J.S.Mill - Comments On Liberty Today

FINALLY SOME RECOGNIZE THE RADICAL OBAMA

The good news is that there is really a great deal of awareness building about just how much of a radical Obama is. I talked about the influence of Rules for radical almost a year ago, and it is now increasingly in the language of the right when talking about Obama. Yes, they practice the Alimnsky rules every day. The most apparent is the use of the "marginalize" policy. 

The battles against Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce are simply symptoms of the larger problem which is, that Obama can not deal with any type of criticism of his policies. He not only has that Messianic complex, he has an-intellectual snob ego that makes him believe that if you do not see an issue through his lens, then he must destroy your lens.

Obama is dithering on the war decisions for the obvious reason that he does not want to risk alienating the far left if he were to commit a larger focus on Afghanistan. It is clear that he can not allow it to fall, but he certainly does not want to let the left know he will continue the good fight, in any way.

Watch out for his negotiations on Global Warming and Iran. This man is not a "triangulator" like Clinton; he is an aggressive world view President who will trade our country's identity and sovereignty down the hole for  place in history as the greatest advocate for one world, socialist government. 

This man must be stopped on Health Care. It would help a great deal if the two gubernatorial candidates candidate sin New Jersey and Virginia could actually be won by the Republican. If that were the case, the Obama buzz would abate a bit, altHough I do not expect him to learn like Clinton did.

Hypocrisy Reins in Amercan Politics

The debacle of hypocritical action by the Massachusetts legislature is beyond anything reasonable. First they did not believe in Governor authority, then they did. First they voted to strip a Governor of his authority; then they voted to give it back. The only problem is; this new found commitment to the constitutional respect comes only after the Democrats have a Governor who agrees with them. Otherwise, if there is another Republican Governor, they will strip it away again. Of course, it is only logical: Politicians must use their power to oppress the minority so that they can stay the majority. After all: The majority is always right, and the political power structure must be preserved. Just as Stalin did in TH USSR. Just as Castro does in Cuba: just as Chavez does in Venezuela...just as Hitler did  in Germany.

 

Liberty is being taken from us every day; and we are sitting back and allowing this to happen. The messianic leader in DC is there to be supported and preserved. Is he the American Hitler? Some will say that is a radical thought; but then that is what the followers said in Germany as Hitler was consolidating his power. The Mass debacle is just one more example of how "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Racists - Always Play the Race Card

Jimmy Carter was a terrible President, and he has been a failure as an Ex-President. He can build houses for the poor, and should continue to do that, because his words are nothing but pure asininity. His mouth and his purported high intellect just seem to be disconnected. His latest statements about the opposition to Obama being the result of whites who can not accept the fact that we have a Black President, are patently nonsense. 

I for one, have a life record of being a protagonist for equality of the races, and spent a major part of my youth, fighting, within the corporate system, to advance the cause of blacks in our society. I am infuriated that a white bigot from the south, who has the audacity to call me a racist, just because I disagree so strongly with Barack Obama. His skin color has nothing to do with my views of his Presidency...it is only his action and his core values that drive me to consider him a disaster for our country.

Yes, Jimmy Carter has spent most of his retirement years trying to prove that he is not a bigot about blacks, and has consistently proven that he is a bigot about political foes. His views are so clouded by his desire to redeem his failed Presidency, that he continues to try to show that the party that unseated him, is a failed party, with failed beliefs. The facts are clear: Ronald Reagan beat him; and then proceeded to get the country out of the Carter disaster.

That said, Carter is simply wrong. There is opposition to Obama, because Obama has proven that he is at his core a social radical, a political radical, and a left wing pacifist who will destroy what little military credibility George Bush left him. He is creating a socialist state, a big government establishment, a labor union dominated landscape, and a bankrupt economic policy that will create devastating debt and ultimately stagnation coupled with inflation. 

That is not racist, it is political and economic disagreement. I resent Carter, and all his flaming liberal friends for suggesting that we, the opposition, are racist. Reverend Wright is the racist; not I. Barack Obama sat and listened to that racist rhetoric for 20 years...I did not. While he was doing that: I was promoting blacks into leadership positions.

Conservatives Must Create A Marginalization Strategy

Alinsky, Community organization principles, are in full force, and Conservatives will not win, if they do not fight back with fire. The "Obama community" is working in full strength to marginalize any individual or group that disagrees with the "Obama community." There are obviously mi statements on both sides that are inevitable when emotions are high; but the issues that must be challenged are details that can be confused by obfuscation. Candidly, the marginalization is working. In part, because of the occasionally rude, boisterous and "over the top" behavior by those attending the town hall meetings. The tough part is that the potential for disruptive behavior is high, and the opposition can make that behavior seem to be conservatives, rather than be caught provoking. 

The natural tendency of rational conservatives is to argue the issue on the merits. A very good example is an OpEd piece today in the Wall Street Journal by John Makey, the CEO of Whole Foods. This piece is an excellent statement of a variety of actions that truly could be effective at changing the health care equation. These proposals, combined together, could truly form the basis of reform, rather than the radical proposals in the House and Senate Bills. Excellent thinking. The problem is; probably 50% of the readers of this Blog post would not have read that, and you are all probably very well informed. Good ideas like that, fall on deaf ears, when there are no ears to listen or eyes to read. 

There is no way to defeat the Obama community, unless we fight at their level, using their tactics. We must marginalize them. That means, make them look like fools, so that they lose credibility with the public at large. Today was a great example. Obama tried to claim that the AARP had supported the bills. The fact is; they have not overtly supported the specific bills; even though we know that they are so in the pocket of the liberals that they will cave in at the last minute. BUT, for now, Obama, LIED! Yes, he lied. And, it is essential that he be marginalized. He needs to be called on that in every conversation each of us has, in public and in private. OpEd pieces need to highlight the lies, and take away their credibility. Even though we know that the AARP will eventually find a way to "support Obama" right now they are not. He needs top be called on it, and just allowing his Press Secretary to say that he mi spoke is not acceptable. That tape need to be all over Utube, MySpace, Twitter and FaceBook. Every Blog needs to talk about it, and every other critical mi statement that any of these proponents make. 

Talk radio, Fox News are all airing these blunders, and that is about the extent of calling these people to task. Each of us must talk, not just to our friends, we must talk to those who disagree, and call them on these falsehoods and distortions. Another example if the "you will not lose your insurance claim." It is clear that the plan is to create a single payor plan. There is evidence everywhere. yet, the public option is held out as a solution. The fact is, it is the end of private insurance, not just because of the cost of capital, but because government will define what insurance plans are acceptable. 

Once again, it is critical that the opposition not be seen as "kooks." We can not allow these folks to make easy the marginalization of the opposition. 

Freedom of Speech

Anybody who honestly thinks that the Obama Administration with its, "Tell us about things you hear that are said about the Health-care proposals that you think are a little "Fishy" message," is trying to violate Free Speech is wrong. They may be arrogant and have virtually Fascist desires to control the society, but they are not stupid. To issue such a message so overtly with such an intent would be arrogance and ignorance beyond comprehension. 

In my view, this does however, clearly reflect the "Marginalize the enemy" tactic that the community organizers are taught. The effort is to get intelligence, yes; but the real effort is to communicate that those who are arguing against the Obama-care plan, are not credible. There arguments must be "fishy" hence we need to expose them, so please let us know what they may be saying so that we can call them out. 

There is also no doubt, that this was a terrible mistake on the part of the Administration, especially to use a White House address. It has the smell of a violation of the ability to exercise free speech; even if it was not. In this case, the right approach for the opponents, is to marginalize the Obama administration by saying just that; they are attempting to invalidate the 1st amendment. This is fire with fire. They attempt to marginalize; get after them by doing the same thing when the make a major miscalculation. 

ON ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS: the Obama-care Opponents must not make it easy for the left to attack the opposition. The attendance at these public forums must be aggressive, but not unruly. The proponents are looking for ways to show that the opposition is a bunch of radical extremists, essentially a mob. That can not be allowed to happen. Participants must come out in force; demand answers, but act in a manner that shows respect for reason and control Violence must not happen, and unruly, mob like behavior, will only harm the cause, not help. Nazi symbols, even when used to accuse Obama of that thinking, simply makes for photo ops that look like the opponents are carrying Nazi symbols. 

Fighting Fire with Fire - The Alinsky Lesson

The last Blog entry talked about how critical it is that the conservative movement know and fully understand the lessons from the radical education of Barack Obama. One of the most enjoyable events I have watched since Obama became our President. Press Secretary, Gibbs, yesterday was quited as saying that complaints about "Obama Care" were the result of "manufactured anger" by the opponents.t

Candidly, I have no idea what if any "right wing" organizations might be funding or supporting the protests about the "angry opponents" but I can say that I certainly hope that is what is happening. 

Yes, it pains me to say that, since, I like to think of myself as a rational and measured opponent who prefers to argue issues logically, and to win, based on facts. But...that is not what will win this conflict. It is one of the key lessons from Alinsky that the radical, community organizer, must create discontent. Yes, create discontent. The community organizer is admonished to find the potential for anger and discontent. and to exploit it. That is what Barack Obama did constantly when he was a community organizer, and that is what he did to get elected. 

Now, if the opponents of health care reform, truly want to win, they must continue to foment the discontent that is possible because of the changes that could threaten the existing participants on the health care system. Obama used the fires of discontent; so must the right in order to fight the fire of his allegations that the health-care system is broken. We must remind every participant that the system is not broke for them and that is not broken for most Americans. It may be expensive, but it is the best in the world. 

Obama is saying that the system must be fixed; conservatives must say, it is not broken, and his fix will hurt them, while the system is made more available for a small fraction of the population that does not have access. If it takes scaring seniors to worrying about the concept of rationing, so be it. That is a legitimate fear, and the opponents of Obama-care must play that card, and play it big. 

Manufactured anger, is really anger found to be latent, and uninformed. Gibbs is complaining about the same tactics that Alinsky says must be used by the community organizer to bring about radical change in the society. Fight fire with fire. Logic does not prevail in war, and this is a war of ideas that must have the benefit of knowing that the enemy, Obama and his foot soldiers, are schooled in radical change tactics. 

Do Not Underestimate The Influence of Alinsky

Now that Conservatives are feeling like there is some hope that the Obama Health care initiative can be defeated, there is great danger that they will underestimate the resolve of our Resident Community Organizer Radical in the White House. 

I know that the Democrats are very sensitive about the fact that they think that we conservatives should "get over the fact " that Barack Obama was a community organizer in his early career. I will never get over that fact, because I am convinced that it defined him then, and it defines him now. I know what a community organizer was and I know what a community organizer to day is...it is ACORN. We can not ignore that organization. There is so much substantial evidence that it may actually be a "criminal organization." The 88 page report by the House makes a very strong case for that allegation, and anybody can download that report and read for yourself the significant case that demands further investigation. 

That said, there is no doubt that Barack Obama learned his community organizer lessons well. Indeed, he got elected using those strategies and tactics. I have consistently written in this Blog that the original training manual for community organizers was written by a 60s radical (from the clear Marxist tradition). That author, Saul Alinsky, wrote the book, Rules for Radicals which was published in 1971. This book, which I am planning to write my next book about, defines what a community organizer is, what they are out to achieve and how they should achieve it. The essence is, it is a handbook for radical change (transformation of the society) that looks more like the campaign manual for Barack Obama's run for the Presidency. You will continue to hear more about this book, and eventually my book on the subject will be written and published.

That said, one of the lessons to be learned from that "community organizer manual" is that radical change is the only goal, but...if 100% of the desired change is ultimately proven to not be possible...then the radical will  "take whatever he can get." I point this out because the key is that the organizer must demand 100%, and claim that the "sky is falling" if the solution is not a 100% solution, but when defeat is inevitable, then he will take the 10% solution, and then prepare to come back for more later.

I point this out, because no matter what Barack Obama says, if and when he believes that he is about to lose, he will push to have the conservatives (a.k.a the Republicans) accept a 10% compromise. And then he will plan to incrementally move the bar later. In short, "give him an inch, and he will ultimately take a yard."

The Republicans must not allow themselves to be compromised in this way. This plan is flawed from the start. It assumed that a single payer, government solution, is the correct answer to all ills. We do not believe that, and we must not give in to that core premise. Once we allow compromise to inch the system in that direction, it will inevitably be pushed fully. 

The Blue Dog Democrats probably will capitulate to that 10% solution, but the Republicans must not allow themselves and their principles to be compromised. They must "hang tough" and not be compromised in the same way that George Bush gave in to Ted Kennedy on the prescription drug plan. The Republicans can not be compromised by compromise. The only way to stop Radicals is to fight with their own tactics.

An Incoherent Truth

Seldom does Paul Krugman write an Op Ed page that I can agree with as much as his piece today on the New York Times. He attempts to debunk the Blue Dog opposition to the Obama Health Care plan, and doing so, makes the case the opposition has been making. He argues that the Blue Dogs are insisting on changes to the plan that can not be made without killing the plan, and even goes on to say, at the end of the piece, that it will kill the Obama administration. 

His argument is precisely correct. The plan can not achieve its goals if any of the plan parts are taken out. The difference I have in his reasoning is that the plan can not work because it can not be implemented without major tax increases that will cost the average tax payer, not just the wealthy, more than any increased value to them. The plan can not work without the controls on health care delivery which are unlikely to be acceptable to the general citizenry, let alone to seniors who already have the protection of Medicare. The plan can not work without a public option that will simply amplify the losses that the Medicare and Medicaid systems are experiencing each day.

Paul Krugman is correct, it does not appear that any universal health care system can be implemented with government, unless it increases cost to the society. Instead of the radical overhaul, the Obama administration should focus on incremental changes that can reduce costs of care and at the same time expand the private sector options that can allow insurance to be tailored to the needs of the uninsured, rather than satisfying the government establishment. 

The Blue Dogs must hold out for fiscal responsibility. The society does not need more taxes at this time; it needs less. Obama says he wants a budget neutral plan. The plain fact is that he can not have his current plan without increases in revenues, and those increases are massive. President Obama needs to pull back, and listen to the other side quickly, or Krugman will be right and the Obama plan will fall into the pile of the Clinton care initiative. 

Biden Trys to Explain

The New York Times today has an OpEd piece by Joe Biden and it is such a shallow defense of the stimulus, that is is just one more embarrassment for the Vice President. The irony of this piece is that it readily admits that the "stimulus plan" is nothing more that a spending plan. He "explains" that the plan was designed to unfold over a two year period. By then the problem will have probably solved itself. 

Candidly, the economy is going to recover on its own without any of the stimulus spending. There is no doubt that by the end of 2010, the slump will start to be reversed. Had the administration simply put more income into the hands of those who could spend or invest, through tax cuts, there would have been a faster and more cost effective effect. Further, much more of the money should have been put into real construction projects, since the housing crisis was a major part of the slump, those same workers could have been put back to work. But then, that would have been to simple, and all the expansion in the social welfare programs would have been forced to go unfunded. 

Obama's Waterloo

Senator DeMint suggested that Health care legislation could be Obama's Waterloo. The President, playing the classic straw man game, has now used those words to try to suggest that the Republican opposition to the House legislation is "purely political." Well, firstly, any time groups of people attempt to design and decide on governmental options, there is politics. Indeed one could suggest that Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions, even if not governmental. So with the President accusing the Republicans of "being political" we have a legitimate tautology. The plain fact is, anytime the members of government debate decisions, the debate is political. 

The fact is, however, that President Obama knows that he is at risk of this plan does not get passed quickly, it is a serious risk. This is a complex issue, with may opinions about how it should be addressed. The complexity is obvious when the bill takes a thousand pages to define the proposals. There is no doubt that when the "devil is found on the details," the debate gets cloudy. The fast approval is not going to happen, and that means that the reform efforts could come to a halt. Clearly, the public in general is not unhappy with their health care and their health insurance. Couple that fact with the plain fact that the current proposals are a huge expansion of government that is clearly the creation of "socialized medicine" and the public is not generally in favor of the changes. Once the recess in Congress opens up the legislators to their constituents, the pressure will be intense to no make the changes. 

President Clinton could always leave the failure to create a health care reform at his wife's doorstep; President Obama does not have that option,. This is his bill; even if he and the White House left the writing to the Congress. Failure on this major initiative will be a serious defeat...BUT, this is not a President who will walk away. He will return, and so will his proposals. Health care will not be his Waterloo because the the "Blue Dog Democrats" are likely to find a way to get on board with reform unless their constituents sound loud alarms. The recess buys opponents time; but is is not the end of the fight.: It is just the beginning. 

The key if for the opponents to shift the debate from health care reform to health care insurance reform. We do not need to reform Health care, we need to reform the process of providing and paying for care. Once that becomes the focus, then we can have a serious discussion of what causes the increases in costs. We do not need to throw out the health care we already have, just to solve the cost problems. Reducing the negative impact of the plaintiff's bar, allowing cost effective health insurance options to be available to all, reforming the Medicare and Medicaid systems and find ways to place ownership of health on the back of the consumer instead of the employers. The administration and Congress have assumed that government is the solution, the opposition must make the case that government is already a major part of the problem, and that the solution can be found in the private sector by having government create incentives and eliminating barriers to cost effective options.