Obamacare Is The Law Of Part Of The Land
Herewith some links that clarify the new circumstance, and what better way to start the avalanche than with an impolite, disrespectful anddefiant post? It includes a suggestion that the aristocrats and their lackeys be served the same fare they force on their serfs. Lese majeste!
Obamacare is politically vulnerable, according to this post. Maybe, maybe not. But if you don’t believe the private citizen has a chance of challenging Obamacare in the federal courts, read this enumeration of the possibilities and ponder the coming storm. — More here.
Here it comes: a multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.
A favorite topic of TLB is the culture war, which does play a role in the continuing (yes, continuing) struggle over Obamacare. Here’s more on this interesting topic. In order to frame the terms of the debate, Obamaniacs will be characterizing the majority of US citizens as racists. The more determined the efforts to repeal Obamacare, the more you will see this smear employed. It has already begun, and if it seems to be even partially successful as it proceeds, the lying propaganda will become a frontal assault on the core values of Flyover Country. Team Obama will use its proxies to damn the very people the White House claims it wants to help. The nauseating elitist condescension, the staggeringly smug assumption of ethical superiority and noblesse oblige, will remain unremarked in the mainstream news media. A stunned nation will be hammered by unprincipled, hypocritical class warriors whose ideological goals can only be described as alien.
The Past Suggests A Possible Future
How, one might ask, can Congress pass a thoroughly partisan, procrustean and draconian bill when it’s a fact that most of the US public opposed it? So far, “sheer hubris” is as good an answer as any. Still, a closer look might be instructive.
It is highly likely that the House leadership was not particularly concerned about details, and focused instead on ramming somethingthrough, as long as it had most of what it took to reduce the choices of the insurance companies — and eventually destroy them. Pelosi admitted that the bill would have to be passed first and then read to see what’s in it. That could mean it’s an introductory, purely temporary and instrumental measure designed to enable the eventual replacement of insurance companies with a governmental bureau or bureaus.
That’s not baseless speculation. If General Motors and the “bailout” programs are suggestive of the future, Uncle Sam may just keep extending his reach, always using high unemployment and increasing poverty as a justification. Imagine all insurance provided by Washington. Imagine a financial system that includes only the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac — and no banks not owned and run by the federal government. Impossible? Unlikely? Certainly the changes we have seen in the last fifteen or so months could not have been predicted in late 2009. How can we predict a reversal in the current flow of events?
Unfortunately it could be that Team Obama has no motive to improve the economic picture. This may just be the “crisis that you can’t let go to waste.” The transformation of the economy from investor-owned to state-owned may be considered so vitally necessary that the pain caused will be shrugged off as a small price to pay. Certainly Obama does not seem troubled by the astronomical debts, stubborn unemployment and sluggish growth that worry so many who do not share his Utopian vision.
Perhaps the most troubling question of all is whether Obama realizes that a freer market and increased private investment could drastically reduce unemployment in the near future (as they certainly would!). That may be exactly what he does not want. If his ideological views are what they seem to be, allowing capitalism to function efficiently would frustrate his plans. What he needs right now, if this interpretation of his overall plan is correct, is more distress, more economic collapse, and a public so desperate for relief that it is willing to take on any debt and tolerate all government takeovers of business, industry, finance and commerce.
Could any president be so cynical? Yes. Don’t forget Obama’s repeated (broken) pledges to conduct government openly. The man is a liar who entered into public life while in the firm grip of Marxist ideology (facts documented in past issues of this newsletter; do your homework). He will say and do what he has to in order to impose his concept of “fairness.” To him, that is a “spread it around” society in which the government confiscates and redistributes wealth because it (a) can, (b) does not trust individuals to do so properly, and (c) has plans for the future that it knows the public would never endorse.
That, ultimately, is how Obama can justify imposing his health care “reforms.” He knows his scheme would be rejected if the public had a choice, so he does not intend to give the people that choice. He will simply do it (as quickly as possible, early in his term of office), and then frustrate attempts to overturn the fait accompli.
The next nearly three years should prove easier for Team Obama than the past year and three or so months. Even without a majority in the House, Obama will still have his legislation, General Motors, high unemployment, an impossible debt, and tremendous power. He will be a “winner.” He fully expects that people will be much more concerned about money than about Liberty.
One can only hope that he has misjudged a principled electorate that he — though a natural-born citizen, still in many ways an alien — never knew well in the first place.
Congress Is The Major Rascal, But Some Voters Are Culpable, As Well
Insight into how Obamacare got through: here we have an important Democrat admitting that his party makes up the rules for Congressional procedure as it goes along, which is to say, he and his cronies are unprincipled. More here (“…doesn’t it say a lot about this Congress that a guy who was kicked off the bench for corruption — by a Democratic-controlled Congress, no less — is now on the Rules Committee?”) Read the posts at the links first, and then consider this: sure, Hastings is an unindicted criminal, and yes, his party does play fast and loose with the rules, but the real blame for Hastings’s presence in the House should go to his constituents. They don’t care that he’s as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. If the electorate is rotten, the representatives of the people will be, too.
Professional Journalism, The Eternally Mischievous Manipulator
So…what? Well, the above commentary explains (among other things) the intransigence of the major news media: they long ago realized that political power depends on what the voters think, and what the voters think depends on what the voters know. That’s why newspapers, magazines and TV news have been so overwhelmingly biased for so long, and why attempts to shame them into reform have always failed. The journalists see their job as fundamental: without censorship and creative reporting, innovative collectivist legislation would never get through Congress because of opposition from the electorate’s moderate center. Then too, as long as the press does its volunteer work well, that moderate center (which expresses values that are increasingly a pragmatic mix of social Libertarian and fiscal conservative concepts) will not be proportionally represented in Congress.
Ultimately, of course, people will want to know how well Obamacare is working. Consider first whether it will reduce the budget (hint: no, it won’t, and here’s why). Then ask how it will affect medicine and our health (again, there’s not much to look forward to). Oops.
Don’t expect to see the bad results widely or honestly reported by the press. The crafting of perceived reality will proceed in other directions.
An Incitement To Violent Protest Against Bad Government?
Is this news item related to this weblog post? Since nobody reads this newsletter, nobody will recall that a link to that (incendiary?) post appeared in TLB 137. Yes, your reading habits do need a bit of work. But you will not have read that last sentence, so…TLB is a solipsistic conceit. — Never mind. If you were reading this, the question for you would be, “So how is this different from the draft protests and Selective Service card burnings of the 1970s? Did you justify the latter, and if so, are you ready today to condemn the breaking of municipal and state laws when you were unwilling to condemn the breaking of federal laws years ago?”
In preparing your response to those pointed questions, proceed judiciously, Pilgrims — sophistry is a genuine danger when it’s your cause being protested. (See item headlined “More On Those Slurs…” below.)
Pressure To Leave The Broom Standing In The Corner
Yes, when the Congressional elections roll around later this year, some newspapers and many Democrats will be wringing their hands over the loss of “experienced” representatives and senators whose vote on one lousy bill may cost them their (very cushy) jobs. Two observations: first, there are a lot of Republicans who need to be thrown out of Congress, and second, if a vote on a super-issue can’t cost you your job, then what should?
As the election approaches, this newsletter will remind you that, when it comes to cleaning out Capitol Hill, you should think of it as a raid on a whorehouse: the good go with the bad.
Team Obama Prepares To Defend Its Utopia By Launching Pre-Emptive Assaults On The Tea Partiers
“Tea partiers are racists.” Some probably are. But that’s like saying that because there are some child molesters or sky divers at tea parties, the tea party phenomenon is either (a) composed of sky divers and child molesters, or (b) gets its seminal vitality from those groups. Never mind; you are going to hear a lot of nonsense that says, in effect, “I know the real motivation here, and these are just white people who hate black people.”
That’s invalid reasoning, of course, but hard to counter, and here’s why. First, it will be repeated repeated repeated, and even blatant, disproved lies take on a patina of credibility if they are promoted by the likes of the NY Times and then repeated often enough (AGW is a prime example, and so is “Bush lied, people died”). As long as there is no verifiable evidence for the charges that some people protesting Obamacare were abusive and out of line, those accused must be considered innocent. Yes, everybody is trying to find something solid, but nothing has emerged so far but charges and reports in the press that cannot be backed up.
Second, though you can refute the illogic, the lie serves political purposes. Facts and straight thinking don’t count for much in that arena. How many times have you argued with someone who was obviously unaware of basic facts, and who said things like, “I’ve had more than enough of these tea partiers,” or made similar dismissive statements, fending off information? Those folks are not amenable to truth and reason — they are ideologues.
Ideologues are dangerous enough to the common weal that books are written about them.
Well, racism is not a factor in the tea party phenomenon any more than it is in shopping in a supermarket. In doubt? Maybe you ought to go to a tea party and talk to some of the folks there. If your bigotry allows you to impute motives to people who do not betray them by their words or deeds, then you are either a hopeless, mindless wretch — or a psychiatrist who, in aping the example of the founder of psychiatry, has overindulged in cocaine.
If you can agree with the above, then you should appreciate the slurs for the filthy tactics they are. That should discredit those who use them.
Finally — if you want to piss the tea partiers off something fierce, call them racists. TLB can’t think of a better way to promote the Tea Party movement.
More On Those Slurs Against Tea Partiers
You won’t need to read this item if you understood the above remarks (headlined “Team Obama…” etc.) and find them accurate and cogent. For the unconvinced, or for those who find intellectual slumming bracing, TLB presents a few particularly notable quotes from this weblog on the website of The Nation. This magazine is a hard core collectivist publication that thinks of itself as in the vanguard of political and cultural change. TLB would say it is holy writ for neo-Marxists, statists who envision a coming Utopia, and the members of the Bicoastal Elite who present themselves as intellectuals.
The author of this piece minces no words. She savages the Tea Partiers as racist, seditious inheritors of the value system of the diehard Confederates who lost the Civil War and then lost the battle to keep black citizens disenfranchised and disadvantaged. The courage of her convictions is clear: she is a statist, through and through, and she knows the enemy she is exposing is the Klan without its bedsheets. Sample quotes, with responsive observations:
As I watch the rising tide of racial anxiety and secessionist sentiment…I am reminded of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of (a) Nation. This 1915 film depicts the racist imagination currently at work in our nation as a black president first appoints a Latina Supreme Court Justice and then works with a woman Speaker of the House to pass sweeping national legislation. This bigotry assumes no such government could possibly be legitimate and therefore frames resistance against this government as a patriotic responsibility.
That passage, its author believes, not only proves the racist nature of opposition to Obama, it should convince rational people of its truth.
Would logic like that prove the racist nature of the opposition to conservatism as espoused by Thomas Sowell or Alan Keyes? Would it prove the evil of critics of Condoleezza Rice, or the KKK-style bigotry of those who beat Kenneth Gladney?
Now reconsider the lady’s words in terms of their hidden assumptions and implications. In truth, she is arguing the inviolate privilege of a government that includes minorities, or is headed by a black person. The mere presence of Hispanics and blacks not only proves (beyond all doubt) that any opposition to their policies must be racist, but deflects and disperses all possible negative criticism.
To anchor this intellectually vacuous position, she proclaims the acts of a state — any state, no matter its ethical qualifications? — necessarily legitimate:
If an individual takes his neighbor’s money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation.
This deification of the state places the mandates of the ruling class above negative criticism. (Of course you should read the context to make sure this is a claim accurate both in word and interpretation.) Before proceeding, one needs to ask whether the state’s power to tax can be limited — and then restrict the discussion to the USA’s legal circumstances. Read what a legal scholar has to say.
Now return to the fundamental proposition that the state is legitimacy incarnate, and that opposition to it is sedition. Given this kind of thinking, how can anyone be opposed to anything the state does, and is not the Fuehrerprinzip ratified? How can we damn Pol Pot? How is it, in other words, that the author ignores the fundamental ethical authority that a state must have before it can legitimately do anything? Where are those magic words “democratically installed,” “representative and ethical,” or even the weak-kneed “elected”? What about constitutional limitations?
And what happens to the US Declaration of Independence?
Indeed, following the implications of the weblog posted on The Nation‘s site, one plunges into a slough of troubles. An official of the government is sacrosanct, for example. A kind of lese majeste applies to him; he cannot be called bad names or offended by racial slurs or symbols. He floats above the common herd, sheltered from the slings and arrows of the outraged public, no matter what he or his critics may be, for…
…When he is attacked by protesters, he is himself an agent of the state. This…is critically important…because it radically alters the way we should understand the meaning of power, protest and race.
When protesters spit on and scream at duly elected representatives of the United States government it is more than (an) act of racism. It is an act of sedition.
TLB notes hastily that it has as yet no information that anyone was spat upon (revisit the item above), but that’s not the fundamental issue here. The concept of verbal expression of hatred for a government official as an act of sedition is.
The following quote wraps it up nicely….
The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state. When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor of Congress this weekend. They joined as co-conspirators with the Tea Party protesters by arguing that this government has no monopoly on legitimacy.
So: some citizens gather to hear speeches and wave signs and cheer speakers who oppose (or propose) legislation, the aim being to reduce the power of the state, or limit it, or halt its expansion. Perhaps the citizens are angry with the attitude of an official, and they wish to see him removed. Any of those intentions, once expressed, can be thought of as ipso facto “…a challenge to the legitimacy of the US state.” Moreover, the assembled citizens constitute a conspiracy (Hillary does seem to have an admirer at The Nation).
Well, Pilgrims, that’s a lunatic attitude that places the government — any government — above the people, represses freedom of expression, denies Liberty, and would make all US federal judges roll their eyes. It’s fascist political propaganda.
The author of this toxic drivel would never understand the simple truth that all rights repose in the individual, and that no group, whether society or a government, has any rights. She believes that government is the master, and she knows exactly what policies it must have. Those policies are in the interests of the people, as she defines them; TLB reminds its readers that all tyrants make that claim.
Because the constitution of the USA puts severe limits on the federal and state governments, Obama whines that the document is “negative.” As long as it defends the individual from the depredations of Utopians like Obama and the author of the above-quoted article, all people everywhere should celebrate that “negative” quality. The principle behind it is the hope of mankind’s future.
You are encouraged to visit The Nation‘s webpage on which the full article appears, and decide whether TLB has somehow misrepresented the egregiously ignorant notions of its author.
Let the final denunciation of the above abomination be delivered by this short post, from which are extracted these trenchant words:
The tea party movement’s roots are in the American Revolution. These ordinary Americans are protesting the Washington “Establishment” — which presently is the Democratic juggernaut — much as American Patriots were protesting the oppressive British Establishment that was “eating out their substance” with “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” The Democratic left should think long and hard about those parallels. The times they are a-changin’.
A tip of the hat goes to loyal reader JH for alerting TLB to this “progressive” essay.
There are some videos on this webpage dealing with Afghanistan; “Why we fight” is quite good.
Related: a fine report on British troops in Afghanistan. Lots of information.
The UN scores again. It’s overwhelmingly corrupt, often incompetent, too frequently horribly abusive, a haven for drone bureaucrats and a hotbed of hatred and bigotry — yes, all that, and a promoter of vile propaganda, as the link reveals.
Michael Yon has lots of photos and interesting commentary on the A-10, an aircraft for which this newsletter’s staff confesses great enthusiasm. Yon’s post is a fine tribute to the people who keep the brilliantly-designed Warthog flying. — Don’t miss this report, linked by a commenter.
There it is again — the mumbled expression overheard in the White House: “Oh, shit.”
A British writer argues that Obama’s bungling (not his word) and hostility toward Israel may have given Netanyahu an incentive to bomb Iran. That would not at all surprise this newsletter.
If you are interested in coping with internet censorship, you will want to see the work of Jinyang Li. She has devised a program and strategy called Kaleidoscope which can be downloaded here. She’s been given some publicity by The Internet Society of New York. Her work is going to cost tyrants some sleep, as well as frustrate a lot of pestiferous politicians who are “just doing what is necessary for the good of the people.” She has given a powerful tool to millions who are worried about the growth of governmental censorship around the world. She’s a heroine to TLB.
Your purchases support a government that perpetrates abuses like this. When you can, avoid mainland Chinese products. Don’t feed the dragon!
Related, in a way: Canada is a place not to spend your tourist dollars, if you want to be fastidious about human rights. The crazy Canucks have basically walked away from Western Civilization and written off the Enlightenment. Don’t encourage the morons. — Recent: Hoist on their own petard?
Who is the enemy? The situation appears complex, but the ultimate answer is that none of these horrible things would be happening if the Koran had never existed. (If the link does not work, try again; it’s balky.)
Here’s some interesting criticism of the CIA, with a useful link.
Obama is a big (temporary) winner on his health care plan, but the public is even more concerned about the unemployment rate. How’s he doing there? Terribly. Whatever happened to, “It’s the economy, Stupid?” Meanwhile, this is why the “stimulus” is so ineffective.
For Microsoft users: read this account of what it can take to clean up a Windows computer once it’s been infected. No, you are not safe if you use anti-virus software and a firewall, though not taking those precautions increases your risks tremendously. The cure: Apple, or the much cheaper, more challenging Linux and BSD operating systems.
Israel stands up to Obama. When the survival of your nation is at stake, it’s a shame you have to find The One messing with you. — No, it’s not a matter of a few condos…as the “Palestinians” know.
Is cold fusion junk science? Maybe not….