Yesterday after our dear leader gave his "I have a dream for Muslims" speech, the Blog world was not surprisingly flying with opinion, rhetoric, and the ridiculous. One blog forwarded to me stood out though, and I had to reply. More on that in a moment.
Briefly, my reaction to the dear leader BHO's (dlBHO) Cairo diatribe comes more in the form of questions than anything. The biggest question I have for the dear leader is: What have you done with Israel? Then, what history do you know of the region? What resources do you use when thinking of the different sects of Islam? Sunni? Shi'a? Sufi? Wahabe? Which one do you ascribe to, dear leader? Do you recognize the schisms in Islam? Al- Qaeda, who identify themselves to Sunnis, is not representative of the "religion of peace" but what other groups also are not representative of it? In my humble opinion, and I have studied Islam in order to not be labeled prejudiced, the Sufi sect of Islam is the most peaceful. 'Nuff said.
Back to the Blog realm's reactions. One particular blog pinpointed a well-known cable news television host and radio talk show personality as creating the notion that al-Qaeda was looking to join up with American right-wing extremists to cause violence and harm. The blog piece was accompanied with a convenient three-minute video clip of the show attempting to illustrate this point. But the blogger missed his mark, and this got me to thinking in terms of the age-old idiom about not "seeing the forest for the trees."
By the way, did you recognize Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" being applied in the Cairo pseudo-vituperation?
Based on the DHS report this blogger quoted, I was definitely in agreement with the author about the Federal Government taking steps toward severe political repression. As an accidental activist myself feeling tremendously disenfranchised, I'm certain that I'm on somebody's RWE list, if for no other reason, because I am currently flying a Gadsden Flag outside my home.
So, after having read the article, in addition to some inaccuracies (of which I will leave out details***) regarding the video piece, I replied to the blogger that he missed the mark.
It was pointed out that the TV commentator stated that if we've been watching his show for a while that he "has been warning of just such a thing for a long time." The author then stated, appropriately in my opinion, "The idea of white supremacists teaming up with al-Qaeda is so bizarre and so unlikely that anyone with half a brain knows that such a thing would never happen."
But we're not dealing with half-brained people. In terms of our tyrannical Federal Government, we are dealing with the warped-brained people who clearly ascribe to Rules for Radicals. These are people who put out that DHS report. These are the people who have turned MSNBC, NBC, and Newsweek Magazine into State-run media. With Alinsky's rules in mind, it should not alarm us so much that the DHS put out this report either. What should have alarmed us about the report was the motive behind putting it out. It was a huge step toward identifying and marginalizing the enemy (Rule #13).
So the mark that was missed, the proverbial forest, if you will, is in recognizing the following: 1)the federal government is going to turn people who are fighting for liberty and all the other RWEs on their list into the enemies of their "democracy"; and, 2)the people in Al-Qaeda and in other Islamist groups are professional terrorists: do not think it has not occurred to them to isolate a certain portion of our population and use them to achieve their agenda. (By the way, that is the complete essence of the Palestinian plight.) So yes, it is bizzare that those of us whom DHS has labeled as right-wing extremists would pair up with Islamist terrorists. But in the minds of the terrorists it is not bizzare. Nor is it bizarre for the many, many Alinsky-subscribers in our US government.
The Progressivist operatives of the US Government would be only too happy to align us "RWEs" with al-Qaeda operatives. Wouldn't that be convenient? All the descriptions listed in DHS report might be difficult to prove in a law-abiding federal court; but now that dear leader BHO (speech in Cairo 6.4.2009) has publicly demonized Al-Qaeda to the whole world, we have an enemy with a face. Couple Obama's speech with our oh-so-brave attorney general Eric Holder's statement yesterday about how the Justice Department is "committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans." Finally, pair-up that world reknown enemy with the increasingly active "RWEs" and we have a recipe for suspending habeus corpus and next thing we know is that all us DHS-defined loonies are in "the camps".
I believe failing to see a bigger picture (there's that forest again!) in terms of what our insidiously warped government may potentially do with people who don't agree with them is detrimental to the cause of fighting for freedom. Back to the preformentioned radio/TV personality: Demonizing someone who is trying to relay important information, possibly even cryptically, is a waste of energy. Remove your binoculars for a moment and look at the forest.
Finally, the Blog author who motivated me to think and write last night and today stated that the US government has become an enemy to lovers of liberty. I agree. Those of us who are hoping to save liberty and freedom for the sake of future generations must see the bigger picture of what and who are working to completely undermine our society. One opinionated cable news personality and a three-minute video clip have nothing to do with the utter destruction of the "forest." They are just a couple of trees.
***If you would like to receive an email identifying the source of my motivation for writing this, pleases contact me at email@example.com.