Why does Newt Gingrich call President Obama a “Saul Alinsky radical” when the number of Republican voters who get the reference can be counted on the fingers of one hand?
Clarence Page gives his explanation here, but I don’t think he got it right.
Most Republican voters don’t know who Alinsky is because they don’t travel in activist circles. Most Republicans voters are not in the habit of organizing protests, and have not studied the subject. Most Republicans have no idea what Gingrich is talking about.
Most.
There is one group who knows exactly what Gingrich is saying: the white-sheet faction, a.k.a the KKK.
Years ago, Howard Stern would have clansman Danial Carver on his radio show. Stern would always ask Carver which were the worst minority groups. Stern was surprised to learn that Carver ranked Jewish people ahead of blacks as the worst.
Why was that? According to Carver, it was Jewish lawyers and activists that made the civil rights movement of the 1960s a success. Without Jewish activists like Saul Alinsky, the blacks would have never got loose.
So, when Gingrich mentions Alinsky, he is appealing to the hardcore-racist vote.
Which is ironic when you consider that the pro-Gingrich super PAC “Winning Our Future” gets millions in campaign contributions from Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
Note to Adelson: What’s up with that? Do you really want Gingrich’s racism to be part of your legacy?
Only a few days ago, Rick Perry was trying to explain to South Carolina voters that the USA has not lost jobs to China because of cheap labor. Now Perry has followed in the footsteps of John “Ambassador from China” Huntsman, and withdrawn from the race.
Maybe voters don’t like having their intelligence insulted.
Imagine that.
Mitt Romney has been talking tough on China and immigration and if that is the winning formula, then President Obama needs to “pivot”.
Exporting millions of jobs, importing millions of immigrants, and piling up millions of Americans on food stamps is not a sustainable system. It will crash and burn.
Maybe this is the year; maybe it isn’t. But if it is, and Obama continues on being the point-man for the globalist plutocracy, then he just might lose.
Of course, all is not lost for Obama. He is the president after all. So while Mitt Romney can say things, Obama can do things. Instead of bowing to China, the president can get in their face on numerous legitimate issues such as the yuan-dollar currency peg. And instead of continuing to preside over the highest tidal wave of immigration in American history, he could call for a moratorium until we are able to reduce the food-stamp rolls to non-Apocalyptic levels.
Even John Huntsman started talking about the need for “tough negotiations” with China before he was shown the door.
The former ambassador to China, John Huntsman, who acted more like he was the ambassador from China was kicked out of the Republican presidential primary race today. Voters didn’t buy his “everything is cool with China” line of BS.
Good for them.
But that won’t stop Rick Perry and Rick Santorum from following in Huntsman’s footsteps. Both of those fools are saying that jobs haven’t moved to China because of cheap labor, but rather because of the heavy-handed regulations imposed by Democrats that have chased manufacturing out of the country.
Will that line of BS work any better than Huntsman’s BS? No, it won’t, and both Perry and Santorum know it. You see, that message is not aimed at voters. It is aimed at corporate donors. Translation: “Look at me! I’m protecting your massive sweatshop profits. I’m your boy. Send me money!”
When Americans spend their unemployment checks and food-stamp credits at Walmart, where everything on the shelves is stamped “Made in China”, they know what the problem is. And any politician that tries to convince them otherwise just looks like a damn fool.
Mitt Romney has the hardest line on China, and he is winning. Is that a coincidence? I don’t know, but if it were the decisive issue, the main-stream media would not inform you of the fact. The MSM works to cover up the true nature of globalization on behalf of the plutocracy.
President Obama has done nothing about China. As a matter of fact, he rubber-stamped even more Republican free-trade treaties. So, if offshoring jobs turns out to be a pivotal issue in November, Obama may be vulnerable. What could his defense possibly be? He had four years. He did nothing. He could attack Romney for offshoring jobs at Bain Capital, but that’s small potatoes compared to what has occurred on the national level – Obama’s beat.
Of course, Obama is already taking action with his “in-sourcing” initiative. But will it be too little, too late? After all, in November, everything at Walmart will still say “Made in China”.
In the video below, you can see Larry Kudlow go berserk on columnist Tim Carney:
Is Kudlow really a “Man of the People” as he so vociferously proclaims? Not hardly. Sure, Kudlow wrote a column supporting the Keystone Pipeline project because it will create blue-collar jobs, but that was obviously a polemic aimed at President Obama.
The fact is that you can see Kudlow shouting “UNIONS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA” almost every day on CNBC. Never mind that union membership (9%) in the private sector is lower than it has been in 80 years, Kudlow won’t rest until it is 0%.
But that’s not all. Kudlow supports the two pincers that are wrecking blue-collar America: mass immigration, and free-trade with low-wage nations which has sucked thousands of factories out of the USA. Kudlow also defends the yuan-dollar currency peg that Beijing has imposed on the USA, which turbo-charges H. Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound.”
Those three policies are the very pistons in the Engine of Plutocracy that transfers trillions of dollars from middle-class workers to plutocrats, and have caused poverty to explode across the USA.
This dust-up with Tim Carney began when Kudlow went after Rick Santorum’s proposal to make manufacturing tax-exempt. And Carney certainly has a point about Kudlow opposing tax breaks that benefit the “small people”. However, it’s really a non-issue. When it comes time to do the calculations about how much money will be saved when moving a plant from Iowa to Mexico, taxes are just a rounding error. A 0% tax-rate is nothing when you replace $23 per-hour American workers with $2 per-hour Mexicans.
But when Kudlow was shouting at Santorum on this issue, Santorum came back and said that supporting manufacturing was important for national defense. And Kudlow scoffed. I spent about a half-hour fighting with CNBC.com’s horrible search function, but couldn’t find the video. But make no mistake, Kudlow scoffed at the idea that manufacturing is important for making war. This is ironic when you consider that Kudlow is a raving warmonger, currently campaigning to spend the proceeds of the Iraqi peace dividend on a new war with Iran.
A lot of the blue-collar types that Kudlow claims to champion were killed and maimed in Iraq because we didn’t have the manufacturing capacity to make the special super-strong steel needed to harden Humvees against IEDs. And in the conquest of Libya, our French and British allies couldn’t maintain the tempo because they also lacked manufacturing capacity.
Is it really a good idea to turn over all heavy industry to China and Mexico? Kudlow doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.
Kudlow also claims to be a Reagan Republican, but contrary to his image, Reagan didn’t actually invade any countries (not counting Grenada). And while Reagan entered the White House as a free-trader, that ideology went right out the window when he saw Japanese auto imports wiping out American jobs on a mass scale. (That’s what Pat Buchanan sez, and he was there, as was Kudlow.)
Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, which put sanctions on employers for hiring illegals. And the 1985 Plaza Accord slapped down the Japanese’s cheap currency, just as we should be doing with the Chinese today, over Kudlow’s protestations.
Kudlow holds anti-Reagan positions on these four top issues: free trade, mass immigration, yuan-dollar policy, and starting wars.
Come on Kudlow! Enough of the BS! It’s time for you to come out of the closet as the raging plutocrat that you really are!
Will somebody please tell me where all the capitalists have gone? But don’t be so quick to answer. You probably want to say something like: “Just turn on CNBC and you can see Larry Kudlow shouting about capitalism every day.” But I believe that Kudlow and his ilk are something entirely different.
Consider this quote from Harvard historian Niall Ferguson’s book “Civilization: The West and the Rest” (Kindle Location 4269):
“Capitalists understood what Marx missed: that workers were also consumers. It therefore made no sense to try to grind their wages down to subsistence levels. On the contrary, as the case of the United States was making increasingly clear, there was no bigger potential market for most capitalist enterprises than their own employees.”
In 1914, Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers. That’s the kind of capitalism that defeated Marxism.
But today? All I see are “capitalists” doing the exact opposite: replacing $23 per hour American workers with $2 per hour Asian or Mexican workers by offshoring factories and offices, and importing millions of immigrants.
I submit to you that those are not capitalists at all. People like Larry Kudlow are really globalists and plutocrats. And we are witnessing the historical transformation of the USA from a capitalist nation into a South American-style plutocracy.
Perhaps you think that I am exaggerating? Well, consider this quote from geopolitical expert George Friedman’s book “The Next 100 Years” (page 120):
“In the 1920s, the world was in the midst of an accelerating population explosion. … The United States, facing an onslaught of potential immigrants, decided to limit their entry in order to keep the price of labor – wages – from plunging.”
Back then, both our business leaders and political leaders made sure that workers were well-paid. The result was the rise of the mighty American middle class. And those middle-class workers did indeed spend their wages, creating in the process a vast consumer market that became the economic engine of the world.
And today, not only do our business leaders seek to “grind down wages”, but our political leaders make it easy via record immigration and free-trade treaties with low-wage nations.
Whether or not the USA has a middle class at all is a political decision. And currently the decision is: no. It has been decided that the middle class will be feed through a wood-chipper that spits out vast profits for multinational corporations via global labor arbitrage and mass immigration.
