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.
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.