In their February 9 column on BustedHalo.com, “Tricks Are For Kids,” conservative Catholic writers Dawn Eden and William Doino, Jr. joined the herd of pious finger-waggers who have taken to the high ledges to point at James O’Keefe, upon his recent arrest in New Orleans.
In an interview with Matt C. Abbott of RenewAmerica.com, Ms. Eden blasts the work of O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Lila Rose of Live Action Films (O’Keefe’s partner in the Planned Parenthood investigations):
We noted that Alinsky’s tactics ran directly counter to St. Paul’s dictum that we cannot do evil that good may come. Live Action’s work, like O’Keefe’s, uses the means of lying and deception in order to accomplish a good, which in their case is pointing out the lying and deception of Planned Parenthood.
About the ACORN investigation, she continues:
Was it really necessary to have an undergrad disguised as a scantily clad prostitute to expose the organization?
Well, it worked, didn’t it? With an enveloping sigh of disdain, Eden and Doino write:
O’Keefe’s contention that his adaptation of radical tactics was ‘the future of activism’ found an approving audience among numerous conservatives and libertarians.
Perhaps this is due to the fact that O’Keefe’s “adaptation of radical tactics” has effectively defunded truly evil organizations to the tune of millions of dollars simply by using words, hidden cameras and basic principles of investigative journalism – opening taxpayers’ eyes to the returns on their investments in the form of federally-funded would-be underage teen brothels and bureaucratic hornets’ nests of clandestine corruption. We would like to know what Eden’s morally superior tactics have achieved on such a scale.
But Eden and Doino – whose moral priorities have apparently more in common with those of the ACLU than those of the conservative movement – would rather shake their heads at the “lying and deception” inherent in James’ investigative journalism practices than the transgressions of his targets. Their advice to James is to put his head down, go back to school, get married and lead a quiet family life. Aw, gee, thanks for your advice, guys!
We didn’t want to throw the Good Book at Eden, but since she has resorted to using scripture to support her pious presumptions, we will play her game. Eden harbors the same instincts that compelled Peter to betray Christ upon his arrest. Citing scripture to furnish her moral opposition to O’Keefe’s “lying and deception” as a willingness to “do evil that good may result,” we hereby wonder if certain biblical heroes who employed subterfuge for purposes of self-preservation as well as the good interests of their communities would have merited Eden’s approval.
Rahab, the prostitute in the Book of Joshua, who deceived her own people in order to protect the Israelite spies she had taken under her wing, is lauded as a “profile in faith” in Hebrews 11: “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Perhaps what Rahab truly needed was a lecture from Dawn Eden(who probably would have also criticized her scanty attire) about the use of deception as a means to an end.
Since Eden, as a pro-lifer, would rather invest her energy in scolding O’Keefe and Rose for their employment of “lying and deception” against Planned Parenthood as an evil means to an end rather than Planned Parenthood’s condoning of eugenics and statutory rape – we wonder if she would feel the same about those who deceptively housed Jews in their attics, lying to German interrogators during World War II.
Eden and Doino are the kind of people who would retreat and pray in closets rather than stand in the street and deliver results. It is no surprise that warriors like O’Keefe, Giles and Rose must be subjected to the pressures of ideological foes, but that they suffer the potshots of armchair theologians is outrageous. Eden and her ilk are no help to the cause by turning their backs on the brave ones that take those risks when they get in trouble.
To those who would rather embrace the security of pompous legalism and pusillanimous do-nothing “activism,” smugly throwing our movement’s true, brave warriors under the bus for their boldness and creativity while they are already being chastised for it; to those whose contribution to the conservative movement is sitting in a safe, comfortable position while condescending to the game-changing contributions of those like James, Hannah and Lila, who have literally risked their security, lives, reputations and freedom for the movement – on behalf of said movement – thanks, but we are no longer in need of your services.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
128 Comments
Can Alinskeys tactics work on the right?
They have thus far. They have since September when Breitbart started Big Government and carried the war to their doorstep. The left is off balance and reeling from Breitbarts Blitzkreig. Keep the pressure on………..
You gotta love those "holier than thou" types.
What did Jesus call them? Oh yeah, white washed sepulchers.
Sorry, does not compute. This article treats Eden as fairly as it supposes Eden is treating O'Keefe. There is simply no comparison between O'Keefe and Giles's actions and harboring people who are literally about to be shipped off to die. I think she makes a fair point that can be fairly countered, but the approach here is off base. The question should be to what extent does the end justify the means, and it is not demonstrable in the case of the ACORN sting that the approach taken was the sole means to the same end. If someone wants to bemoan the approach, they can do so without bemoaning the end. I for one would never want my daughter televised nationally in faux-prostitute attire.
When O'Keefe and his Associates lie it is a given that eventually they will acknowledge the lie at some point and their work is intended to combat the bigger lies that surround these organizations. Alinsky's lying was never acknowleged or revealed as far as we know. O'Keefe's lies are in the service of God. Alinsky was in the service of Satan at all times so to hell with him.
I see. So, we'd better tell all the undercover police officers, CIA operatives and online child predator investigators that they can't do any good, because they have to lie to get results.
Idiotic.
He also said to be "as wise as serpents"
Brilliant use of the "Rahab example"…
…camouflage and subterfuge in war is not only effective, but Biblical !
the fact that O’Keefe’s “adaptation of radical tactics” has effectively defunded truly evil organizations to the tune of millions of dollars
If only. Apparently the purveyors of 'Big Journalism' haven't kept up on the maneuvers of the Feds, the Cities, and ACORN. And to an illustrative example of opposing false-front operations.
Congress did publicly defund direct Federal transfers of dollars to ACORN. The public read that news and thought, good, there's a job properly done.
But that didn't bother ACORN much – those dollars will now be delivered into their sordid hands through some finagling of City budgets, which of course are lavishly funded by the Feds as their foot in the door of increasing Federal control of local budgets by lavish bribery. All ACORN needs to do is to use their false-front 'social service' sub-organizations (they own hundreds of them), accept those funds from City intermediaries, and they're right back in business.
(con't from above):
So here the much more sophisticated ACORN false-fronts have nullified the brief glimpse O'Keefe's false-front 'prostitution ring' gave us of ACORN's true behavior. ACORN continues to roll in uninterrupted taxpayer dollars, to no benefit of the general public. Let us hope that O'Keefe and other reporters get to work for the benefit of taxpayers and citizens, and investigate and illuminate ACORN's corrupt dealings and organization, by any means necessary.
Sanctimonious jerks don’t want results, as the problem remains so does their gig to prattle on incessantly with zero results…the left is counting on it.
O’Keefe and Giles are American patriots, getting results, keep up the good work, the left is squirming.
the operative answer is yes- conditionally…
Fighting fire with fire is fine until it becomes counterproductive; and since the MSM will reliably alter the facts to the advantage of the left, the conservative movement must alway be careful about tactics.
Lest the baby be thrown out with the bathwater…
They want to herd us back to the Buckley Doctrine where we let them win by being above getting our hands dirty. Won't happen.
Mr Hartsock, I can tell you , they are working so far.
A book is coming out this summer —
Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the left at their own game to take back America
Author is David Kahane.
Great writer who posts occasionally on NRO, very funny, very pointed, writes from the left.
Why not?
The left is attemptting to co-opt the Tea Party-
CIVET S**T and MONKEY SPIT or THE PREDIGESTED POLITICS OF THE "COFFEE PARTY"
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/civet...
Maybe. But like dead stocks they don't go to zero overnight. They fall fast and furious. And then usually you get a dead cat bounce.
ACORN is in the dead cat bounce. But the jig is up. Now everyone knows ACORN. So we only need to find out what color they painted the pig to alert the world. The days of convincing them the pig is the pig is mostly over.
Yes, because "acting" like a prostitute for a film and actually being one are the same thing. So if your daughter were an actress and landed a national TV gig but had to wear something skimpy, rather than be proud of her, you would hang your head? I call B.S. Seriously, it's not like Hanna was naked or something.
It's obviously opinion based whether or not their acts were a direct result of ACORN defunding, but I would bet most of the politicians that made the decisions would agree that without their efforts to put ACORN on the public stage, the defunding would never have happened. The ends FAR outweighed the means.
i wouldn't consider lying to the perpetrators in order to expose the truth to the public as anywhere near alinsky style tactics. an alinsky tactic would be to lie about acorn in order to sell conservatism about the public. i would NEVER condone the use of alinsky tactics by conservatives, yet i do not believe o'keefe used those tactics. lying to a villain to expose his lies is completely seperate from lying to the public. this is not a radical tactic at all. it is a simple defense.
as i would condone killing to defend oneself from a murderer, so would i defend lying to defend oneself from liars (or murderers, again). i would NEVER, however, condone INITIATING the lies in order to discredit the other side. this is not what breitbart or o'keefe are doing and it is unfair to compare them to alinsky.
i'm replying to my own post to point out that if you throw out principle in order to win the battle for your principle, then your principle has lost. i, as well, will not condone buckley compromise for the same reason. but i don't condone radicalism as a means to support conservatism. it would be better for us to OWN the monicker "the party of no" with pride.
There is a wonderful play on broadway depicting how a Catholic woman gave up everything to protect the Jews she was housing from being discovered, even agreeing to give up her virginity and become a Nazi officer's mistress so he would keep silent about these people. I wonder what Ms. Eden would think about her? Personally, I think that woman is a hero, realizing that the sanctity of life comes before all else. Apparently, Ms. Eden would rather millions of innocents die than one person dirty themselves.
Can I offer anyone a nice, huge, smelly balloon of flatulence?
I just get the feeling that someone needs it.
Don't hammer on Dawn — I am a real fan of her work, and she raises some valuable points we need to keep in mind (altho' I don't agree with them all). But as I read once, we need the popes of the world to tell us that war and violence are wrong while some of us need to get dirty and deal with the bad guys. In the end, it's all about bringing light to the shadows and bringing corruption into the disinfecting sunshine. I admire O'Keefe's chutzpah, but I think he just needs to play it a little smarter — the left is looking for any reason, real or trumped-up, to discredit him — don't give 'em the ammo! I think dcase is right-on.
The True Alinsky tactics are based upon a fundamental disregard for the dignity of people,and disregard for truth.
It employs strategies to defame & demean opponents and obscure truth and rational analysis. True Alinsky tactics are rooted in Lust for Power, Envy, and rejection of truth(reality).
I do not think it was for James to claim the mantle of alinsky for his strategies.At the very least, call it the 'anti-alinsky method'. James'(et al) tactics are not rooted in lies, distortion and intimidation. Nor are their tactics geared toward destruction, hate, lies and death as are the tactics of the 'rules for radicals' crowd.
So instead, call it ''Anti-Alinsky Activism'..
Communicate the names and whereabouts of liberals and journalists who have lied and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in foreign countries, to their grieving families in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the world. They will exact justice to the nth degree. Check out Timmerman's book Shadow Warriors for specifics on how liberals, journalists and anti-Americans inside the goober-mentalism have caused this slaughter.
There is a world of difference between investigative journalism and personal attacks as we have seen hurled at people like Bush and Palin. One's purpose is to expose evil, the other to destroy, to rein evil upon another with the intent of viscious character assissination. .
Did anyone actually read Eden and Doino's entire article, instead of relying on Hartsock's invective (not to mention he has a personal stake in the O'Keefe matter, as he worked with them)? Was he the designated hitman for Keefe? It was written in a spirit of charitable criticism, and didn't attack O'Keefe or Giles personally. In response, Hartsock unleashed hell. In effect, he makes their point.
I'm a fan of Lila Rose, but we as conservatives don't need to emulate Alinsky. It reminded me of how David Horowitz contrasted Rules for Radicals with George Washington's Rules of Civility. Of course, Washington himself relied on intrigue to win the war, but he didn't skirt too close to the line of indecent behavior, like O'Keefe and Giles have.
We are at WAR with the ENEMY WITHIN. Dont forget what General George S Patton did to Rommel and the Nazis. He took “blitzkrieg” and used it against the Nazis. Seemed to work awfully well. This “nice guy” stuff does not work with committed COMMUNISTS like the Alinsky crowd. Ask yourself this-how many millions have NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS MURDERED-then ask me how many Breitbart, Limbaugh,Beck,Hannity or Savage have “killed”(the answer is ZERO). Dont forget-ObamaPOS pal Bill Ayers told an FBI informant that 25-30 MILLION would have to be killed for the “revolution” to succeed. Dont forget-KARL MARX AND Mao Tse Tung WERE NOT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.
This reminds me of Lot, a righteous man who nonetheless made some very flawed decisions. He offered his two virgin daughters for a crowd of men to rape so they would not rape the two men (actually angels) who were guests in his house. To protect the men (angels) was a noble thing, but to say "no, rape my daughters instead) in order to protect your guests? And to not ask angels for help, instead of offering your virgin daughters to a crowd of rapists?
I would guess that Eden would say that what Lot did was not evil, since he was protecting others and since he was not trying to deceive the crowd of rapists in any way. I would also guess that, if Lot had instead said "oops, you're too late, they left" she would likewise find that he was doing evil, because any deception whatsoever is evil.
Lot's behavior was an example of doing evil in an attempt to do good, which Paul rightly warned against. We can readily see how, even in the context of those times, his attempt to have his daughters raped was odious and evil. Deceiving someone to advance good is not evil. Deception is not in and of itself evil. Else, as you point out, whenever we deceive truly evil people, like Nazis, Communists and Demonrats, in order to save innocents from murder, we would be sinning to do good, which is not a possibility. No, it is not better for us to offer up the innocents as a sacrifice in order to do good.
One other thing-ALINSKY dedictaed “rules for radicals” to SATAN. BILL AYERS dedicated his 1974 book “prarie fire” to SIRHAN SIRHAN, the moslem extremist who was the murderer of ROBERT F KENNEDY. Yet today, when fat Teddy was alive he supported the man whose pal dedicated his book to his brothers murderer. Same with Patrick Kennedy Jr, who to this day works for the same cause as the one who murdered his uncle. Shows a lot about communist Alinskyites. Ideology even trumps murdering your family members.
I have a 22 year old daughter that I am very proud of. If my child were the youg lady dressed as a prostitue in this sting I would be even more proud than I am of her now. My daughter understands that ACORN can destroy American exceptialism. Exposing ACORN is important. I have seen much younger girls dressed in far less at night clubs. I do not find the attire to be offensive as much as it is really tacky.ACORN is sucking the life out of our country and I want ACORN with it's affiliated offices shut down and I want it done ASAP. If the lady had to put on some sleezy clothes it was worth saving our country. Then again, I am a patriot. I just don't think short skirts and tacky bras are all that brazen. The wardrobe was tacky but not shocking. You can see that and more on any tv station in this country during prime time.
Ah, these two people's opinion's don't count for much. As a Catholic, I think subversive efforts are necessary. Even under the Just War theory as explained by Sts. Augustine and Aquinas. I liken it to Gen. Patton's raining mortar fire and heavy artillery on the enemy ahead of the tanks and troops… they may not have killed very many of the enemy but certainly had the effect of demoralizing and disorienting them.
We face an enemy that must be demoralized and disoriented, more so than they already are.
Very good analysis.
Good point.
It's one thing for Lila Rose to pose as an underaged rape victim to expose Planned Parenthood's wllingness to cover up cases of child rape. Rose's actions will help protect the innocent.
It's another thing if Rose was willing to use real underage girls to further undermine the abortion industry. Like Lot, Rose would be using one evil (sacrificing the innocent) to end another (abortion). The results of such a tactic are always tragic.
Will they never learn? This is the same thinking that kept the Catholic Church playing musical chairs with pedophile priests.
"Can Alinskeys tactics work on the right?"
I think the critics are making a mistake. Telling lies as part of a investigation, and or sting, is not an Alinskey tactic.
Telling lies to the public, or even your own followers, to garner support is an Alinskey tactic.
I reckon the 'prostitution ring sting' falls under art rather than pure deception. All art is deception; paintings are false recreations of real things, words are always unsteady and changing so that they often deceive as much as illuminate, acting is the most deceptive of all, trying to convincingly BE someone other than self. The difference is the intent; art deceives in an attempt to tell the truth in a way that simply stating truth doesn't. Jesus himself used parables, and while these same kind of Christians also argued that the stories He told must be true, it's still irrelevant to the point–he didn't just say 'the worth of a soul is great,' he added the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin. Art makes truth clearer than simple statement, while pornography is pure deception with a most a cynical fig leaf of meaning.
What these audacious youngsters did is create a story–a narrative as the po-mo babblers would say–and were shocked to discover that what they expected to find only scratched the surface.
The attempt to discover if Landrieu's phones weren't working should've been done the same way. I'm sure they would've discovered the backup lines not available to the general public if they'd posed as donors–or better yet if they actually donated and then asked how their action group could contribute to the debate as well as the coffers. I'm sure they could've had a special line set up within a day so they could call in their comments of 'support,' and then of course the would-be Tweed from Louisiana would've gotten a bazillion messages from the TEA parties instead.
This is not an end justifies the means argument–but in the case of deception intent does matter. If you sing a song in praise of God, you're using words that have uncertain and inconsistent meaning, and which may not convey the intent of the original writer. And you may in fact be singing opposite to the writer's intent–try Depeche Mode's "I Feel Loved" as an example. It doesn't follow that because there is deception involved, even if intentional, it is not praise, and God hates it. He is not limited the way we are, and knows what you meant as well as what you did.
Most of the time though, it's not that hard for mere mortals to figure out either. But if you really work at it, you can deceive yourself into self righteousness, and then you'll never ever understand.
I take these Catholics must have skipped over Shibboleth in Judges 12.
I think that Eden and Doino are in fact actually employing an Alinsky tactic, a straw-man version, but still.
I remember that one of the lessons we were supposed to learn from the Vietnam war, and the War of Independence for that matter, was to not try to fight a guerrilla war with conventional tactics. You will lose. If we continue to fight the radical left "progressives" with conventional tactics we will continue to lose. Using their own tactics against them is a good thing. Publicly requiring the leftist to actually adhere to their beliefs and standards is a good tactic.
I see no moral problems with using these tactics. Think about it, Eisenhower and MacArthur used the exact same tactics as the German and Japanese generals. How ever their goals with polar opposites. One side sought to enslave humanity while the other to free it.
It is the morals behind the tactics that differentiate the sides, not the tactics themselves.
As a Catholic myself, I can't wrap my head around those two's positions. How is keeping quiet and allowing ACORN to steal billions for illegal activities morally correct?
Last I heard Thou Shalt Not Steal was one of the Big Guy's top ten hit list.
I thought the article said they were pro-life?
At this point we MUST fight fire with fire. IE: Alinsky tactics against Alinsky tactics. As this works and the left has NO counter punch. Also it exposes them for what they are. So it's a win win no mater what.
Alinsky RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Below example: (it also helps when the "Ridicule" happens to be true, kinda funny how it works that way.)
Mr. obama is nothing more that a petulant spoiled child and needs to be treated as such. it's time for your nap little boy. Here is a glass of warm milk and a cookie. When you go outside to play later, remember to stay out of the street and come in before dark. You have school tomorrow young man. (Note: lower case O is on purpose).
This statement can be pasted all over the web as an answer to a lot of different situations.
Good luck and keep up the fight!!!
Alinsky Rules for radicals 1 thru 12:
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:
RULE 1:
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2:
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3:
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4:
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6:
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7:
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8:
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9:
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10:
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11:
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12:
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.)
What exactly did Jesus write in the sand, and why did the men turn and walk away? I believe that it is possible that Jesus confronted them with their own sins there in the sand. We must confront these people with their own lies and deceptions.
So O'Keefe goes undercover and does what 60 Minutes and other investigative shows used to do (To Catch A Predator, for example), and they give us caterwauling about "lo, the complex ethics" of such practices? If O'Keefe had taken down a Christian charity group that did what ACORN did, for example, would the media be whining about "ethics" and wondering if it was really OK to do such a thing to expose real fraud, abuse and corruption?
THE MEDIA INVENTED THIS TYPE OF JOURNALISM.
They can't cry and whine that others have learned to do it as well.
Short of INITIATING the use of force, I say whatever tactics are necessary to reclaim the birthright bestowed by the Founding Fathers. Compromise and the seeking of an unfair advantage have led us to the point that this is even an issue. Sorry ladies, we are under assault and need to repel the collectivist invaders. They are so deeply entrenched it is now necessary to turn their own weapons against them, plus the weapons they do not possess: reason and morality.
That might be true, but you can count on the MSM to 'forget' that ACORN ever existed (it's changing its name right now), and to omit printing or airing any 'concern' over the crooked actions of its successors. Meaning the job would have to be done all over again, multiple times.
And the MSM remains the major source of news (and propaganda) by which the average American learns and forms opinions about daily events and politics.
Sorry, it's not B.S. If my daughter were offered a national TV gig that required her to dress provocatively / immodestly, I would not have unqualified pride of her. "Not being naked" isn't the only standard a father might wish his daughter would follow in her public image. : P
Ryan,, I certainly respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. Being complicit in aiding and abetting child prostitution is tantamount to murdering young girls (whether literally or figuratively). Though O'Keefe and Giles were "acting" is irrelevant. The Acorn demons were serious about helping to ruin young girls lives. Whether being shipped off to a death camp, or to a brothel and being forced to work as underage prostitute slaves, the argument, in my opinion, does compute. As a Catholic, I am appalled at these women's argument. One of the basic premises of the Catholic Church is to help protect the innocent, whether already born or not.
There is a difference between using intrigue for the purpose of obtaining ill-gotten gains/power -and- using it to expose truth. O'Keefe and Giles did not do what they did for ill-gotten gains/power. They did it to expose the corruption of Acorn.
Yes. Good point, indeed. Lila Rose performed the same subtrifuge that O'Keefe and Giles did. Though O'Keefe and Giles' motives were different From L. Rose's, the goals were the same… to uncover the truth.
When these "catholic appologist halo-hangers" get serious, then they can examine the Pope's assistance of Hitler's Germany, and the looting of native tribes in the name of missionary work….facinating how poverty stricken third world starving populations live in villages and lands where the most impressive building is a Catholic Church, built instead of providing water, or sanitation….so that the souls rather than the bodies might prosper. Let these ladies throw the first stone if the Catholic Church is without any blame of its own.
Mr. Hartsock tried to create too much of a division between Eden and O'Keefe. Her criticisms are friendly and cautionary, not disdainful.
Eden writes: "Was it really necessary to have an undergrad disguised as a scantily clad prostitute to expose the organization?"
Eden's pretty sharp here. Much of the problem with society today is that women act like prostitutes, and men act like cads.
If more Americans were like Eden, the O'Keeffes would not be necessary. So activists need to be careful their tactics don't corrupt the very people they need to increase and to support a reformed political and media establishment.
One danger obvious here is a stupid and sensationalist pragmatism that will glum on to the politically powerful so long as they dislodge one's present enemies.
Right-Alinskyism won't work for many other reasons. Alinsky's tactics relied on reducing an established traditional order into straw men "principles" and then forcing the tradition into that box. While the old order was principled in some ways, it also relied on unquestioned habit. Alinsky used that order's flaws and its distorted principles to destroy its salutary habits.
At present, leftism has principles which are self-serving and destructive of good order, but it is so busy destroying the remnants of the old order that its priniciples and habits are hegemonic.
It's no good calling a liberal racist or sexist, since excessive and spurious anti-racism and anti-sexism are the very principles that helped destroy conservative communities and limited government. Besides, such charges only gain traction if they come from the establishment.
Alinsky was useful to a faction of the old establishment. Commies were present throughout the civil service and the U.S. government. Alinksy found sympathizers among Protestant, Jewish and Catholic elites. The press and college students loved his stunts. Rising politicians could use Alinsky to increase their patronage network and their political connections.
A right-wing Alinskyite has no such prospective allies. Indeed, his goal is the destruction of patronage networks, not the creation of new ones. At best, such an activist will feed the talk radio punditry and Fox News, neither of which have been effective at rolling back leftism.
Alinsky, a Machiavel who praised Satan as the first radical, was better at destruction than at creation. Leftism too is destructive. It is the displacement of true morals, religion, and tradition by cynical power and principled insanity.
Cynical powergrabbing and principled insanity describes too much of the so-called Right today. In such an environment, O'Keefe's actions risk preserving and extending that order. Eden's habits of self-restraint and self-examination undermine it more. This is a time when habits are more important than principles.
ryan, lorien, and a few others here have it right. Dawn Eden, the hippest pro-lifer ever, does need to cut O'Keefe more slack, that is, she needs to realize/admit that the diff b/t he and Lila Rose is at certain points a fairly fine one. But give her this–she's made "Big" dittoheads here have to stop and THINK. About, you know, FIRST PRINCIPLES. About, you know, letting your opponents' amoral methods license your imitating them. It's a fine reminder, for all of us–and I imagine O'Keefe might accept it as such. But my, more than a few sloppy/nasty anti-catholic (I'm a Protestant, FYI) opinions, and worse, a lot of ends-justify-almost-any-means opinions, scurry into the light of day, don't they? Alas, but predicatable.
Oh, and this Rahab stuff Hartsock is dishing us is sophomoric.
I think everyone needs to realize that if someone from the left tried sneaking into a senator's office and tapping the phone lines there would be calls from the right of treason and communist/socialist espionage. O'Keefe is a dolt and he's already been caught lying about his first video when he said he went to the ACORN offices wearing the pimp costume. The ACORN "scandal" is really just a distraction, its a heavily-edited tape of some low-level employees acting inappropriately, it deserves no further time on the national stage when there are much bigger issues to worry about, and it talking about it will not do anyone any good.
Its interesting, at least to me, in the discussion of right versus wrong of a given action or event that this is being discussed at all. They were having a simular discussion on the HUFPO site of whether or not the actions of
Acorn and the registration of dead folks to vote in Chicago elections were acceptable as a party or should it be
considered not only unethical but discouraged. NO THEY WEREN"T, this discusion of right or wrong is only done on a conservative website as we are apparently the only ones concerned with the concept of good and evil or ethical or unethical. Foreign concepts to libs.
Thank you for your succinct, accurate, common sense.
I'm not above getting my hands bloody. I'm quickly loosing patience with these Progressive vermin.
And if that doesn't work, we can just hunt them down and . . . .
OKeefe and Gile's were acting to save lives (babies) It is very much a parallel to the Jews.
About half of US "Catholics" are congenital democrats, and through the practice of idolatry, which is NOT condoned by the religion, remain obligate democrats. This statement will hurt some feelings, but these people, who claim to adhere to the same religion as this Pharmer, are helping to destroy civilization through their erroneous political practices.
There exists ancestor worship gone wild (again not condoned by the Church) with some "Catholics" stating a feeling of disloyalty to their parents if they would vote other than democrat , even though the Washington wing of that party has morphed into a freakshow.
The proper practice of Catholicism would preclude rigid party loyalty, and instead demand that we vote for the candidates who most closely support a respect for the human rights bestowed by the Creator (which does not include a free ride using STOLEN resources). Sometimes there might be a call not to vote, in a particular circumstance, if there are no good alternatives.
The virtue of Charity is attenuated once the responsibility is allocated to the government.
The most egregious error of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops has been to allocate to the Corrupt government, the responsibility to determine who lives and who dies, by ignoring the abortion problem for decades, and by supporting socialized medicine. A good number of armchair theologians are supporting this plan, including Phil Fox of the same Busted Halo, though the above mentioned pair is not yet checked for this. Only under outside pressure has come a too little, too late effort by the USCCB to address the abortion problem in Obamacare, while ignoring the reality of the "death panels" inherent in the plan.
The Pharmer is careful not to diss those who feel called to do the "dirty work" which protects us while we cogitate on religious idealisms, and dream of a world without killing, stealing and rape. One may find long term support and admiration for the non-violent work of James OKeefe Down on the Pharm, starting with his work to expose the racist based genocide by planned parenthood.
Thanks to Christian Hartsock for dredging up the Busted Halo commentary, and shining a light on it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. O'Keefe used established methods of investigative journalism to expose the truth about Planned Parenthood – nothing manipulative about this. Licensed PI's and police detectives go undercover all the time – does Eden suggest they stop?
Alinski was all about using any means to manipulate people – the truth had nothing to do with it. His belief system was completely relativistic. I don't think that would apply to O'Keefe.
I am Catholic and see that we are all called to different vocations. I support what Hannah and James did yet recognize their youth and agree that they can "grow into mighty oaks". There is a place for Prayer – like 40 Days for Life And action. I am reminded of the original founding of the Jesuits by St. Ignatius Loyola. Devout men, obedient to the Pope, they were commissioned to travel the world to enter all the scientific disciplines to represent Catholicism in an increasingly anti-Catholic, post reformation world. As "soldiers for Christ", they achieved remarkable things. Sadly, many Jesuits lost their way – as did many others during the insidious cultural revolution of the 1960's. I see Hannah and James as carrying on that work in their own quirky way.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm
http://www.40daysforlife.com/
Hmm… this article takes a pretty harsh line on a serious question. Part of what makes the left so abominable is their tactics – I want us to be careful about taking them on ourselves. I don't know if I agree with their statements, but don't act like it shouldn't even be a question.
"Do evil that good will result" is not right. But O'Keefe and Giles aren't using true Alinsky tactics – just bringing truth to light. Don't generalize from what they did is ok to "the right needs to adopt Alinsky's tactics". Fight for truth with truth. Not with lies and propoganda.
When you move onto the Progressive Plantation and exchange your freedoms for a bowl of rice and a ride on a bullet train, you will daily be required to chant:
and then prostrate yourself towards Washington D. C..
Five times a day.
Whether we use the tactics or not, we darn sure need to know what they are and speak up, LOUDLY, when we see them used.
Better yet, describe the tactics to children and discuss them in letters to the editors. Conservative writers need to submit articles about Alinsky to different news outlets. Get the word out so people know what they are looking at!
They cry foul when their enemy comes in sheep's clothing!!! O'keefe and Hannah didn't lead them into anything, Acorn reps were more than happy to deceive, it is what they practice and the one lady kept bragging on her partner saying that she was good!!! The deceivers became the deceived!!!
[ Eli's Hammer ] "All is fair in love and —WAR?" If it's a "war" yer a courtin'…then I agree with the tactics 100% Does the "fiscal" Beckian right presume to declare war on my 'kind' and by extension…lil ole me?
…..If so, then I guess the game is on? However, in the case of my "type" that is kind of a shame…as I hate the abortion mills as much or more so than James seems to hate them. Maybe I have just been hating them longer. The 'holocaust' of abortion on demand– is a bane on our humanity–AN an oozing 'pustulence' who's stench is a harbinger of belching smokestacks silhouetted behind that recently stolen: Arbeit Macht Frei sign.
Having said that, I don't like the Right for the most part….and the left is sqishy and much too much in love with fish.
I personally hope the Right keeps its silly posturing and threatening and war-talk. If you think you will see Beck or Limbaugh in the trenches…better get a bigger pair of Dockers. You're bloating up! Those wannabe warriors think best in the town-cave; smoking big cigars and talkin' smack to their thong wearing 'homies' in Boca Ratan.
The "left' needs a beatdown so they remember that we're not a bunch of crying, fish hugging simpletons…We actually stand for something OTHER than the mammon of the Right. maybe you 'warriors' will shake the sleeping mongoose awake, eh Right stuff? I hope so.
[ Eli's Hammer ]
Great article. What Eden represents is the same Catholic whining and letter-writing that they've done for decades now…and we see what that's won them (read: absolutely nothing). They're still mocked, ridiculed, made fun of by everybody in hollywood that they still demand apologies from for whatever it is they've said or done. People like Eden will always be completely impotent while it takes people with actual courage like Andrew Breitbart or James/Hannah to actually GET SOMETHING DONE.
Seriously, if these people don't like what Breitbart & Co. do, then they should shut the h*ll up and concentrate on their own methods.
I dont think you can even call doing what he did lying. If thats true all actors are liars too. He was playing a part. Secondly its pretty hard to be pro abortion and argue lying is wrong in the same breathe.
Chis Hanson and Preverted Justice, look out, because the Church is after you!
I guess Eden and Doino disapprove of secret shoppers, then.
Wonder why ACORN's implied acceptance of child prostitution and human smuggling didn't bother them?
How are Okeefe's tactics Alinskyite? What have he and his collaborators lied about? Yes, they impersonated people in order to show the illicit and immoral actions of ACORN and Planned Parenthood, but the technique they used has been employed by investigative journalists for years. Have you watched the pedophile and fraud stings on NBC? 60 minutes did this on numerous occasions in its early days (can't say what they do lately because I rarely watch it) – are all those organizations corrupt as a result? Police lie to suspects all the time to elicit the truth from them – does that make them Alinskyites? What nonsense. And to quote the bible in support of her reasoning? She doesn't even pass the sniff test. Why are we even giving her reasoning any credibility? Fyi, Alinskyite lying is at a totally different level, justified by the ends to make factual assertions about everything in order to win. This is not what Okeefe did and this woman is a moron for even trying to draw the parallel.
Your exaggerating what O'Keefe did. It is called investigative journalism. ACORN could have easily been a clean organization but it wasn't. If your going to accuse someone of Alinsky tactics, you better know Alinsky or just shut because everyone who does know, knows your making stuff up on the spot.
For the longest time, our values of right and wrong have been marginalized by the false standard of moral equalivancy. These faux moralists would let evil exist, because it cannot be erradicated in a perfect way. This is not a perfect world, but it is certainly a better one because the evils of Acorn have been exposed.
I could not do what they do in good conscience, nor would I personally want my daughter working as a prostitute poseur either. But I am very glad someone else did it.
Kind of like the nuns at the end of the Sound of Music… I'm not sure I would have had the spunk to do take the spark plugs out of the cars, but I was glad they did it and was cheering them on.
No, Will. You're conflating stings, as Giles was not in on O'Keefe's Planned Parenthood setup. It's teetering on the edge of Godwin's Law to insist even his PP sting is "very much a parallel to the Jews." And for what it's worth, I'm very much pro-life and anti-PP. I just don't think exaggeration or shoddy exegesis serves anyone.
okeffe should not have done what he did is nuts.the federal government had complaints on acorn but because they are mostly a black org.they would not investigate them as usual.it took civilians to do what the feds.didnt have guts to do to expose acorn.acorn and obama have ties so instead of blaming acorn the feds.would rather get after okeffe for doing their job.this is a real exposure to liberal justice.
acorn is and has been a corupt organization for blacks to help with their voting ideals.acorn along with the sieu have been trying to influence how people vote.this isnt a problem until these people start breaking the law to push their point across.its a shame that the federal govt. ignores these things when minorities are involved.i guess they forgot what tax payers pay them and it isnt minorities.
[ Elis Hammer ] I agree…with one tidy codicil: "Investigate Journalism with a bit of Sensationalism"
[ Eli's Hammer ] Too bad people like yourself can't figure out a way to enlighten the lower-classes into voting and taking part in things. Perhaps you and your associates could start a "legal" voting think tank and outreach for those poor souls. Some people don't really want the lower-classes to vote at all–not just blacks, but Whites and Hispanics and Asians too! I can see you would want to stop such un-American, un-patriotic, un-clean activities. Let us know of your successes in bringing in the vote for the tender underbelly of society. You're my hero!
[ Eli's Hammer ] II KINGS 18:27
Why must the left always fain conservatism when it's in trouble. They put out this ridiculous crap, & it doesn't matter how many intelligent people like us, can see through it. What matters is that the dems get their people to circulate it. The media & many of our society are rotten, from the inside out.
I personally think that the human spirit is infinite, & that life makes our rights unalienable. But, I wish the majority of people really knew where all of these radicals were leading us. To our deaths door, baby. Think about it, if America falls to radicals, what is left? Not frigging much. I'm not waiting for God to save me, because I know who I am.
But someone had better save the rest of us. Those who can fight, drive the charge. Radicals are raising our children. Radicals are taking our rights. Fight now, fight forever.
I'm confused. What is the alternate suggestion? Should Okeefe simply have gone door to door at ACORN offices with a handicam and said "excuse me, but I'm a journalist. would you mind going on record about the illegal activity that you facilitate through this government funded institution? You would?? Why thank you!"
Ryan, not trying to "conflate stings" but I really don't think it is an exaggeration. Think about it. Does Planned Parenthood kill many babies daily? How many have they killed? Millions? Yes they have. They are murderers on a massive scale. No exaggeration. Abortion surpassed the holocaust in terms of deaths many years ago. The only reason we don't react with more indignation is because the babies are hidden from everyone but the doctors.
Furthermore, as OKeefe showed, they are racist too. The proportion of abortions in communities is way higher than white (a strategy laid out by PP founder Margaret Sanger). So parallels abound.
Ditto.
And what were the ACORN people PORTRAYING AND LYING ABOUT???….were they not victims of their own establishment failures??? Okeefe did nothing not done by other journalists…and even our own law enforcers….called a "sting".
The comments about Alinsky in these posts are based almost entirely on ignorance, stereotypes, etc. Very disappointing. You might consider reading the Alinsky biography, "Let Them Call Me Rebel."
In regards to the attempts to expose ACORN, it was necessary to use subterfuge to expose the truly deceptive nature of the organization. Just like cops often go undercover and pretend to be drug dealers or prostitutes in order to expose the true criminals, O'Keefe and his "prostitute" went "undercover" to expose the true nature of ACORN. It is unfortunate that Democrat administrations in most of the big cities, and also the Democrats who run the federal government are so in bed with organizations like ACORN, that they wouldn't even think of investigating them. (Has anything substantial come from the promised investigations that followed the initial exposure of the corruption? I don't think so. Democrats may go through the motions, but they know who keeps them in power.)
Although it would be wonderful if people on the right could be always open and transparent, it is a fact that they are dealing with a large group of people who DO believe that ANY MEANS are justified to achieve their progressive ends.
"Grey area: the morality of investigative journalism"…
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100225
the dust-bin of history is full with petty tyrants, mass murderers, and freedom haters…
Be Afraid Congress, Be Very Very Afraid!
Now It's Personal…
http://usataxpayer.org/?0036174522
Right on, dcase…
I don't agree with Ms. Eden's application of her principles in this case, which to me seems little different from a police sting operation over prostitution or drugs. However, I think there's a lot of truth to the principles themselves. The key defect of the Left is their "ends justify the means" mentality, the idea that the perfect world to come makes any kind of behavior permissible which might bring about that world. This has been the trait of the French Jacobins, the Nazis, the Communists, etc. Obviously, we're not talking about killing millions of people here, we're talking about telling a few white lies. But I think it speaks to the same problem of violating one's own ethics. As Thomas Sowell said once, "The first thing a man will do for his ideals is to lie."
[ Eli's Hammer ] "Now it's time to go undercover and expose the 'true nature' of the treasure robbing, free booting fiscal Conservatives…they said. (a moment passes: "Oops, that is us!")
All was quiet then, as Rush, and Hannity (the "Alter 'd Boy-O" and kentucky Fried Karl Rove took turns brushing Glenn's golden hair. Beck just purred and quoted Aynn Randy as inf. John Gault my ass"…said History.
[ Eli's Hammer ]
Agree with the other two – your analysis helped sort things out for me. I felt what you said – just couldn't put it into such a beautifully logical argument. One problem I do have is Andrew Breitbart (who is one of my heroes) standing in public and yelling and calling the guy from Salon.com names. I'm not sure what that's supposed to do. It's not noble or heroic, imo. It's childish. There are much better ways to accomplish what I presume he was trying to accomplish. I believe strongly that O'Keefe and Giles ferretted out truth that would have never come out without their undercover investigation. But Andrew Breitbart would have been much more effective, imo, if he'd said something with dignity and respect. Scott Brown's refusal to comment on Martha Coakley's motives for turning a Martin Luther King, Jr. rally into a campaign opportunity impressed me much more than the usual political party nastiness would have.
Coming from a democratic party background these people are not going away until we beat them on every level including the gutter in a street fight. That is what politics is. We can use all their great tactics that they used against us, we can use against them. They spent decades filling the minds of kids who had no direction. Conservatives christians and jews have a strong background and nothing these losers do can change our minds. We must use the law and the internet media to break these SOBs down. We need to expose the unions, the ACLU, all these leftist groups too many to name here. We have none of these things. All we have is Americans who believe in liberty for all.
We stay strong and each and everyone of us take this war on the offense as Andrew B said at CPAC. We can't be afraid or back off from a word like racist that has no meaning anymore. The mad dogs liberals have thrown that word around like confetti at a ticker tape parade. Its over, lets use whatever we can to break these bastards and lets not let them breathe.
Think of America as your home and these maggots have invaded your home and now we need to thrown them out of our lives once and for all. This is a real war and don't you think they are going to roll over like they feel we should. Its time we beat them to death on Tv and in congress. Lets all go on the offense and prove Saul's ideas were frauds and it will come crashing down forever.
Oh, I wouldn't say there aren't parallels. I'm well aware of the silent holocaust going on in our country and around the world. However, to point to the enormous loss of life and say, "The only way this was all going to stop is if one man engaged in deceit to stop it." or even to say, "There are specific lives saved by his deceit." is not defensible. We don't really know the effects of his actions. However, I wouldn't denigrate that. I don't know that I really have a problem with it.
In the case of "saving Jews from Nazis" – how else would they be saved? If you don't shelter your neighbor, knowing that they'll be shipped off to a death camp, how else will they live? You have to do it, and you have to lie. What are your other options? Armed resistance? Group suicide? Instant conversion? There was no other option. Comparing O'Keefe to these life-saving neighbors is plainly an exaggeration, but his lies could still fall under the same broad category from an ethical standpoint.
My point was simply that a Catholic of understandably firm moral conviction on lying can be excused for taking issue with the approach. The response isn't to use some silly "biblical" counter-arguments but to prove that the ends justify the means in a logical way.
[ Eli's Hammer ] Does needing to "…expose the unions (and)…all these leftist groups, including" these maggots" in the Police and Fireman's unions? Damn these Anti-American Communists pinko bastids!
[ Eli's Hammer ] "They (the voter, grassroots, etc.) must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. " The new 'republicans will win by a landslide with this winning attitude that prevails today!
The system is broken, you are frightened, scared, shocked: "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. "
Yep…I'm afraid the Republicans have it in 2012…How can they lose with Democrats so out of touch and: "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."
(chorus) Go Gingrich…on Limbaugh…and Rove–bar the door:
Hannity and Dave Bossie (zero) and the Babylonian whore;
We tide, ever rising when there is:
Dis-horder in der strasse…
Come Adam Smith, and our daughters…
New Israel is built, but not on a dime;
On bloodshed, and teardrops and young person's dying.
Go Gingrich and Beck and O'Reilly and Rove;
Go fiscal Conservatives all;
Yes, come all ye T.E.A.bagers and Fiscals;
To the Republican ball…
Just say it! Just say it!
Just say it again…
A Republican's lie is a truth,
In the end.
"They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
(lights dim…curtain begins to close…Groucho Marks pokes his head out)
"Well, a Conservative, a fiscal, and a teabagger were all sitting in the can…"
(chorus) "Each one wishing that the other was a man?"
(We the People) "Sure, why not."
[ Eli's Hammer ]
Nope, Can't work.
Alinsky's "tactics" presuppose an opponent with principles and ethics that you can use against them. The Progressive (aka "Commies") have none, so these tactics have no leverage against them.
Evil succeeds when good people do nothing to stop it. Potificating about what is righteous and not works well in academia and when discussing theory, however in the heat of battle one must recall that Great Leaders have come forward, biblically it was Joshua at the battle of Jerico, in more modern times quotes of Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition come to mind. One can talk of piety, but one also must know when to stand and be counted. To uncover true evil, one sometimes has to go umoung them.
We are dealing with outright evil in many cases and sometimes it involves being wily as serpents as we have been instructed. I have to remember Dietrich Bonhoeffer saying that when he was protecting Jews from the Nazis he would lie with everything he had.
They exposed the willingness of ACORN to abet slavery.
That's an unalloyed good, untouched by the issue of "immodest" dress.
[ Eli's Hammer ] HEADLINE: "Known Socialist Calls for REDISTRIBUTION of PROPERTY"
"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none" (Luk 3:11). And when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a preaching and healing mission, He told them not to take an extra undergarment with them (Mat 10:10).
[ Eli's Hammer ]
[ Eli's Hammer ] the first guy was, of course, the locust and honey eating man by the river John (the Baptist)
"The comments about Alinsky in these posts are based almost entirely on ignorance, stereotypes, etc."
Yes, citing his words are the epitome of "ignorance".
You might consider pondering the phrase "by their fruits shall you know them" and how it applies to Alinsky and the poison his works have spread.
O'Keefe did not tap any phone lines. Stop spreading that lie.
"Investigate Journalism with a bit of Sensationalism"
You mean like 60 Minutes, but honest?
[ Eli's Hammer ] …'cause only really rich guys wear TWO (over and undergarments) in this warmer weather…and we're amongst 'the People'…Jesus would have been saying about that.
How about you defend the charge that James and Hannah used a means abhorrent to the innocence of God? Is it the modesty thing? I don't think so. Hannah could have wore a pant suit and still accomplished the goal. Is it the pretending that they were someone they weren't? I think that's your sore spot.
To answer that, maybe you should tell us what you think the end was. You think it wasn't some noble end as saving Jewish lives. But if I had to venture a guess, I'd say their end was to expose fraud, lies and hypocrisy. Sounds good so far, especially at the level of infection with ACORN seeking to act globally. And let's not forget, ACORN promotes the liberal agenda, abortion and all. So don't come here pretending ACORN is unstained when it comes to the most heinous sin this century has known.
well said, and reasoned…
Are espionage and undercover police work immoral? Were allied soldiers who wore German military outfits in WWII doing something immoral? How about recusant Catholics and priests who hid their worship from the authorities and used deception to evade punishment? And what about shows like “Candid Camera”? Is Alan Funt in hell now because he used deception to entertain?
I know that Father Trigilio expressed reservations about journalists and police using entrapment–but what James O’Keefe did does not qualify as entrapment. To entrap is to induce someone to commit a moral act that they would not otherwise have committed. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, on the other hand, caught ACORN workers in the act of applying ACORN standards. In other words, that organization had already committed to this criminal behavior, and O’Keefe/Giles merely gave them the opportunity to apply an ACORN-approved policy.
[...] Here’s the link to the revision, titled “Can Alinsky’s Tactics Work on the Right? Should They?”: http://bigjournalism.com/chartsock/2010/03/01/can-alinskys-tactics-work-on-the-right-should-they/. [...]
How about you defend the charge that James and Hannah used a means abhorrent to the innocence of God? Is it the modesty thing? I don't think so. Hannah could have wore a pant suit and still accomplished the goal. Is it the pretending that they were someone they weren't? I think that's your sore spot.
Remember, Our Lord pretend to go farther along the road on the road to Emaus. Was he lying? No, but it is something you should meditate on.
It's a shame that "people" such as you are trying to lay claim to some defense of Breitbart's sites. Are we — that means all of us "those people" — to conclude that your atheist Catholic-Christian bashing is what Breitbart is about?
I don't think that's what Breitbart is about, nor his sites, but you're sure doing your creepy best to try to represent the sites as if they were such.
This has nothing to do with Catholics or Christians or James/Hannah or anything else, it has to do with your own individual animosity toward Christ, Christians and your needs to find any public forum possible to try to leak out your animosity by one theme or another.
Note that Saul Alinsky claimed he was Jewish. He was also evil, his work is evil, his ideas were and remain to instruct in evil methods for the ruination of others.
Does that then mean that "Jews are evil"? OF COURSE NOT, OF COURSE IT DOES NOT.
Nor more than someone who says they're Catholic who then engages in confusing others about that theology and about their intents (and those of others) means that "Catholics are evil."
Stop all the generalizations. This post is bating material…trying to stir up ill will without being straightforward about motives.
[ Eli's Hammer ] Any so-called Christian scholar (loosely ) that uses Leviticus as an end-all cudgel is not a Christian in fact…perhaps a 'God-ian' or something. Levitician hall monitor types abound on the Right…and they do an injustice to the Bible, Christianity and the Right.
Any 'enemy' can be explained by them through: The Law! Pretty easy, and safe. Why, who can argue with 'The law.'
I'll tell ya 'who.'
A guy dressed in undergarments, a long 'robe' with no cover garment…a transient.
Jesus…that is who.
His admonition and disdain for the Law thumpers and abusers of the era are now New Testament history…as are the cocky has-beens known as the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
His Right to yell FIRE cost him his life…but he made man Free to talk to God. These "Evil" pushers deface his name and belittle a great Revolution.
[ Eli's Hammer ]
[ Eli's Hammer ] For those about to go Communist? The left is indeed embracing social theory a bit more than is probably healthy…but then again, the scales have tilted in favor of a logarithmic death for Capitalism. That, in my world, is when the corporations eat up all the oxygen in the free market. When all the smaller corporations begin to meld into Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Agra (Con Agra for instance), Big Insurance…Big Insurance with their F.B.I…Federal Bureau of Insurance…a system, or a process, or a devise, or a model by which a corporation becomes Too Big to Fail. Big Wall Street + Big XYZ-Widget Corp.
The Federal Bureau of Insurance can dictate seat belt wearing against the public will; helmet laws "in the public interest;" food intakes, drug distribution and death bed medicine. The Federal Bureau of Insurance can buy and sell Congress like a commodity market…they can take down a member of Congress in a heartbeat. They can scandalize an opponent to their "law." They are a shadow government unto themselves.
And the Right bends the knee. Praying to the god of mammon and greed. And "Insurance" was pleased.
Yet these same Communist hating…socalists are taking over America sell-out fiscal-Conservatives have no problem with directly trading our country away to an absolutist Red Communist state: Red China. (In the name of Free-Trade obtw! No axis of evil that!)
These Red loving Republicans have no problem with Police Unions…a known Communist beginning. With fire unions…and unions being one of the evils they expound daily.
Maybe SOME communism is good…the Republican Communism?
[ Elis Hammer ]
Since Eden, as a pro-lifer, would rather invest her energy in scolding O’Keefe and Rose for their employment of “lying and deception” against Planned Parenthood as an evil means to an end rather than Planned Parenthood’s condoning of eugenics and statutory rape – we wonder if she would feel the same about those who deceptively housed Jews in their attics, lying to German interrogators during World War II.
————————–
^^ A very foolish attempt at a point, there…
——————————–
I'm pro-life, I am a Christian, I'm Catholic, I support Israel's right to exist as an independent nation, I find ACORN intolerably corrupt and lacking righteousness…
BUT, bringing these larger issues into this exposure of corruption is hugely failing. What the theatricals by Hannah, etc. revealed was that ACORN was, indeed, a bed of bad amorality among our society but is anyone surprised at that? Is anyone surprised that Planned Parenthood ENCOURAGES the — and profits from — taking human life?
Yes, that's evil, all of that. It's as evil as human beings get (there isn't a sliding scale of what evil is, it either is or it isn't, despite pop psychology trying to sell "certain evils" as "lesser than" or greater)…
But putting the Bible (Old and New Testament) on a debate-trial is avoiding examining the evil of what belittles God's Word, as also God entirely. ACORN should not be receiving public funds, Planned Parenthood will face judgement, the public should not be led astray by either of these groups, and in the end, one either respects the sanctity of human life and recognizes that evil does exist to defame that, or one doesn't.
Anyone can sit in a pew and call themselves Whatnot but it does not make it so. And the Bible fully addresses these poor souls, advises us to anticipate them and how to not follow them to our own peril.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Someone's still a little pissy about the thrashing I gave their crazy-ass a few days ago.
Reading comprehension apparently isn't a strength of yours, so I'll dumb down my post above for you:
"Article good. Lots catholic leaders make talk without do stuff, only make bad people keep doing bad. Breitbart and James make talk AND do stuff, make change happen for better, make bad people scared and quiet."
You know, you're awfully angry for someone supposed to love Christ…that's a pity as you're not exactly helping anyone come to Him, eh?
"This has nothing to do with Catholics or Christians or James/Hannah or anything else, it has to do with your own individual animosity toward Christ…" – I didn't say anything with remote animosity toward Christ. Also, read my post again.
"…but you're sure doing your creepy best to try to represent… " – I don't represent anyone but myself, and I was expressing my agreement with the article.
"…Are we — that means all of us "those people" — to conclude that your atheist Catholic-Christian bashing is what Breitbart is about?" – Dude, what are you even talking about? So from my one paragraph, you assume that I'm atheist (I'm not), and that I hate Catholics and Christians, when anyone with half a brain can understand what I'm saying (thus the positive score on my comment).
[...] from Democrats and members of his own party, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) Tues… 3 Tweets » Can Alinsky’s Tactics Work on the Right? Should They? – Big Journalism 3 Tweets Why Does Jim Bunning Hate Everyone, Including Puppies? 3 [...]
wow that is way out of line. wild, crazy, extreme statements, and the attitudes that they spring from, are exactly what eden, and other conservatives, are concerned about. This fellow has twisted a legitimate, and respectful, questioning of Gile's tactics into a tacit support, or at least lack of concern, for child prostitution. Don't tread on me's statement is the conservative version of Jesse Jackson's cry of "racist" whenever he wants to verbally beat someone into submission rather than deal with the substance of their arguement.
I am increasingly disturbed by trends among my conservative brethren: extreme tone and extreme tactics.
Lots of folks will laugh and scoff at me for being concerned about these kinds of things. No matter: ultimately, imo, if we're forced to adopt an Ann Coulter like attitude to 'win' I wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease.
Regardless of your position, as a conservative, you should respect eden's point, and ask yourself if our tactics are appropriate from a traditional, conservative, and moral standpoint.
Frank, do you disapprove all ALL similar tactics? Is it wrong for a man to pose as a regular diner and not disclose the fact that he is critiquing a restaurant and it's food and service? Will it be wrong under "health care reform" for people to audit facilities posing as patients?
Giles and O'Keefe were not using Alinsky tactics. They were "undercover shoppers" and exposed an unflinching willingness on the part of ACORN employees to aid and abet illegal human smuggling and child prostitution.
I don't know what you think is extreme about my statements. I saw nothing immoral about some good old investigative journalism done by Giles and O'Keefe.
While they may not have "principles and ethics" as we look at it, they do have an ideology that contains "rules and codes" for action which can be attacked in the same manner.
Frank, you state "Regardless of your position, as a conservative, you should respect eden's point, and ask yourself if our tactics are appropriate from a traditional, conservative, and moral standpoint."
I believe it was our Lord himself who said "I am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (MT 10:17)
Too many Christians have taken the cop out route to theology by only looking at the "Love" aspect and totally ignore the other aspects like truth, righteousness, etc.
I'm with ya. I spent 22+ years defending our freedoms, I won't like slime dirtbag take them away!!!
We both swore that oath that has no expiration date. What these parasites don't realise is that the Constitution gives us sanction to eradicate them.
[...] post entitled “Can Alinsky’s Tactics Work on the Right? Should They?” by Christian Hartsock in Big Journalism, along with local battles between ultra- [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.