I grew up in the 60’s and early 70’s…a time of personal exploration, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, and the birth of rock & roll. We didn’t have the Internet or cell phones, cable or broadband but it was still an exciting time to live. It was a time when choices became both multitudinous and varied, and this was challenging for parents who grew up and lived in a time when the world was simpler and choices seemed clear.
However, as all this tumult was taking place, my parents were adamant that every person was equal, only differentiated by education and circumstances. Additionally, two of the principles of character and behavior which my parents demanded of themselves and expected from their children were honesty and courtesy. The expectations of integrity and civility extended to an expectation on how we spoke.
This anticipation of proper behavior wasn’t just for conversational language, but to speak without the curses of profanity and slang words which were too frequently used to describe gender, sexual preference or ethnic groups. My parent’s standards were very clear, this type of language was never acceptable and if spoken would be deal with immediately and very harshly.
The result of these values for child and teen-hood character building were very positive since there are many words I have never spoken and I have never thought to speak because they are not a part of my conscious or unconscious thoughts.
Unfortunately, we are living in a time when these types of words are not just common-place but a part of every-day language, extending to movies and cable programming. However, in the times we live in now, we are seeing a new paradigm in hurtful language and word use which is used to effect change in political and social thought and life-style. It seems clear that the new swear word is racism, or using the word racist to paint people with the mud of disparagement and slur and stain of bigotry.
This is not hyperbole, it is fact. The problem is, most people do not believe it is really happening. Unfortunately, those who speak out about this practice are being ridiculed and are called extremists and liars. Interestingly, this was all mapped out long-ago…during the same time I was growing up as I described earlier. This attack is all according the rules of engagement as described by Saul D. Alinsky in his 1971 published work: Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.
These policies, as laid out by Alinsky, were studied and incorporated by the leftist political structure that is currently loudly (and quickly) advocating changing the American System of government and liberties. In stark contrast with my parents admonition of integrity, Alinsky said this; “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment”. He also said, “the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means” and also “Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics”.
How is it possible for political positioning to determine ethics or you can only afford ethics if the end desired is not really important? Truth is truth. For example, either the world is flat, or is round, or is it as it has always been, egg shaped. Did the world change shape just because the majority of people believed the wrong information? The truth is the world was always slightly egg-shaped no matter what viewpoint or politician controlled prevailing the prevailing thought.
Here is “Rule 12” in Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Does this rule seem to be in place by much of the liberal/progressive political machine and their corresponding media mouthpieces today? Is it difficult to see this exact type of targeting, polarization and personal attack? It doesn’t require much analysis or thought process.
It is also a fact that President Barak Obama was strongly influenced by Alinsky’s teaching in the days he spent on the far south side of Chicago. During his time of being an “organizer”, President Obama worked for Gerald Kellman's Developing Communities Project, where he both learned and taught Alinsky's methods for community organizing.
Most Americans, regardless of political preference, were also excited to have the first black American President because it proved once and for all that America was the land of equality and opportunity. However, what started to become apparent was a disreputable practice that was quickly employed by the staff of Mr. Obama. Frankly, no one should have been surprised since it was simply an insidious and effective use of Rule 12: to call those who disagreed with candidate Obama, racist.
This is a fact that President and Mrs. Clinton quickly learned and protested during the democratic campaign, and they publicized the fact it was part of the “rule book” for the Obama Campaign. Paradoxically, the fact the Clintons brought up this tactic only increased the racist accusations and so they backed off. The next to feel this attack was Senator McCain during the Presidential Campaign, and he called out candidate Obama since Senator McCain had a very clear record of being no respecter of persons and was justifiably outraged by this accusation.
Mr. Obama backtracked on this portrayal and tried to separate himself from those who had spread these slanderous statements, but, unfortunately, this strategy has never gone away, and we have seen this scenario repeated again. It is used by President Obama’s operatives over and over as they have painted many of those who object to his political process with the racist brush, and do it through a number of different sources and outlets.
In February, the newly appointed Attorney General Eric Holder immediately invoked the racist card when he said; "Though the nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said. "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
Part of the problem we all face is these racial accusations are readily thrown around to anyone who might disagree with a “black” president: because they do not agree with his actions, not because there is any problem with his racial heritage. To be called cowards for having issues with policies only exacerbates racial misunderstandings and causes anger and frustration.
This practice of racial slandering is so pervasive that it continues to be used, not just by extensions of the administration, but also by members of the “Pro-Obama” press, in a pervasive and continuous manner. As just one example, CNN called Governor Palin a racist during the presidential campaign, and MSNBC called those “fighting” President Obama’s change as racist.
We see this type of language in print and in broadcast in many different forms. HBO television “political commentator” Bill Maher repeatedly cites Republican “racism”, including a few months ago when he said; “Not just that, but also the people who are buying guns and ammunition since Election Day are doing so "because they're afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get" them.
Several times last month “actress” Janeane Garofalo, accused those who disagree with President Obama as racist. For example, she said this; "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks”.
We have seen innumerable leftist blogs attack President Bush, *** Chaney, Rush Limbaugh and all manner of Republicans as racists. In August Frank Rich of the NY Times called Republicans racist for not following President Obama’s direction. NY Times Op-Ed Columnist, Charles M. Blow, actually seemed to call for a police state to keep people in line who are not following our President when he wrote; “Society needs to do a much better job of creating an environment where hateful beliefs are never ignored and suspicious behavior never goes unreported.”
This sounds like Blow is advocating a police state, reporting those who disagree with (to quote Alinsky) “the political position of those sitting in judgment”. What kind of “hateful beliefs” need to be reported? Perhaps it is those attacked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who seemed to prevaricate about anti-Obama protesters she didn’t even see, claiming that they’re “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”
Yet, look at the media outrage when Fox News Channel commentator, Glenn Beck spoke out at the way he felt President Obama miss-handled the arrest of Harvard University Scholar. Despite the fact Professor Gates was verified to have been abusive to a white policeman who, ironically, had a long and positive history of social interaction as well as many commendations for racial tolerance and community outreach.
Beck said Obama has exposed himself as a person with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”, and cited, among other things, President Obama’s 20 year attendance and close personal relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the NY Post called “Obama’s Minister of Hate”. Beck has also used President Obama own text which is replete with anti-white language; “I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.” (Dreams of My Father) “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.” (Dreams of My Father)
However, after the liberal blogs called for a boycott of Beck, 33 advertisers asked to not be placed in Beck’s program, fearing retribution after Beck himself was called racist for making this statement. Something seems a little out-of-whack with this type of reaction. Are we supposed to believe that racism can only go one way? How is that possible and how can any right thinking person believe that is true?
Last week, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, used a racist claim at a town hall meeting; "Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can't we get what God has given us? That is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not count the votes. Just do the right thing," "Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?'... "
Frankly, Mr. Rangel is himself using the worst kind of racist insinuation, implying racism where there is no evidence of any kind. It seems obvious that Mr. Rangel is doing his best to deflect attention away from his own legal problems since last week Ms. Pelosi, the same person who falsely accused town hall protesters whom she never saw or met as “Nazi’s”, said that Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel can keep his chairmanship despite escalating evidence of multiple scandals involving his personal finances.
The Buffalo News, New York Post, and Washington Post have all called on Mr. Rangel to resign his chairmanship for corruption and ethics violations. Speaker Pelosi says she will consider a demotion only if the Ethics Committee finds a violation of House Rules or prosecutors file charges against Mr. Rangel. Unfortunately, this “discovery” might take a long time since earlier this year; the politically liberal Sunlight Foundation found that Mr. Rangel's problems with paperwork go back decades. The Sunlight Foundation claims Rangel failed to report purchases, sales or his ownership of assets at least 28 times since 1978. "I understand being sloppy, missing an asset once or twice," says Sunlight fellow Bill Allison. "But what this shows is he doesn't take financial disclosure seriously."
It seems quite ironic to have Mr. Rangel making accusations of racial slander and questioning societal moral principles while he, the same man charged with writing the nation's tax laws, is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for illegally maintaining three rent-subsidized apartments in New York, for using his congressional stationery to solicit funds for a policy center bearing his name, and for claiming three homes as primary residences. Mr. Rangel also faces complaints of failing to pay property taxes, failing to report $75,000 of rental income and failing to declare more than $650,000 in assets on his 2007 financial disclosure forms.
"When I was entering college George Carlin famously came up with a monologue that declared there were “Seven words you cannot say on television”. Most of those words still stand today, and my own Mother considered them unspeakable and would have beaten me soundly and grounded me for a month if any of the seven crossed my lips in her presence.
However, in my mother’s opinion, aside from taking the Lord’s name in vain, which is really the ultimate use of unacceptable language, there a few words which were above all other pornographic words in their obscenity due to their ignorant and xenophobic nature; the C-word for women (actually one of the “Carlin 7”), the N-word for Blacks, the S-word for Hispanics, and the F-word for gays.
Thanks to my mother’s expectations, I am grateful to say that I have never used the Lord’s name in vain, nor even thought of using any of these other four words. However, if my mother were alive today, I think she would be disgusted and appalled by how the word racism, and racist are being used in the same way the actual racist words she so abhorred were used to spread racial intolerance and hatred.
I know my hero and my life-time idol, my 84 year old father, feels this way. Dad is the most honest, ethical, and principled man I have ever known and it is unfortunate in our current word, which is so dominated by political dialogue, were are too often following Alinksy’s principles of; “success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics”. The fact is, the world would be a much better place if we all lived by my parent’s adherence to honesty and personal integrity.
