Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Law Poverty Center who made comments about how fearful he was of the Oathkeepers (see here).
Today, O’Reilly interviewed Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oathkeepers. It appears that Bill thinks it is perfectly reasonable to suspend the 2nd amendment given a state of emergency, and that the Oathkeepers’ stance is ‘extreme’. I believe that if our government officials were not so blatantly corrupt and such bald faced liars, we would not need people like the Oathkeepers. Does Bill O’Reilly really believe that given a state of emergency, average Americans are going to go out in the streets and shoot it up? He has such a high opinion of us. Who among us believes that our 2nd amendment rights are not under attack and will not continue to be under attack from a government that many of us can no longer trust?
…and the ‘right-wing rebellion’ of the tea parties. Mark seems to know us better than ourselves, since I did not realize that I am secretly terrified of the federal government building concentration camps that we can be herded off to by foreign soldiers. I also did not realize that the democrats and indies that come to this site were double agents for the right-wing conservative movement. My readers have totally snowed me, and I thought I had a clue about the pulse of the people.
How is it that a member of a organization that “tracks hate groups” could think it a good idea to attack the Oathkeepers. At this point, considering what we don’t know about our federal government, I’m glad the Oathkeepers are standing on the wall. How about you? Mr. Potok seems to be overly concerned that the Oathkeepers include police officers that could be laboring under paranoid ideas and then pull a weapon. I’m more concerned going to the store after dark and getting mugged. As much as I detest Bill O’Reilly, I must give him credit for offering an invitation to the Oathkeepers for an interview on tomorrow’s show. We will have to see what transpires.
On a totally different but related note, I have been background processing, and am currently working on an op-ed piece about Glenn Beck and the current media circus surrounding the tea party movement. I wanted to see if my readers think the rule below seems altogether too familiar right now.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
My message to you – stand together, don’t scatter. There are many more of us now than ever before.