Santorum in '08: "Satan is attacking" America

Of course it is! God bless America is some BS thing that ye guys say to make yourselves feel blessed by god (which you aren't).

This guy is a first class loon. And if anything "evil" is attacking America, it's GREED!

 

You couldn't be more wrong.





Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis

Clinton White House asked Wellesley College to close off access


The senior thesis of Hillary D. Rodham, Wellesley College class of 1969, has been speculated about, spun, analyzed, debated, criticized and defended. But rarely has it been read, because for the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency it was locked away.

As forbidden fruit, the writings of a 21-year-old college senior, examining the tactics of radical community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, have gained mythic status among her critics — a “Rosetta Stone,” in the words of one, that would allow readers to decode the thinking of the former first lady and 2008 presidential candidate.

Despite the fervent interest in the thesis, few realize that it is no longer kept under lock and key. As MSNBC.com found, it is available to anyone who visits the archive room of the prestigious women’s college outside Boston. With Clinton’s opponents in the 2008 presidential race looking for the next “Swift Boat” attack ad, and the senator herself trying to cast off her liberal image, Clinton's 92-page thesis is certain to be read and reread by opposition researchers and reporters visiting the campus.
But can an academic paper from nearly 40 years ago really unlock the politics and character of any former student, much less the early Democratic front-runner for the White House?
This is your chance to decide before the political spin machines get their hands on it.

Before reading Hillary Rodham's assessment of the old radical from Chicago — Alinsky's “compelling personality,” “his exceptional charm,” and the limitations of his “anachronistic” tactics — it’s important to understand how the document was sealed and how it has been portrayed.

Just as conservative authors have speculated, it was the Clintons who asked Wellesley in 1993 to hide Hillary Rodham's senior thesis from the first generation of Clinton biographers, according to her thesis adviser and friend, professor Alan H. Schechter, who describes taking the call from the White House


A Methodist field trip
The teenage Rodham and the 60-year-old Alinsky met, of all places, on a Methodist church outing. Her youth minister, Don Jones, was introducing the youth of white, comfortable Park Ridge to social action. His "University of Life" took them to poor black and Hispanic churches, to hear Martin Luther King and to meet Alinsky.
When Rodham returned to Wellesley for her senior year and began scouting for a topic for her honors thesis, professor Schechter suggested she look up Alinsky again. She interviewed him in Chicago, in Boston and when he accepted her invitation to visit Wellesley.


Rodham opened the thesis by casting Alinsky as he cast himself, in a “peculiarly American” tradition of democrats, from Thomas Paine through Martin Luther King. “Democracy is still a radical idea,” she wrote, “in a world where we often confuse images with realities, words with actions.”
And yet, she continued, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’ His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structures of our lives in order to realize them.”
Although some Clinton biographers have been quick to label Alinsky a communist, he maintained that he never joined the Communist Party. “I've never joined any organization — not even the ones I've organized myself,” he said in a 1972 interview with Playboy magazine. He said he was happy to work with anyone — the Roman Catholic Church, black Protestants, the communists — whoever would invite him into a neighborhood.

Looking back at the 1930s, he said, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a god(*)(*)(*)(*) liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.”


‘A man of exceptional charm’

Rodham’s thesis describes trying to pin him down on his personal philosophy: “Alinsky, cringing at the use of labels, ruefully admitted that he might be called an existentialist,” she wrote. Rodham tried to ask him about his moral relativism — particular ends, he said, often do justify the means — but Alinsky would only concede that “idealism can parallel self-interest.”
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

In formal academic language, Rodham offered a “perspective” or muted critique on Alinsky's methods, sometimes leaving unclear whether she was quoting his critics or stating her own opinion. She cited scholars who claimed that Alinsky's small gains actually delayed attainment of bigger goals for the poor and minorities.
In criticizing the “few material gains” that Alinsky engineered — such as pressing Kodak Co. to hire blacks in Rochester, or delaying the University of Chicago's expansion into the Woodlawn neighborhood — Rodham placed part of the blame on demography, the diminishing role of neighborhoods in American life. Another part she laid charitably to an Alinsky character trait: “One of the primary problems of the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky dramatically alters its composition," she wrote. "Alinsky is a born organizer who is not easily duplicated, but, in addition to his skill, he is a man of exceptional charm."

‘The most radical of political faiths’
In the end, she judged that Alinsky's “power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” — overriding national issues such as racial tension and segregation. Alinsky had no success in forming an effective national movement, she said, referring dismissively to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”
Putting Alinsky's Rochester symphony threat into academic language, Rodham found that the conflict approach to power is limited. “Alinsky's conclusion that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board ‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote.
She noted, however, that he was trying to broaden his reach: In 1969, Alinsky was developing an institute in Chicago at his Industrial Areas Foundation, aimed at training organizers to galvanize a surprising target: the middle class. That was the job he offered to Hillary Rodham.

Though some student activists of the 1960s may have idolized Alinsky, he didn't particularly idolize them. At the time Hillary Rodham brought him to Wellesley in January 1969 to speak at a private dinner for a dozen students, he was expressing dissatisfaction with New Left protesters such as the Students for a Democratic Society. One of his criticisms, surprisingly, was their tactical mistake of rejecting middle-class values.

 

Satan laughing spreads his wings. Oh Lord, yeah!

 

Rodham closed her thesis by emphasizing that she reserved a place for Alinsky in the pantheon of social action — seated next to Martin Luther King, the poet-humanist Walt Whitman, and Eugene Debs, the labor leader now best remembered as the five-time Socialist Party candidate for president.

“In spite of his being featured in the Sunday New York Times," she wrote of Alinsky, "and living a comfortable, expenses-paid life, he considers himself a revolutionary. In a very important way he is. If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”

‘A fundamental disagreement’

Hillary Rodham (who wasn't the valedictorian of the Wellesley class of '69, no matter what Wikipedia has said since July 9, 2005) was indeed an honors student and received an A on the thesis after her oral defense of it that May, recalls professor Schechter, who was one of the three graders.
Later that month she became nationally known. Given the rare honor of offering a student speech at her Wellesley commencement, she startled the faculty and parents — and thrilled many of her classmates — with a rambling rebuke to the day's main speaker, the black Republican Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who had criticized “coercive protest.” Hillary Rodham, who spoke up for the “indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest,” got her picture in Life magazine.
Her options after graduation were attending law school at Harvard or Yale, traveling to India on a Fulbright scholarship, or taking the job with Alinsky's new training institute, which would have allowed her to live in Park Ridge with her parents, Hugh and Dorothy Rodham, and commute into Chicago.
“His offer of a place in the new institute was tempting,” she wrote in the end notes to the thesis, “but after spending a year trying to make sense out of his inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor.” She enrolled at Yale that fall, a year ahead of a charming Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas.
“I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas,” she explained in “Living History,” her 2003 biography, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't.”

A decade later, another political science major started out on the path that Hillary Rodham had rejected, going to work for a group in the Alinsky mold. That was Barack Obama, now a U.S. senator from Illinois and her leading opponent for the Democratic nomination. After attending Columbia University, he worked as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago for the Developing Communities Project. Obama and others of the post-Alinsky generation described their work in the 1990 book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” in which Obama wrote that he longed for ways to close the gap between community organizing and national politics. After three years of organizing, he turned to Harvard Law School and then the Illinois legislature.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1738837..._08/t/reading-hillary-rodhams-hidden-thesis/#

 

Where did I say that? He can keep his faith where it belongs; at home, in church and away from politics where it is utterly irrelevant.

 

when the Tea Bags have nothing they always go back to the "muslim" thing.

they are losing and it hurts them so much.

 

Sure, this is all true, but it's also why a lot of people often wonder about the sanity of orthodox Catholics.

 

Yeah right, It's ok to believe in the good fairies but not the evil ones? Is that about it?

 

Pretty sure America was being attacked by England 200 years ago, not satan...

 

Satan IS attacking America, and everywhere else too.

Satan is the belief that our neighbor isn't as good as we are.

 

Um... that's an interesting conclusion. So, are you saying that nationalism is Satan? In a metaphorical sense, I can sort of agree.

 

Well, that would be it if it is a person's thought that creates matter, and good thought creates matter to be harmonious in one's experience. - a situation which is more likely the true case than MOST theories of the universe.

But no, fairies don't exist at all.

Fortunately however, God does.

 

But of course you will whole heartedly endorse Obama, who SUPPOSEDLY believes that God watches over us? LMAO

It's ok to believe in the good spirits but not the evil ones?

 

I was couching the argument in ******* speak so she would understand it. I believe in God too.

 

Yes, though nationalism is a limited term. The belief that YOU Serfin' aren't as worthy as me or as anyone else (in any country), is Satan.

Satan is not a body, satan is a set of beliefs. There are many more beliefs than just "I'm more worthy than my neighbor", but that's a good one for the Political Forum.

And metaphorical is the keyword alright.

The entire universe is metaphorical in a very real sense. That's why physicists can't explain it. They're looking in the wrong place.

 

ridiculous.

 

Oh sorry.

Ha ha ha ******* speak. That is frickin' hilarious. ha ha ha ha I haven't laughed so hard all day.

Not 100% laughing at liberals as much as laughing at the term itself. Thanks.

 

I agree with you in principle, although I can't say I believe in any supernatural entities.

 

Ha ha ha. Are you trying to be Satan?

 

Of course you don't. And you shouldn't. But the REAL God is not supernatural. He is the most natural thing in the universe. (in fact, just for YOUR ears, God is the ONLY thing in the universe)

 

I'll try not to derail this too much, but I'm assuming you're referring to the collective consciousness concept of God.

 

And I'll bet you're a religious person.

Assuming you are, you better get the definition of Satan correct, because the only hell you'll ever see is the state of mind that caused you to say "ridiculous" to your brother about something he said.

Satan is not an afterlife being. Satan is a RIGHT NOW state of mind. Get rid of him. Stop hating. Don't entertain Satan. Don't entertain anger.

If you're not religious, I'm surprised you even care about my post.

 

Forgive me for being brief.

God is all. He is the only mind. Man is his idea, not matter.

The man who seems to have a body and mind of his own is a MISTAKEN assumption of the opposite of the real man above.

So no, there is no collective consciousness, because God is the ONLY consciousness.

As what seems to be the unreal human man loves, and strives to keep these truths in mind, he will to himself appear to become happier and better until the mistaken belief of himself is lost in the realization of man as idea, not body.

Yes, I know it's weird, but it's the only explanation that fits all evidence.

 

That's very Buddhist, actually. Nirvana makes more sense to me than most ideas connected to the afterlife.

 

If Catholics want to know where Satan really is, they ought to look at the Vatican