Mirror, Mirror

I may be wrong on this one. Dead wrong.

I just can’t help but notice, however, something rather humorous. At least it strikes me as such.

As this article unfolds, it may strike some readers that I’m pretty late to the Alinsky angle. Truth be told, I’m actually not. I dedicated a fair amount of space to President Obama’s virtual mentor in my book. I only hope that by now that there are more people around the country who are not only aware of the degree to which this man influenced our president’s youthful development but also the degree to which his fanatical ideas radicalized a significant number of young Americans into continually trying to erode the foundation of our culture.

As I stated in my previous piece here at AR, this is not about being pro-government; this is about changing the culture of America. Period, end of story.

My purpose in this piece, however, is not about our culture. As I stated above, this is, to a certain extent, anyway, about Saul Alinsky. Well, not about him, per se; this is about one of his core tenets in pursuing radical change and the manner in which it applies to the latest movement of the political left as currently embodied in the Obama administration, one that, as I said above, I find mildly humorous, simply because those who blindly support all things progressive seemingly can’t see the obvious truths that are being perpetuated upon them and that are screaming at them directly in their faces.

Of the many damaging tactics that Alinsky taught to his alleged students, one was that the true radical was charged with the task of ‘accusing his adversary of the very thing of which he himself was guilty’. Pretty neat trick, actually, especially during a time period (such as ours) when there are so many people challenging the very threshold and nether regions of complete and utter mental deficiency.

So, let’s try to put this particular Alinsky tactic into the context of today’s polarized political atmosphere, a climate in which the rich are just “really, really evil” (not that any person on the Left would ever stereotype, profile, or paint an entire group of people with a decidedly broad brush. No way. Perish the thought.) and are finally going to get a little payback from the proletariat. One thing we have to do, though, is to dismiss the fact that many of the ‘evil rich people’ actually became wealthy via the sweat of their own brow and not as the result of corruptive influences and connections. Nothing to see over on this side.

Let’s consider this point. Why is it that those on the Left despise the general concept of rich people? I’ll tell you why – because for the better part of the 20th century, the power brokers on the political left clearly saw that one of the most important and expedient paths to political power was to rub raw the human sense of resentment in the minds of those who were not as successful as others.

If it is, then, a general ‘truth’ that the one of the primary reasons that the rich are vilified in this country is that they’re resented by the masses, I’ve got some really good questions:

Why isn’t President Obama resented?

Why isn’t the group of tax cheats that President Obama brought on board resented?
I mean, really, c’mon….there’s a bunch of people that are literally guilty of the very behavior that liberals are supposed to hate.

For some reason, though, they seem to skate…..no harm, no foul. I suppose that I could make the argument that those who view themselves as ‘victims’ and/or ‘disenfranchised’ in some form or fashion are living their lives vicariously through those whom they view as the ‘good guys’, but that would certainly be the substance of a separate article altogether.

As I said above, remember….’accuse your opponent of the very thing of which you yourself are guilty’. Important to bear in mind.

Now we’re told that Goldman-Sachs, one of the biggest banks on Wall Street (the very address of Satan himself), is about to be called on the carpet for the direct role it played in the near-total meltdown of the banking industry.

Can this be made up? Are there actually a lot of people around the country who are falling for what is tantamount to a show trial?

Correct me if I’m wrong – please do so, because I would really like to be wrong on this – but wasn’t Goldman-Sachs was of the biggest and most important donors to President Obama’s run for the White House? I’d like someone to explain to me, then, why the president has now decided to call them to account for their poor behavior just as – merely coincidentally, of course – the wonderful benefits of financial regulatory reform are about to be opened to debate in our houses of Congress.

My sense of the obvious has never been more pronounced than when I’m in the process of having the proverbial anvil dropped on my head. For some reason, I always notice when it happens.

Apparently, Goldman-Sachs is being investigated by the Security and Exchange Commission on the basis of civil fraud. I find it quite interesting the degree of fervor that is being poured into the ongoing developments by the likes of MSNBC, ABC News, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press,as evidenced, for example, in this passage from Saturday’s news, which appeared in the various news releases of all four outlets:

One of those bets is at the heart of civil fraud charges the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman this month. The SEC says Goldman let hedge fund Paulson & Co. help select investments for a portfolio that was designed to lose value, then marketed the deal to investors who were betting the portfolio’s value would rise.

I suppose that there will be those liberals who point to President Obama’s decision to show a firm hand in this regard as yet another in a long list of examples that show him to be such an altruistic, enlightened, and objective intellectual who is in no way averse to making the hard decisions that have to be made, even when they conflict with his own political future.

Just as he jumped right into that decision to support General McChrystal’s request for more troops, I guess. President Obama would never have let the political desires of his voting base ever interfere with the altruistic degree of his intellect, especially when so many of our own young men are putting their lives on the line so that nut-jobs such as me can feel free to pen such a poorly-informed, ignorant article. After all, liberals are always the first in line to make hard decisions.

He’d never do that. No way. He’s too good a person.

My opinion? Goldman-Sachs is merely playing the role that President Obama would have them play. The ol’ wink-wink, nod-nod, you-make-me-look-good, I’ll-take-care-of-you, you-take-care-of-me-later bit.

It’s a classic.

Financial regulation? Really? Would people be truly interested in being more accurately made aware of the only thing that’s being ‘regulated’ here?

The common financial interests of the wealthy and the political class. That’s it. A group in which President Obama himself is firmly, firmly entrenched. Am I to believe that there’s really a significant number of people who believe that President Obama is merely looking after the interests of the ‘folks’? If so, I’ve got some choice real estate just west of the California coast that I’ll unload cheap.

I only want to spread the wealth with my brothers, after all.

For example, let’s take a look at the bailouts. On this point, there’s one thing I know for certain – there’s probably not a single common-sense conservative who’s a regular reader of America’s Right that ever believed that those ridiculous bills were ever intended to be in any way remotely stimulative. Know what they were intended to do? Prop up the financial and political interests of the wealthy, not put the common, everyday American back to work.

And before any liberal attacks me on that one, know this – I was vehemently against George W. Bush’s Wall Street welfare program as well, from the get-go.

As the debates regarding ‘financial regulatory reform’ are now beginning to heat up, we’re hearing that one of the Republicans’ primary objections to this plan is that it runs the real danger of resulting in even more bank bailouts, in addition to giving the Executive branch unprecedented powers to assume control over any business it chooses. Indeed, the Republicans seemed to have stated as such in a document from The Republican Cloakroom, in which their “Statement of Republican Policy” of December 9, 2009, reacts to H.R. 4173, “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009:

H.R. 4173 combines seven separate bills considered by the Committee on Financial Services in recent months with legislation on corporate compensation that passed the House in July (H.R. 3269).  The result is an almost 1,300-page bill that is every bit as far-reaching in its consequences for the American economy as the Democrats’ radical plan for fixing the nation’s health care system.  H.R. 4173 makes bailouts permanent, assumes government bureaucrats can better manage our economy than individuals and markets, and it will destroy jobs.

Geez, if I didn’t know any better – and, well, I am a conservative, so I realize that in the bigger picture I’m really not all that enlightened – I’d say that the power brokers in the federal government are only ‘regulating’ the manner in which the economy operates so that their own interests are protected.

So – let’s demonize those big, bad Wall Street guys, right? We’re not involved with them. After all, we just hate profits. The American people need to know that we’re working in their best interest.

Please.

Since one of the standards against which this administration is judged is the work of the FDR administration in its attempt to ‘avert a crisis’, let’s take a look at one of the more inexplicable decisions of that particular group of people. During a time when his own people were literally starving, FDR paid hundreds of farmers in the Midwest to plow under their own crops.

In what universe does that make mathematical sense?

I’ll tell you what universe – the universe in which it’s more politically expedient to artificially inflate the price of commodities, thereby protecting the financial interests of those in your own class as well as your own immediate political connections. In short, it’s called shoring up power.

Honestly, it wouldn’t be merely funny – it would be side-splittingly funny if it weren’t so ruthless and tragic.

Should anyone still be harboring any doubts about the real intentions and goals of this administration and its political tactics, check this passage from a recent piece written by Andrew Briebart about his experiences at the Searchlight, Nevada Tea Party:

The Searchlight Nevada Tea Party is the Rosetta Stone of the Democratic Party strategy. Tea Party protesters were not going to Sen. Harry Reid’s office building to threaten individuals, Democratic-style: “No Justice, No Peace!” They went to the middle of nowhere, a place akin to the moon landing site, to talk up the constitution, the founding documents and to express their dismay with the current political class. The real astroturf, the bought-and-paid-for, union-thug support network that does the heavy lifting and the bone breaking, traveled to Searchlight to incite a fight. Video captured by my film crew caught Harry-Reid-placard-holding, t-shirt-wearing appartchiks, not just misdirecting traffic down the wrong highway but also, when confronted over that hostile act, throwing a dozen eggs at the passing Tea Party Express bus.

The usual suspects of Democratic Party apologists, like John Podesta’s Media Matters, were quick to diminish the events. Eric Boehlert dubbed my report “the Phantom Egg,” calling into question my veracity. But on tape a day later we were able to prove that the Harry Reid supporters were not just the ones who’d misdirected traffic, they were also the ones who threw the eggs, just as they were also the ones who called the police to report that I was the egg thrower and the instigator. Classic Alinsky. Accuse those of the acts that you are doing. It usually works. But in this day and age of new media and hyper-media, the tape, or lack thereof, usually tells the tale.

Straight out of Saul’s playbook. Classic.

Financial ‘regulation’? Sounds like a plan.

Hilarious.

Share

Comments

  1. ms.helga says:

    I postet this on CW yesteday -

    HOLY SMOKES – Did I hear what I just heard on the Chris Matthews Show of NBC ? Yes I did.

    David Ignatius from the Washington Post said tomorrow Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA will gather the troops together and tell them of his NEW FIVE YEAR PLAN!!!.

    FIVE YEAR PLAN – FIVE YEAR PLAN -FIVE YEAR PLAN.

    WHO USED FIVE YEAR PLANS ???

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan

    “Panetta plans to pitch employees Monday about his five-year plan for the agency: ”

    Here is the article -

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042303346.html

  2. John Feeny says:

    That’s some frightening stuff there, helga. Thanks for the links. I just hope the alleged ‘liberals’ are paying attention.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “Financial ‘regulation’? Sounds like a plan. Hilarious.”

    Yeh, let’s just all use Timmy Geithner’s program, Turbo-Lax.

  4. Lilly says:

    John-
    Great post! “Goldman-Sachs is merely playing the role that President Obama would have them play. The ol’ wink-wink, nod-nod, you-make-me-look-good, I’ll-take-care-of-you, you-take-care-of-me-later bit.” That was basically my thoughts all weekend While other pols that took money from Goldman-Sachs returned it, BO is refusing to do so…
    Then on the stimuls mess, this came out today too…
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

  5. Lilly says:

    Helga-
    I wouldn’t be reading too much into that. We have been asking our boys since they were teens, where are you going to be in 5 yrs? What’s your goal or plans to get there? 5 yrs is a common goal setting time frame. And we’re not Stalin fans, just wanting them to think things through and be focused.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Obama looks like Adam Lambert on that poster.

  7. Gail B. says:

    Whatever happened to the sea of voices that cried, “No more bailouts!”?

    Why don’t we just quit stalling and just wrap the crime scene tape around the Capitol Building, the White House, and Wall Street?

  8. John Buyon says:

    I’m sorry I didn’t really understand your essay maybe it’s because I am not familiar with right wing terminology but can you tell me
    who Alinsky is?
    and what that has to to with Goldman Sachs ?
    and what it has to do with financial regulations and Obama?

  9. John Feeny says:

    John –
    I really, honestly don’t want to come across as crude or arrogant…..please understand, I don’t. But all that I can say is this…if you claim to be a supporter of Barack Obama, and you don’t know who Saul Alinsky is, then you’ve quite a bit of work to do. Only then will you truly understand the person currently occupying the Oval Office.

  10. Randy Wills says:

    I second that, John (Feeny). It’s truly amusing to watch Obama and his coterie’s methods after becoming acquainted with Saul Alinsky’s writings, including “Rules for Radicals”. In view of the fact that Alinsky was also one of Hillary Clinton’s heros, surely Mr. Buyon must be joking when he suggests ignorance of that organizer of organizers.

    Randy

  11. Gail B. says:

    John Feeny, don’t let John Buyon’s comments bother you. Saul Alinsky’s Rule No. 5 says, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    I’m not bothered by “sticks and stones…but words will never harm me,” but I am bothered by a regime that is borrowing from our kids and grandchildren for political payback. And, I am bothered by the use of taxpayer dollars for bailouts when the American people didn’t want them made in the first place.

    Talk about ridicule?! It would certainly be nice to get some people in office who understands basic economics: Don’t spend money that is not there!

    A retired Navy guy wrote to a newspaper (either Wyoming or Colorado) objecting to having government spending compared to that of a drunken sailor’s spending. “When I ran out of money,” the retired officer said, “I quit.”

    I don’t understand why Obama doesn’t just go to where socialism and Marxism is already established, if he doesn’t like capitalism! Why does he have to wreck the lives of over 300 million people?

  12. nana says:

    John Feeny, I think John Bunyon is jerking your chain…he couldn’t possibly be that stupid. If he REALLY didn’t know, he would have done some research so as not to appear ignorant. Keep writing your great articles and don’t waste your time conversing with him. Maybe one of the ‘rules for radicals’ is to ACT STUPID because a lot of them are following that principle.

  13. Anonymous says:

    John Buyon is a plant. (one which the White House staff overlooked and didn’t smoke). I for one say ignore him.

  14. Porky says:

    There was a chemistry professor in a large college
    that had some exchange students in the class. One day
    while the class was in the lab, the Prof noticed one
    young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his
    back and stretching as if his back hurt.

    The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
    The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his
    back. He had been shot while fighting communists in
    his native country who were trying to overthrow his
    country’s government and install a new communist
    regime.

    In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor
    and asked a strange question. He asked:

    “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

    The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the
    punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

    “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in
    the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
    find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free
    corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put
    a fence down one side of the place where they are used
    to coming.

    When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the
    corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
    They get used to that and start to eat again. You
    continue until you have all four sides of the fence up
    with a gate in the last side.

    The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to
    come through the gate to eat that free corn again.

    You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole
    herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
    They run around and around inside the fence, but they
    are caught.

    Soon they go back to eating the free corn . They are
    so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage
    in the woods for themselves, so they accept their
    captivity.”

    The young man then told the professor that is exactly
    what he sees happening in America . The government
    keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps
    spreading the free corn out in the form of programs
    such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned
    income, tax cuts, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies,
    dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP),
    welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually
    lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

    One should always remember two truths:

    1) There is no such thing as a free lunch

    2) and you can never hire someone to provide a service
    for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

  15. John Buyon says:

    Ok so I read about Alinsky yesterday
    the transcripts of his playboy interview
    and if what I read is the truth he is totally bad-ass, hilarious, intelligent and a very good guy
    http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=1075

    what is so bad about him?
    why you guys scared of him ?
    what evil thing has he done?

    I know the interview he did with playboy is obviously one side of the story since it is him explaining his life to the magazine, but still whats wrong with the man?

    P.S. could those who keep saying Obama is a Marxist and socialist (Gail) just shut the fk up and explain to me what socialism and Marxism even is instead of throwing around empty words they are too stupid to understand.

    Sen. OBAMA:
    “Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market. I think it is the best invention to allocate resources and produce enormous prosperity for America or the world that’s ever been designed.”

    http://thepage.time.com/obama-interview-on-cnbc/

  16. Gail B. says:

    John Buyon–

    If you want a cursing contest, you might like to know my brother was in the Navy and can get a foul temper. That’s what I grew up with, okay? When I learned why anger erupts, my own anger disappeared.

    Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” All ridicule tells me is that I have pushed your button, and I did it with the truth. You don’t scare me, make me feel stupid, or change my opinions. For that matter, you haven’t influenced anyone else, either.

    Now, you sound as though you are a socialist, and we just aren’t interested in forfeiting our freedom for the sake of elitists power over our lives. Got it?

  17. John Feeny says:

    John -
    We’ve all obviously gotten under your skin here at AR; you’re free to throw temper tantrums and such, but you’re not going to change anything. The voting booth will take care of that.

    Cheers.

  18. Oink says:

    Throw the Canadian some more corn.

  19. Gail B. says:

    John Buyon –

    You quoted Obama: Sen. OBAMA:
    “Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market. I think it is the best invention to allocate resources and produce enormous prosperity for America or the world that’s ever been designed.”

    Just remember SC’s Joe Wilson when he said, “You lie!” and Justice Alito when he said, “Not true.”

    Now, it’s one thing to hear I-Obama being called a liar by almost everyone, but when a Supreme Court Justice declares what I-Obama says is not true, well, I’m convinced that I-Obama cannot ever be trusted to speak the truth. We’ve heard him flip-flop on virtually everything, and he’s lied about everything else!

  20. Randy Wills says:

    Using a Playboy interview as a reference? That’s hilarious, but it certainly fits the profile that “John Buyon” has created for himself. He’s even picked up some new words to convey his profound exhortations on the glories of the Left.

    Randy

  21. Hugh says:

    Real men just look at the pictures. LOL

  22. Gail B. says:

    Yeah, funny how John Buyon appeared just about the time Jeffrey Shallit disappeared, huh?

    Same attitude, same sarcasm, same writing style, same old crap.

  23. Boston Blackie says:

    A must read from Mark Calabria at the Cato Institute. He previously worked for HUD running the Real Estate Settlement Act office. He will open your eyes to the MANY exemptions in the finance bill in the Senate.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11719

    You can also find the article in the NY Post yesterday as well as the Boston Herald today. Just more proof that these hearing with Goldman Sachs are all smoke and mirrors.
    I’m sure you won’t hear much discussion about their alliance with the Chicago Climate Exchange and president obeyme. In 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which is estimated to be worth 10 TRILLION dollars a year. Also owning a piece of the Exchange is Fannie Mae as well as Al “the planet has a fever” Gore.
    Hey, I would take a beating before Congress too knowing how much I’ll be making for trading AIR in the future. I won’t even get into how many times the CEO visited the WH or the campaign money that obeyme refuses to return. Keep movin’, nothing here to see.

    John Buyon – Didn’t your mother teach you that if you don’t have anything nice to say to someone then say nothing. I’m sure she would be very proud of your trash talking. As for us here at AR, we just laugh at the fool you make yourseld out to be. BTW, sounds like you were late for your meds last night.

  24. If looks could kill says:

    Is it just me, or do all progressives, Alinsky, Cloward, Piven, Hillary, Anita Dunn, Bill Ayers, et al…seem to always be very unattractive people? They all have that sour-puss, I am unhappy look about them.

  25. Dee says:

    John Feeny, I love your articles. They always stir up the hornet’s nest and get someone’s blood boiling. Keep it up.

  26. Ey says:

    And both Canadian, Gail.

  27. Gail B. says:

    Ey–

    If you are Canadian, why do you work so hard to do nothing at this site?

  28. John Buyon says:

    lol I love how no one answered my question :) what is wrong with Saul Alinsky?
    silly right wingers thought is for adults
    I don’t know who Jeffrey Shallit is for one and what is wrong with being a Canadian ?
    how many times do I have to say this I am a Canadian-American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_American
    may I remind you the only country that launched a successful invasion of USA was Canada? or that after 9/11 when all flights were canceled Canada took all of US bound flights Canadians fed them clothed them and sheltered them until the ban was lifted. not that that is relevant but something for you goons to keep in the back of your mind.

    @Randy Willis
    did you read any of that interview?
    here it is again if you’re too stupid to find the link first time
    http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=1075
    “Using a Playboy interview as a reference? That’s hilarious”
    idiot the interviewer doesn’t ask Saul about sex he asks him about his life

    @ Boston Blackie “Didn’t your mother teach you that if you don’t have anything nice to say to someone then say nothing”
    didn’t your mother tell you to answer a question when you are being asked one?
    I will ask again
    what is wrong with Saul alinsky?
    what evil thing has he done?

    P.S. Not that it is relevant but someone said progressives are ugly…
    is Obama ugly?
    are Beck and Rush heart throbs?
    are the majority of movie stars ugly?
    and to the miscellaneous other goofs commenting if you guys want me gone and return AR into an echo chamber you are free to lobby Jeff Schreiber to ban me
    go ahead I would relish the fact that right wingers are scared of an opposing view…

  29. John Bye-Yawn says:

    We’re not ‘scared’ (afraid) of you, we’re sick of you. You need an intervention.
    And oh yes, Obama…, I forgot he is so dreamy handsome to you. (Not sure about his tarry lungs, however).

    I thought Americans with a secondary citizenship to Canada would actually be American-Canadians.

    I think that movie star, Jon Voigt, the father of Angelina Jolie, is quite pleasant.

  30. Randy Wills says:

    Enough, Mr. “Buyon”, with your childish taunts of “idiot”, “if you had a brain”, and “if you’re too stupid”. Most of the folks who converse on Jeff’s blog demonstrate a modicum of courtesy and intellectual maturity, even when they disagree, but that seems to be beyond your grasp.

    Actually, I think that you are just a “baiter” and have no particular purpose other than to see how long you can engage reasonable people in unreasonable conversation. It must feed your ego somehow.

    And no, I didn’t bother to read the Playboy article. I usually refer to books or articles in grown-up magazines and publications. I have, however, read, with great care, Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and I found that sufficient to form an opinion.

    If you would like to know “what is wrong with Saul Alinsky?”, the best way for me to define that is to suggest that you look in the mirror. I believe that you resemble him, and more precisely, his methods, quite nicely.

    I’m moving on to better things, John. In fact I’m contemplating entitling my next article “President Alinsky”.

    Enjoy your exile in Canada, my friend. It’s a lovely country. I hope, however, that it was voluntary. You might want to come back to the U.S. if Obama succeeds in his promise to “fundamentally transform the United States”. If he does, it will be just your kind of place, I’m sure.

    Randy

  31. Jefferson v. Alinsky says:

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

    -Thomas Jefferson

  32. George WAS here says:

    A must see movie for those of us who love our country as it was founded and comprehend the sacrifices made to get us this far.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210628/

    You will watch it tearfully as you realize what we are pissing away to the likes of Alinsky, Cloward, Piven, Clinton, Obama, et al.

  33. John Buyon says:

    @ Randy:
    “I have, however, read, with great care, Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and I found that sufficient to form an opinion. ”

    well isn’t his book just a guide on how the weak and underclass can have a political voice? Or is it something more sinister?

    “I believe that you resemble him, and more precisely, his methods, quite nicely”
    I would like to wish I was him but I don’t have any where enough balls to do what he did nor do I have the quick wit and sheer intelligence he possessed to take on the establishment and win.

    to the guy who posted about the delaware crossing
    Just want to say that Washington’s army crossed the delaware to kill soldiers in their sleep in christmas…
    just saying, not passing judgment. Just trying to make you question things you hold sacred :)

  34. Anonymous says:

    There you have it people, A Canadian viewpoint on warfare. 10:22
    Buyon doesn’t deserve independence. Give it back, you canuck.

  35. Seriously? says:

    Before you judge what I have to say, understand that I don’t back any particular party. This essay was not very interesting, and further, it lacks any real point. It seems to be less fact and more opinion.

    Also, the comments posted here are so one sided it is laughable. When I read John B’s remark about explaining socialist and marxist policies that have actually been put into play by our current government, I found it hilarious that no obviously right wing commentators had a response. I mean c’mon, isn’t this forum your playground? have some fun with it, instead of just saying “yeah, my navy brother can swear too”.

    This website is an opinion laced joke.

  36. Yep, serious says:

    I don’t back any particular party either, feel free to check my registration.

  37. Randy Wills says:

    To “Seriously”:

    Yeah, and I’m still waiting for one of the leftist commenters to list the names – any name – of Obmama’s close associates, mentors, or friends of influence (feel free to use his own references) prior to his campaign for the presidency who, if not a self-identified Markist, could resonably be called a person committed to traditional American values.

    And feel free to look up “Marxism” and “Socialisim” on Wikipedia if you have questions about those social and economic philosophies. I would agree with you, however, that those terms are thrown about loosely, just as your pal and fellow traveler, “John Buyon”, throws out terms such as “idiot” and “Christian facist” (in his estimable opinion, that would be me), but they are used by the “right” primarily because of the commonality of anti-capitalism, anti-individualism , and the central role of government inherent in both. I don’t think you need for me to make a list of Obama’s policies that would fit this description, would you? You know, sort of like his healthcare reform bill?

    The fundamental conflict between the “left” and the “right” is not in objectives as much as it is in methods. Perhaps it would be an over-simplification, but I would posit that the “right” seeks to achieve it’s goals through individual responsibility for his or her actions through the application of Judeo/Christian principles, whereas the “left” seeks to replace God and the individual’s responsibility to Him with the government with all aspects of life controlled by an elite and enlightened cadre.

    How well either side has lived up to its professed beliefs and “delivered the goods”, so to speak, is a fair debate. I for one believe that history clearly demonstrates the superiority of the “right”.

    Randy

  38. Randy Wills says:

    A P.S. to “John Buyon”:

    There’s a great letter to the editor in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding Saul Alinsky’s methods. If you chance to read that, you’ll see why I wasn’t paying you compliment by comparing your methods with his.

    Randy

  39. Randy Wills says:

    Holy mackerel. I think that the old guy is losing it. Look at the way I spelled Marxist. No wonder “John” calls me an idiot.

    When I see something like that, I have to think that maybe, just maybe, he’s right, but I didn’t use to be, I swear.

    Randy

  40. John Buyon says:

    @ Randy
    You say Obama was inspired by Marxist I say several things to that
    1. Obama went to University during the 80′s at a time when most if not all profs were Marxist, everyone is a Marxist in college, until they figure out that the real world isn’t compatible with Marxist teachings.
    2. Marxism is not child rape, it is an ideological lens used by many to view the world. Marxism does not accept nationalism, does not accept the top 1% having 90% of the $$$, does not accept that those who are poor are morally inferior, rejects racism, sexism, chauvinism, war ( unless a revolutionary class warfare one)
    Christianity itself is an ideological lens, one that accepts Jesus as lord, rejects “pharisees” etc…

    gosh could you open your so touted Bible and read what Jesus has to say about rich moneychangers, priests who pray in public wearing their faith on their sleeve, male oppression of women, war god damn it!!!!!

    I know your religious masters have told you the bible is a book that talks about low taxes, war for oil, guns for all, and anti-gay anti-abortion.

    3. the quote that is supposedly proving Obama’s Marxist ties does exactly the opposite:
    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets ”

    he says he picks these people as friends because he wants to avoid being seen as a sell out. He doesn’t really believe in Marxism or “structural feminism”

    4. Even if he is a socialist ( which once again is not equivalent to child rape, as conservatives would like to believe) would it really be that evil?

    Socialism: a socioeconomic belief that advocates government intervention in the market and in society to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth and power.

    for 30 years since the “Reagan revolution” Americans have been told that government is inherently evil, a thief, or something along those lines.
    ensuing privatization of essential services, and the enormous wealth produced by the market has all gone to the top 5% with the Bush tax cuts going to the top 1%, while middle class is squeezed, average incomes have stagnated and commodities, and home prices have skyrocketed, destroying the working class.

    America needs a mild dose of socialism to return it back into a meritocratic society which rewards hard work and labor instead of rewarding a last name.

    P.S. I cant find the article you are referencing would you like to post a link ? so I can see how “evil Alinsky is”

  41. Randy Wills says:

    To “John Buyon”:

    Your best post yet, John (and thanks for not calling me any names or pointing out that I don’t even know how to spell “Marxist”).

    Starting with the last of your post first, I don’t have a link to the letter to the editor in the WSJ because I was reading it in print (“The Weekend Edition”).

    My counter to your point that everyone in college was a Marxist (until they figure out that Marxism doesn’t work in the real world) is quite insightful, but I don’t think that that explains Obama’s post-college-days associations. I’m still trying to prove myself wrong (who wants to really believe that the president holds values inimical to the basic tenets of our Constitution?) but I still can’t identify any pre-campaign (and maybe post-campaign, as well)person of significant influence within his close circle of friends and associates who exhibits a belief in the traditional values that I do. That does not mean that I hold the keys to all truth and wisdom, but it’s only natural that it disturbs me deeply.

    Lastly, and most importantly, please re-read the second-to-the-last paragraph of my post of 5/1 @ 7:51. I am saying what I believe, not what has necessarily been followed, and certainly not achieved, by either the “left” or the “right”. I believe that your objectives, relative to your fellow man, are not that much different than mine. I just believe that all things are individual and can only be changed by changing the individual. Government can never accomplish through controls, regulations, and laws, what God offered though redeemed human nature at the individual level.

    And, BTW, when you refer to my “masters”, you’re way off the mark. I only have one Master, Jesus Christ. I thought that was important to point that out.

    Randy

  42. Anonymous says:

    If ever there was a question, theologically, of ‘can a prayer ever be a waste of time?’, it would be a prayer put forth for Mr Buyon.

Speak Your Mind

*