EXTREMISM

Extremist and extremism are often misused and confusing terms to the casual political observer. Often the MSM is more likely to use the term when describing people on the right. Is actually comes down to the position of the person using the term. Someone on the far right might easily think of himself as moderate and someone who is a so-called moderate might be branded an extremist by many on the far left. In reality extremism and moderate have little meaning if one does not know the true position on the person using the words. This is a necessity in order to evaluate the position of someone. When I hear these words moderate or extremist I always ask who is saying that and what is their position. By using these words one is more likely branding himself than others, with what ever label he uses.

Today's extremist could be tomorrows moderate or today's moderate could become tomorrows extremist. Its not how others look at you and your positions, but rather how you look at yourself and your views that really counts. Things are always changing and the old and new orders will always be in conflict and will continue to replace each other as part of this protracted conflict. So in reality the words have little meaning other than to accentuate one's own position

TOTUS Home Page

Step Aside, I'm Going to the Front of the Line

I recently came across a post at Political Realities entitled "Racism Aside Can We Just Be Civil". The article dealt with line jumping in a store, but the message was a much broader one on civil discourse and urging us to practice more civility toward one another. Of course no one can be against that, we should talk more and I understand where the author is coming from. How many times has someone cut in front of you at the store? Yes its a small thing and one quickly forgotten, but it is symptomatic of something bigger much bigger. Many groups and people in this country feel they are entitled to go to the front of the line, not just at the store, but at the work place and at the admitting offices at our universities, in fact everywhere we turn their are those who feel they are deserving of that spot at the front of the line. And if you don't step aside quietly then you will be shoved aside, by them or by their "Big Brother". So the question is should we be civil about this new discrimination and try to talk rationally to these line jumpers. The problem as I see it, is that for far to long we have remained silent and have only occasionally challenged those who would go to the front of the line. They really feel entitled now and guess what, we are to blame, yes its our fault! The time has finally come to put an end to this sanctioned line jumping, not the petty line-jumping in the store, but the line-jumping promoted and blessed by those on the American left. Frankly the line jumpers must be confronted and challenged and until we learn this, like the school bullies they will continue on their merry way to the Front of the Line!
One additional note the goals of the of author of the above mentioned post are the same as mine. It is only the method I disagree with. Things have gotten out of hand with the forces on the left feeling more emboldened and pushing harder and harder for even more draconian measures to insure their pet groups go to the front of the line and by doing that they are taking more and more rights from many Americans. This struggle against these forces will never be won by polite discourse as things have gone to far and those in power will not be moved by the soft talk of moderate voices. The log jam of political correctness run-a-muck must be blown up! I recall the quote of a great American, "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue and extremism in defense of Liberty is no Vice" Barry Goldwater.

White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News

Its not FOX News its Glenn Beck. Beck is the real thorn in the side of the Obama administration but in order to go after him they must go after the entire FOX News organization for to single out one individual would give that person far too much status and they fully realize that. Other FOX News people have been on the scene for sometimes and can be tolerated by the Obama administration, but Beck drives home a message that is threatening to the likes of those in the White House. His is not the partisan voice of a Sean Hannity or the right of center voice of a Bill O'Reilley but the voice of the common man. A voice those on the far left must silence. Beck represents the original American Patriot and not a contemporary American political party. His is the voice of the American Revolution and the values it brought to this country---individualism and independence from from foreign control. He is a revolutionary, he is a true American patriot, and he and what he represents are the biggest threat to the counter-revolutionaries now in the White House. The American left has long thought of themselves as being revolutionaries, but that is not the case they are seeking to roll back those things the American Revolution brought about---individualism and nationalism. The left today sees these two things and they do not like them and they are seeking to bring about collectivism and a new type of internationalism which is yet to be defined, perhaps something like the United Nations. These counter-revolutionary forces in the White House see Beck as a serious and growing threat, a threat they can no longer ignore so they are attacking FOX News.

White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News
Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, "I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits."

But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn's comments.

So far, none of the four other major networks has given any indication that they wish to disinvite Fox News from the White House pool -- the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage and the most significant interaction among the news channels.

The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.

Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check." read more from FOX News

Extremism

While commenting on various post so time back I found a great one dealing with extremism at Social Sense titled "Right Cross" this post is thought provoking. The following is a summary of my comment.

Extremist and extremism are often misused and confusing terms to the casual political observer. Often the MSM is more likely to use the term when describing people on the right. Is actually comes down to the position of the person using the term. Someone on the far right might easily think of himself as moderate and someone who is a so-called moderate might be branded an extremist by many on the far left. In reality extremism and moderate have little meaning if one does not know the true position on the person using the words. This is a necessity in order to evaluate the position of someone. When I hear these words moderate or extremist I always ask who is saying that and what is their position. By using these words one is more likely branding himself than others, with what ever label he uses.

Today's extremist could be tomorrows moderate or today's moderate could become tomorrows extremist. Its not how others look at you and your positions, but rather how you look at yourself and your views that really counts. Things are always changing and the old and new orders will always be in conflict and will continue to replace each other as part of this protracted conflict. So in reality the words have little meaning other than to accentuate one's own position.

Extremism

While commenting on various post this evening I found a great one dealing with extremism at Social Sense titled "Right Cross" this post is thought provoking. The following is a summary of my comment.

Extremist and extremism are often misused and confusing terms to the casual political observer. Often the MSM is more likely to use the term when describing people on the right. Is actually comes down to the position of the person using the term. Someone on the far right might easily think of himself as moderate and someone who is a so-called moderate might be branded an extremist by many on the far left. In reality extremism and moderate have little meaning if one does not know the true position on the person using the words. This is a necessity in order to evaluate the position of someone. When I hear these words moderate or extremist I always ask who is saying that and what is their position. By using these words one is more likely branding himself than others, with what ever label he uses.

Today's extremist could be tomorrows moderate or today's moderate could become tomorrows extremist. Its not how others look at you and your positions, but rather how you look at yourself and your views that really counts. Things are always changing and the old and new orders will always be in conflict and will continue to replace each other as part of this protracted conflict. So in reality the words have little meaning other than to accentuate one's own position.