.”  That statement by Coakley gave me pause (that’s an understatement:  by blood ran cold), so I did a quick search for “organizing for” in Google.  The drop down gave me “organizing for America” and down further “organizing for social change.”  Gasp.

Wikipedia’s entry on Organizing contains the following:

Nature of organization

The following are the important characteristics of organisation.

Division of work or specialization

The entire philosophy of organisation depends on the concept of specialization. In specialization, various activities are assigned to different people who are specialists in that area. Specialization improves efficiency. Thus, organisation helps in division of work and assigning duties to different people.

Orientation towards goals

Every organisation has its own purposes and objectives. Organizing is the function employed to achieve the overall goals of the organisation. Organisation harmonies the individual goals of the employees with overall objectives of the firm.

Composition of individuals and groups

Individuals form a group and the groups form an organisation. Thus, organisation is the composition of individual and groups. Individuals are grouped into departments and their work is coordinated and directed towards organizational goals.

Differentiated functions

The organisation divides the entire work and assigns the tasks to individual in-order to achieve the organizational objectives each one has to perform a different task and tasks of one individuals must be coordinated with the tasks of others.

Continues process

An organization is a group of people with defined relationship to each other that allows them to work together achieve the goals of the organisation. This relationship do not come to end after completing a task. Organisation is a never ending process.

Purpose or importance of organization

Helps to achieve organizational goal

Organization is employed to achieve the overall objectives of business firms. Organization focuses attention of individuals objectives towards overall objectives.

Optimum use of resources

To make optimum use of resources such as men, material, money, machine and method, it is necessary to design an organization properly. Work should be divided and right people should be given right jobs to reduce the wastage of resources in an organization.

To perform managerial function

Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing and Controlling cannot be implemented without proper organization.

Facilitates growth and diversification

A good organization structure is essential for expanding business activity. Organization structure determines the input resources needed for expansion of a business activity similarly organization is essential for product diversification such as establishing a new product line.

Human treatment of employees

Organization has to operate for the betterment of employees an must not encourage monotony of work due to higher degree of specialization. Now, organization has adapted the modern concept of systems approach based on human relations and it discards the traditional productivity and specialization approach.

Now, it’s been a long time since I read Marx, but . . . well, let’s just say that this does not bode well for America.  This is not “community organizing” writ large, this is a plan.  A plan to “organize for America” a new social, economic, and political order.  And he’s said it, he may even think that we “get it,” but we don’t.  We so don’t get it.  We do not fully grasp the horrors that BO has in store for us.

Think I’m over-reacting or that this is some sort of Glenn Beck conspiracy theory freak-out? I wish it were, but I don’t think so.  Take a look at the first few texts of the Georgetown University Library “reading list” for its “Organizing for Social Change: Anti-Subordination Theory and Practice” course:

One of BO’s favorite words is “pragmatic,” and there is nothing more pragmatic than treating human beings like tools of the state, things, working and propagating bio-machines.  It’s not nice, but do keep in mind that progressives are not democrats, they do not believe in “democracy” at all.  They believe in fascist control and micromanagement of everything.  It’s not a coincidence that BO’s shadow cabinet contains people who believe that forced abortion is a good way to control population (well, pragmatically it is, right?) and people who have no qualms about silencing dissent/opposition.  We are witnessing the first step, the isolation, ridicule, and demonization of conservatives. Once this is accomplished, the next step will be easy: the left’s incredible hatred for conservatives, the way we’ve been dehumanized, plays right into the progressive agenda to weed “undesirables” from society.  We’ve already heard the far left argue for limiting free speech (for conservatives), for “separate but equal” NYT best-seller lists, for shutting down conservative talk radio, for shutting out Fox News.  This is not an accident.  It is also not an accident that progressives in this administration, from Pelosi to the TSA nominee Southers to the fringe media, are planting seeds of fear and mistrust, painting us as “extremists.”  It’s no accident that when BO talks about terrorists he refers to them as “extremists,” not Muslim extremists.  The stage is being set.  We sense this, but we don’t yet know for what.

This slow, deliberate process of inflaming hatred against one group in order to then control that group has historically been used to justify everything from the WWII Japanese interment camps here in America to the Holocaust.  And let’s not forget that it was progressives who promoted eugenics in America . . . eugenics is a pragmatic approach to weeding from the population the weak, the poor, the mentally ill, the socially unacceptable–anyone who is “unfit” for or cannot contribute “equally” to society.  Here’s a fun article about how America’s progressives’ dabbling with eugenics manifested in Nazi Germany.  Do you think that the “fundamental transformation” of America–the “organized” and structured social, economic, and political order–will have a place for people like us?  Where do we “fit” into this new America that is being organized behind the scenes and on the DL?  How pragmatic is it to allow people who oppose their every move and who believe in and support our constitutional republic to speak freely, to live freely, to be?

I am not a conspiracy theorist–heck, I mock them . . . usually.  But there is something going on here, something that doesn’t add up in the normal way.  Something we need to figure out, and soon.