In his Jan. 1 WorldNetDaily column, Robert Ringer describes Saul Alinsky this way: "Like all crusade leaders, he clearly had a huge ego – an ego that made him comfortable in the role of arbiter of right and wrong." This is clearly not a criticism of the man, because Ringer exercises his own ego in declaring himself moral arbiter over Alinsky and Barack Obama.
Just two paragraphs after making that statement, Ringer pronounces his judgment in "psychoanalyzing Saul Alinsky," declaring him to be "a man in search of a cause ... in search of a following to carry on an ill-defined campaign against the power elite."
That's followed up by once again declaring Obama "soulless," adding: "In Obama, I see no laughter, no beauty, no love, and no creativity." What is his evidence for this claim? What empirical basis does he use to declare this? Who knows? He feels no need to share what, if any, standards he's using with his readers.
In other words, it seems that Ringer is on nothing more than an ego trip, using his column at an extremist website and his alleged status as, according to his end-of-column bio, "author of three No. 1 best-sellers, including two books listed by the New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time" as a shield around his vicious hatred of Obama.
Even the name of his column, "A Voice of Sanity," is increasingly delusional -- after all, isn't it the crazy ones who keep insisting that they're sane?