Principles and targets: When left meets right

Rush Limbaugh has been criticized for saying he hopes the president fails in his efforts to reshape the economy, most recently in this newspaper by columnist Ellen Goodman, who called Limbaugh "a talk radio host who'd rather be (far) right than have his country rescued."

This kind of twisted commentary is what makes one pessimistic about the future of the country. How exactly did Ellen Goodman miss the news that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative and Barack Obama is a liberal (oops, I almost said socialist)? Is there really any logical reason why Limbaugh WOULD support Obama? Does anyone remember liberals like Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi supporting President Bush when he was trying to ensure victory in Iraq? Does anyone remember the sympathetic liberal voices saying, "We need to get behind President Bush as he works to rescue New Orleans and the Gulf Coast from the wreckage of Katrina"? Does anyone remember Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton rallying behind Bush's plan to rescue Social Security?

Of course not. But when liberals are in power, criticism of the government is virtually a crime against the state. We need a "fairness' doctrine to shut up those mean old conservatives. Or maybe we should just round up the troublemakers and send them to re-education camps. Heaven knows, there are lots of liberals who would like to send me to one.

But hold on a second. How about we pay attention to what Limbaugh actually said, and not just what Ellen Goodman says he said in her gotcha-style attack. If you only read Goodman's column, you would just hear that Limbaugh doesn't want to see his country 'rescued" ? not that Limbaugh rejects President Obama's policies because he expects them to bankrupt the country morally and financially.

In particular Limbaugh said: "So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"

Indeed. Why would any of us want that to succeed?

But Goodman equates Limbaugh's defense of liberty with being somehow anti-American. Turns out that dumping capitalism and individual liberty really is 'rescuing" America from itself ? from its history, its traditions and (as Limbaugh says' its foundations.

Kind of reminds me of those folks around Oklahoma who thought highly of Pretty Boy Floyd the bank robber because he 'rescued" them by tearing up mortgages while he was robbing banks. Have we really reached the point where looting the national treasury to keep the economy afloat is considered a noble endeavor?

I hope and trust my readers don't think so, but someone really ought to have the courage to say so, and that's where Rush Limbaugh comes in. It is quite apparent that the political structure in Washington, D.C., is corrupt to the core. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat; as soon as you accept "politics as usual" you are co-opted. As soon as you accept the 'system" you are part of the problem.

Rush Limbaugh and a few other media personalities such as Laura Ingraham, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer don't accept the system. As a matter of principle, they have spoken out against "politics as usual" and taken a stand for common sense, and that's why they are being targeted by the left.

It's not an accident either. It's part of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals' that he set forth in his 1971 book of the same name. Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer who proudly flaunted his left-wing agenda and left behind a playbook that has been studied and taught by Barack Obama ? that other "Chicago community organizer" ?along with many other influential leaders.

Indeed, it almost seems like Alinsky's "rules for radicals' are what govern our nation today even more than the U.S. Constitution. When thinking about the undefined "change" Obama promised us before he was elected, consider this. Alinsky wrote: "Change comes from power, and power comes from organization…. The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."

Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Is it possible that all this chaos in American society today is part of a plan to "change" us once and for all? As you may have noticed, we are in the midst of a revolution that will eventually make the New Deal look like child's play. The Obama administration is intent on increasing the federal government's control of our lives in virtually every arena. Health care? Check. Climate control? Check. Local police? Check. Gun control? Check. Banking? Check. Want to keep your job? Check. Bought and paid for? Check.

The more money Obama and the federal government pour into local and state coffers, the more dependent states and cities become on the federal government. The more you start to rely on your "tax rebate" or "economic stimulus' check to buy necessities, the more dependent you become on a bloated centralized government which like Big Brother "just wants to help you."

President Ronald Reagan summed up the dangers of big government in his farewell address to the nation in January 1989 when he said: "There's a clear cause and effect … that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

That makes me think that at least one former president would join Rush Limbaugh in hoping that President Obama fails. And let's repeat this one last time: Limbaugh never said he didn't want Obama to succeed in 'rescuing" the United States; instead he said that he didn't want Obama to succeed in destroying the country by turning it into a European-style socialist state.

But it doesn't matter what Limbaugh really said, does it? Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals' included this unpleasant advice: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

With George W. Bush gone from the stage, another polarizing figure was needed, and Obama's team has picked out Limbaugh for the job. With allies like Ellen Goodman and MSNBC helping to lampoon Limbaugh, Obama can follow through with one more of Alinsky's tactical rules: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

But ridicule has no effect if the truth is known. That's why it is important to actually study the news for yourself. Never rely on me, Limbaugh, Obama or Ellen Goodman for the facts. Find them out for yourself, and then hold on to them ? because they are your lifeline to truth, and to the responsibility which truth brings.

n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com