All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!



You've probably seen on other blogs or through email how the Obama administration has issued a report via Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano labeling everyone from veterans of the US military to people who profess traditional Christianity or who have ever listened to talk radio, as "potential right wing terrorists". Here is a link to the Washington Times article.

Here is a link to the report it self.

I have several thoughts on the report, none of them favorable.

1.) One technique of government is to produce a series of reports to make it look like a situation warrants more attention than it is getting. Once a significant amount of written material is produced the next step is to establish a team to investigate the viability of a situation requiring some form of action. That team/task force then "researches" the body of knowledge on the subject. Normally this means they read the previously mentioned government reports.

If your following this: gov bureaucrat "A" has an agenda and writes a report, which stimulates gov bureaucrat "B" to write a report with an agenda, and so on. This process goes on for a bit till they have a pile of reports on a topic. Then they hand pic a group to "research" the material and make recommendations. Of course those recommendations will mirror the wishes of the bureaucrat group think that produced the reports and selected the "researchers". The next logical step being making the recommendations official government policy.

2.) I suspect that the next step will be to implement some form of policy that will be aimed at limiting the rights of those in the groups mentioned in the reports. Such as:
A.) reducing free speech rights for churches, or others who do not support Obama
B.) reducing access or requiring registration of firearms.
C.) limiting any material support
D.) marginalizing the views of the targeted groups in the media in an effort to direct public opinion.

Some may argue that all four points under #2 above are or have been in progress for some time. I won't dispute anyone who sees things from that point of view. The point I would make is that none of these tactics are legitimate functions of our constitutional government.

For the sake of argument lets assume that there are in fact some members of the targeted groups who are going to engage in unprovoked acts of violence against someone for ideological reasons. For example Janet Reno et al in Ruby Ridge or Waco. The proper role of government is to arrest the criminals and take them to court to stand trial for their offenses. This is a far different course of action than generalizing 50% or more of the American public as "potential terrorists".

I think Obma is suffering from a case of extreme projection. As a young man (and now to some extent) he was willing to associate with terrorists in his opposition to the establishment. Now that he is the establishment, he naturally sees all who don't wholly embrace him as lord and savior in DC, as potential terrorists.

No comments:

Post a Comment