Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

02/07/2010 (11:00 pm)

Welcome to the Monkey House

CribMemeSmallMy, my, the things that excite Democrats…

Remember when it was grotesquely irresponsible that the President had spent 7 minutes reading My Pet Goat to an elementary school classroom? Remember when it was the destruction of the republic that some ordinary citizens got angry at their US Representative at a rigged town hall meeting?

Know what it is tonight? That huge block of articles in the Memorandum.com display on the right is leftists screeching like agitated monkeys over … drum roll, please… Sarah Palin scratching crib notes in pen in the palm of her hand.

Let me repeat that. Democrats believe it constitutes a huge embarrassment to the Republican party and to conservatives generally that at a Tea Party convention, the keynote speaker reminded herself which talking points to emphasize during the question-and-answer session by writing them on her hand.

Meanwhile, the Democratic President, the Democratic Speaker of the House, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, the Democratic Attorney General, and the Democratic Treasury Secretary all made Judicial Watch’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list for 2009. And we’re supposed to be embarrassed over crib notes.

2010-02-07-palinhandcloseWhat’s interesting is the reason we’re supposed to be embarrassed. To Democrats, appearance is everything. These are people to whom life consists of appearing to be good, appearing to be intelligent, appearing to be hip, appearing to be professional, and so forth. They prop up their egos by laughing at those who don’t look as sophisticated, intellectual, or moral as they look, like frightened 7th graders scrambling for validation. They have no notion of real value, only of appearance. Thus, when a Republican politician does something so pedestrian as to write notes on her hand, and especially if it’s the incompetent and incurious Sarah Palin, they collapse into paroxysms of forced hilarity, back-slapping each other over how dorky those Republicans are. It proves to these Democrats how sophisticated and in they are. Because none of their politicians write notes on their hands, you see. They’re not dumm like Republicans.

And in order to sound like something other than vicious, frightened 7th graders, they make up important-sounding reasons why this is really important, and why they were not similarly derisive when candidate Obama wouldn’t leave the teleprompter behind when talking to 1st graders, or avoided questions for 9 months so he wouldn’t embarrass himself. Listen to Stefan Serucek at Huffington Post:

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can’t remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Um… no. Those are not core principles, boys, those are talking points. Oh, right, Democrats’ core principles are talking points. Sorry. I guess there’s no point trying to explain the difference.

Ann Althouse has the right idea: she’s calling for photoshopped palm notes to highlight the sheer stupidity of making an issue out of this. I’d make one of Joe Biden’s hand with the notes “breathe in” and “breathe out” on his palm if I had the skills.

I wrote at length about the danger of vanity that tempts the intellectual elite in America back in October of 2008. If you want my serious examination, go ahead and look backwards. Over this current flap, though… I genuinely feel sad for the Democrats.

02/01/2010 (10:12 am)

Ailes Schools Arianna

Prominent on the web today is this instance of “gotcha” played by Arianna Huffington at the expense of Roger Ailes, in which Huffington gets caught in her own trap by a well-prepared Ailes. Huffington was pretending to be serious when reciting one of the left’s favorite slurs, the silly imagination that when a conservative offers analysis of the danger posed by a leftist policy, it’s “inciting the nation” and engaging in “the politics of paranoia.” Of course, far more vicious assaults from the left are completely reasonable. Ailes deftly posits the comparison, leaving Arianna scrambling for lost legitimacy. Listen:

It’s got enough punch that Huffington Post today is featuring attempts to prove that Ailes was mistaken, focusing on a bit of hyperbole in one of Beck’s diatribes. Absent from their analysis is any mention of similar hyperbole regularly enjoyed by Huffington’s readers but aimed in the other direction.

That such hyperbole is common has been established long ago, and is hardly debatable. Media Research Center gathered a few instances together back in 2007: guests at Huffpo, largely well-known actors and politicians, calling the Vice President a “terrorist” and a “lying, thieving whore,” calling the President “human scum” and his followers “flag-sucking half-wits,” accusing Americans of “loving hate” and failing the test of humanity for buying Ann Coulter’s books. Camera.org (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) produced a report last year documenting widespread anti-Semitism among Huffpo’s commenters and authors. And then, there’s the instance Ailes quoted regarding himself: San Francisco Examiner columnist Bill Mann saying Ailes had “a face like a clenched fist,” that Ailes has “done more to spread fear and hatred in this country than anyone since Joe McCarthy,” and that Fox News “is a tumor on the body politic.” Huffington, who hosts what is arguably the least fervid of leftist talk sites, is nonetheless hurling stones from a glass house when she accuses another commentator of “inciting Americans” with “politics of paranoia.”

Arianna’s spur-of-the-moment defense for this was that HuffPo does not employ the people who are saying such things. As is invariably the case when leftists attempt to draw distinctions to defend their rampaging hypocrisies, it’s a distinction without substance: it’s all vicious paranoia, and she publishes it. Apparently Ms. Huffington thinks that “politics of paranoia” is perfectly acceptable so long as one’s business model includes invited guests rather than paid employees. Fine: I’ll gladly go onto Fox for free and tell the world what Glen Beck is getting paid so handsomely to tell it. I’m sure that would satisfy Arianna.

What Huffington is doing is simply extending the left’s ongoing war against conservative media. The end result of it will be laws outlawing conservative talk if the left ever gets its way. But it’s “paranoia” of me to say so, right? Only leftist warnings against the outcomes of conservative policies are permitted. We have to silence Glen Beck. For the children. To save the planet. To protect civil discourse. Because leftists are the very apex of civil discourse. Arianna says so.

bushguillotine

11/12/2009 (11:11 am)

Afghanistan: Exit Strategy Redux

AP reports that President Obama has rejected all the strategies proposed by his national security team, and is asking them to clarify how and when American troops will turn over the theater to the Afghan government.

I suspect that we’re looking at the consequence of leftist meme-creation. Leftists invented “no exit strategy!” as a sound bite with which to criticize the Iraq war, hoping to capitalize on the residual fear of quagmires from the Vietnam era. As with every meme created by the left with which to bludgeon the culture, leftists quickly came to believe their own invented sound bite. Now every leftist in America knows that it is folly — folly into which conservatives, who are of course far less intelligent or enlightened than liberals, are prone to fall every time — to engage in any war without a clear exit strategy. Consequently, Obama, who Knows Better™, is insisting on such an exit strategy before he takes further action.

“No exit strategy” was never sensible criticism. War is an unpredictable enterprise. Enemies always make an effort to foil our expectations. Military leaders make plans for victory, but the plan is the first casualty of the conflict, and has to be adjusted. It does make sense to think about what happens after the conflict, and both political and military leaders have always done so (including the Bush administration, by the way — in addition to being brainless, “No exit strategy” was also a lie.) But planning in detail what will happen at the end is time wasted; it’s impossible to know before we get there.

However, Barak Obama is nothing if he is not the formal assertion of leftist intellectual superiority. He is aiming to correct swiftly all the known errors of conservative and capitalist thinking, as conceived by neo-Marxian loons like himself. What leftist intellectuals have been ruminating over for a century, Obama will execute. And then we’ll all see what we’ve known all along — that neo-Marxian intellectuals are practically incompetent, are completely out of touch with reality, and that their intellectual superiority was never anything but hubris of the most laughable sort.

The Huffington Post article suggests that Obama feels that the military has deliberately presented him nothing but a greased slide into accepting Gen. McCrystal’s recommendations, and the President is pushing back in order to get real alternatives. It’s not impossible; that’s not even inconsistent with my more jaundiced scenario, above. He may be looking for more pleasant alternatives than behaving like George W. Bush, and there may be no such alternatives. It has always been possible that President Obama might be taught something useful about the real world by the realities of foreign policy.

09/18/2009 (6:30 am)

How Democrats Think

I grabbed this from the .sig block of a reader over at RedState, and I’m not sure who the artist is, but it does capture the entire Democratic party mentality in one, brief clip. Click on the image for a larger version.

queenpelosismaller

09/16/2009 (9:57 pm)

The Audacity of Hos

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show occasionally marks himself as an equal-opportunity insulter, something valuable and rare in these days of partisan-only news. Today, he’s taking on the ACORN scandal that major news media have simply blacked out. Listen:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The piece that nearly everybody is missing about this incident is that the President used to work for this organization and help train its members. The picture I used with my article about Obama’s middle years with ACORN and the New Party, reproduced at the bottom of this post, shows him teaching the power dynamics of self-interest in the community, a topic he also apparently taught to ACORN volunteers. All web-based content documenting this association was pulled after the McCain campaign and conservative bloggers started drawing attention to it (as was normal for any web-based information shedding light on Obama’s radical past,) but if he really did train volunteers for ACORN, and if the organization really is this lawless, we have every reason to believe that the President regards with contempt the laws of the land he leads. I have seen nothing in his conduct of the tasks of the office of President to make me certain that this is not so.

We may hope that appropriate attention will finally be paid to the criminal enterprise of ACORN, to which a number of conservatives have been attempting to draw attention for several years. It’s hard to imagine a more partisan organization, and it is clear that their intent in nearly every enterprise is to render society unworkable by undermining laws. It is a complete shame that such an organization has been permitted to continue to milk the public treasury by pretending to be non-profit and non-partisan, and a genuine scandal that the President directed $800,000 of his campaign funds to this band of criminals, and then directed literally billions of dollars of public money toward them in the form of contracts, stimulus funding, and education funding.

Michelle Malkin characteristically has the best coverage today of the ACORN scandal, and has the best links concerning their ongoing criminal ventures as well.

obamablackboard

08/20/2009 (12:55 pm)

Death Panels Already Exist

ezekiel_emanuel1One of my readers directed my attention to this article from American Thinker, which makes the case that Congressional Democrats have already created the mechanisms through which the government will make, then enforce, care decisions according to cost-benefit algebra. Death panels are not in Obama’s plan because they already exist.

Of course, “death panel” is not precise; it’s just gruesome jargon. This portion of the health care debate rages over how, when, and by whom decisions should be made to cease treatment of the elderly or terminally ill because the cost of further care is greater than somebody wants to pay. In a sane system, care ends when the patient chooses not to pay. Under national health care, care ends when a bureaucrat chooses not to pay. Defenders of Obama’s or the Democrats’ plans love to point out that today, care ends when the insurer chooses not to pay, but they are badly mistaken for several reasons. First, shortages are not nearly so severe, and prices not so prohibitively high, when the government is not manipulating the market, so fewer such decisions are necessary in a free market; second, even if the insurer says “No,” private care is available at the patient’s expense that would not be available under a government plan; and third, appeals (and, if necessary, lawsuits) are possible with an insurer that would not be possible under a government plan. Even with insurers in the mix (who are so prominent in our current system because of government meddling), the final decision is made by the patient and his or her family where it should be made, and not by an unconnected bureaucrat.

However, the Democrats have apparently side-stepped the debate (who’s surprised?) by inserting language into unrelated legislation, the Stimulus bill. Pay attention; you’re going to learn how vague laws and unread legislation can be used to implement tyranny. This is tricky.

Critics call attention to two regulatory boards created by the Health Care portions of the Stimulus bill: the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (HIT), and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). The HIT coordinator is the administrator responsible for building a national patient record system, a measure that will certainly improve health coordination if the system is built correctly. The portion of the Stimulus bill that creates the HIT coordinator position spells out the process of creating, coordinating, and propagating this new, central database of health information to public and private health care providers around the nation. In my mind, this is a rare measure that might actually fall within a legitimate definition of the role of the national government, and if our nation’s fiscal health were not in crisis, I might even favor it — but wait ’till you hear what’s buried in it.

The HIT legislation states that it “…reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information….” Then the legislation sets up the means by which a nationwide information system will be created, with review, strategic planning, testing, and financing. Finally, it says it will phase itself in over several years by paying a financial bonus to doctors and hospitals who become “meaningful users” of the system. “The Secretary [of HHS] shall seek to improve the use of electronic health records and health care quality over time by requiring more stringent measures of meaningful use selected under this paragraph,” it adds, regarding the payment standards for doctors and hospitals separately.

Now, if I were paranoid, I might note that this is vague enough that literally anything might be slipped in, in the definition of a “meaningful user.” I might further note that the bill contains a mechanism by which the Secretary of HHS might add new restrictions at will, without oversight from any source, and without the public’s knowledge. Since it is entirely at the whim of the Secretary of HHS, he or she could say that a “meaningful user” is one who uses the system’s recommendation of the most cost-effective treatment — after inserting a cost-benefit calculus into the system. In this manner, a clever definition of “meaningful user” could incent doctors and hospitals to implement a value-assessment standard for care decisions, like the one Democrats have been favoring.

Why would I be so paranoid as to imagine such a thing?

Two reasons. The first is that former Senator and nominee for HHS secretary Tom Daschle wrote a book in 2008 entitled Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis, in which he described measures almost identical to those in the Stimulus bill, and explained how he would use them. His intentions and the legislation by which he would achieve them were covered back in February by New York’s former Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey in this article on Bloomberg. Since the bill she wrote about at the time was an interim version, I verified that the wording on which she reported actually remained in the final bill. It’s all there. With Daschle or somebody familiar with his intentions at HHS (like, say, the radically pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius), we can expect doctors and hospitals to be required to use the new patient and treatment database as a means of restricting care by cost, or forfeit healthy incentive payments by the government.

madbobThe second reason is the other commission, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). Remember when I said that given fiscal health, I might even favor the national patient information system? The Comparative Effectiveness Research body is another story; the government has no business performing this analysis at all.

“Comparative effectiveness” is jargon in the Progressive policy world for rationing on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, using language uncomfortably reminiscent of the Eugenics craze of the early 20th century. Naturally, the language speaks of “social justice,” but such justice is defined as certain citizens sacrificing their rights (not voluntarily) for the benefit of other citizens who produce more. You are blessed, citizen! You have been selected to sacrifice for the good of all! And it speaks of the “maturity” to enact such “difficult” measures, like this smug essay by a medical school prof at UCSF.

Take the comments by CER board member Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother), taken from recent medical journals by Betsy McCaughey:

…Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (JAMA, Feb. 27, 2008).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31).

By Emanuel’s logic, discrimination against blacks, women, gays, Jews or any other group would be justifiable, so long as that group is given the opportunity to pay it back against their oppressors at some other time. This is insane, but it’s the sort of rationalization that has been going on for years among Progressives, who wonder whether humankind is a cancer on the planet.

The CER panel is modeled after the board in the UK’s national health system called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. NICE is, simply put, the UK’s health care rationing board. It decides what sort of care is appropriate on the basis of a cost-benefit calculus that says that Britain can only afford to spend up to $22,000 to extend a life for 6 months.

From the Wall Street Journal:

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs — including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 — that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year’s ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE’s clinical and public health director, noted that “there is a limited pot of money,” that the drugs were of “marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost,” and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: “When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients.”

And it is this board that the Stimulus bill recreates in the form of the CER. But it is delusional to think that Obama’s health care proposal contains death panels. We’re bearing false witness, says the most patently dishonest President in our history (yes, worse than Clinton.) With all due respect, Mr. President, you can shove that self-righteous posturing right up your ass.

McCaughey, in the Bloomberg article, states that the Stimulus bill language requires that Medicare care decisions include the findings of the CER. This is not entirely clear in the language, but then, that’s the point. The Secretary of HHS has latitude to define a “meaningful user” as anything he wishes, and to impose more stringent standards as time goes along. Without oversight. Or letting anybody know, aside from the hospitals who must comply if they are to be reimbursed for installing the patient records system.

No, there are no laws saying “We are going to withhold care from granny.” Who was naive enough to imagine that there would be, if such a thing were to come about? But Daschle explained how he would slip it in, empowering an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. They are unaccountable for our good, don’t you see?

The demographic impact of the Baby Boom on medical care and Social Security has been apparent for some time now. It has been amplified by the loss of 50 million potential wage-earners to abortions. But now, it appears that Progressives have chosen to deny the Boomers any say in their own demise; simply because it is convenient, not to mention consistent with their misanthropic world view, the Obama administration is preparing to solve the demographic crisis by simply allowing the Boomers to die with only minimal care. He’ll never say so, of course. We’re bearing false witness if we mention it. Holocausts never arrive through the front door.

08/11/2009 (8:09 am)

Well Dressed Men

I’m back in “writing” mode for a few days, having to finish up the “Miracles” thing, but while you’re waiting for more incisive commentary on culture (how I do flatter myself!), here’s an entertaining lampoon of Barbara Boxer’s silly “well dressed protesters” comment.

Naturally, how a person is dressed is not a predictor of what sort of political connections he or she has. However, this just emphasizes how utterly silly Boxer’s complaint was. She was trying very, very hard to tie the town hall/tea party phenomenon to leftist delusions regarding the 2000 election in Florida, where Democrats created the illusion that Republicans stole the election, whereas in reality it was Democrats who tried but failed to steal an election they knew they had lost. She beclowned herself. I have a hard time taking Barbara Boxer seriously as anything but a junket-loving, graft-gulping Valley Girl, though I’m sure she’s got her dangerous, vindictive side.

In related news, Patterico has the definitive take-down of Nancy Pelosi’s and Steny Hoyer’s execrable accusation that town hall protesters are “un-American.” It seems that Ms. Pelosi has used “un-American” quite a few times, while vocally approving far more disruptive tactics from the left as “protected.” Like incipient racism, this sort of anti-intellectual resort to mindless jimgoism needs properly to be recognized as the common foible of leading Democrats, who use it far more, and far more unsoundly, than any respectable Republican ever has.

08/07/2009 (2:34 pm)

"We've Hired Skilled, Grassroots Organizers…"

The title of this piece is a quotation from a post today at MoveOn.org, where they’re gathering funds to hire grassroots organizers. Michelle Malkin has the original text posted, although now it’s morphed into this (the emphasis is theirs):

All across the country, right-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama’s plans for health care and clean energy. If these are the only voices our senators and representatives hear over the recess, we’ll have a hard time passing health care reform and clean energy legislation. We’ve got a plan to fight back. We blew through our first goal of $250,000, so we’ve set a new goal that will let us deploy even more organizers and more technology.

I’m scratching my head, here. Where does one hire a grassroots organizer? I thought grassroots organizers were all… I dunno… grassroots. Volunteers. Ordinary folks, rather than paid political organizers.

Sounds like an astroturf campaign to me. I’m just sayin’.

08/06/2009 (4:29 pm)

Look Who's Manufacturing Images Now

The White House strategy for overcoming the true grassroots uprising on health care has been to ridicule the opposition, characterizing it as an organized, paid effort by the insurance industry, staffed with a small number of extreme right-wingers. Comment number one, I have never seen a President deliberately set out to ridicule citizens of the United States for participating in government, and I think it’s repulsive; this alone should be grounds for impeachment. I am not kidding.

Comment number two, I will continue to call the entire “tea party” movement a true grassroots movement until I see strong, consistent evidence to the contrary. I have not seen “strong” evidence that it is organized and paid for yet; in fact, I have seen no evidence whatsoever, not a single shred. I have seen a great deal of personal animation from friends and acquaintances over the snow job President Obama and the Democrats have been pulling on the nation for the past 6 months. I’ve seen well-meaning folks turn out for tea party events in Boston and Hyannis. And I’ve seen the Obama White House lying many, many times already in the past 6 months. So I know who to believe on this.

Unlike the tea party movement, however, the response from the opposition is organized and paid for. RedState has posted links to the organizing memo sent out by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a group that encompasses more than 1,000 progressive sub-groups, with at least 8 different unions represented on its steering committee, along with MoveOn.org, La Raza, ACORN, and a dozen or so of the progressives’ favorite donation fronts. And yet, with all that professional organizational and fund-raising muscle, it calls itself “grassroots.” Their definition of “grassroots” seems… odd. Cue Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Here’s the memo in .pdf format, if you want to read it. The parts I like are these:

  • “You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics.”
  • “We need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member [of Congress], and we need to stake out the best spots for visibility and signs.”
  • “Make sure you have people holding signs in every place where a TV camera is likely to be and that next to every right wing sign, there’s one of your signs with your message.”
  • “Remember, this is a communications strategy that the right wing is using and our goal is to stop them from hijacking and changing the message and tone of these events. Assign 3-5 people to speak with the reporters who attend and make sure the reporters understand the scope and message of the event… Don’t wait for the reporter to approach you. You must approach the reporters and be assertive in shaping the narrative that they write.”
  • “Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements like:
    • ‘Excuse me, I came today to listen to Representative XXX explain how this bill is going to make health care more affordable for me and my family. We’re being gouged by insurance companies that just want to make more profits while we struggle to keep up with premiums and co-pays. Representative, how are you going to fix that?’
    • ‘I’m retired and can’t afford my prescription drugs because I’m on a fixed income. Representative, how is this bill going to affect me?’
    • ‘I want to hear the Representative speak. He’s the one voting on the bill. Representative, how will this bill help people who already have insurance at work?'”
  • “We should demonstrate that we are the majority by chanting: When the other side gets too loud, we should shut them down with chants that counter their message like “Health Care Can’t Wait!” and “Health Care Delayed is Health Care Denied” and prep people to chant at key points when the other side gets most disruptive.”

So… organized demonstrations. Prepared questions. Hand-picked volunteers intending to interrupt. Focus on media representatives. Controlled meetings.

This is what Progressives call “grassroots activism.” But there’s something improper about concerned citizens coming to meetings insisting that their concerns be heard. Uh…right. Sure thing.

Notice the inversion going on: Democrats imagine that they’re the victim of a paid, organized attack. They’re delusional, but they use the delusion as a justification for their own very real, very well-paid organized attack. This is not the first time Democrats have resorted to real crimes in response to imagined ones. By this sort of delusion coupled with rationalization, thuggery has become the norm for the Democratic party; they’ve imagined demons, and then become the demons they imagined. Scary.

Oh, and by the way — the AFL-CIO is going to be bringing its union goons to intimidate the conservatives at the town hall meetings. And the DNC is calling Republican representatives’ offices to find out when to demonstrate in front of them. The DNC, not some grass-roots organization. The Party.

Aren’t you relieved that Hope and Change have invaded America, creating an atmosphere of cooperation and good will?

It’s Krystalnacht, folks. They’ve drummed up the organized mobs to silence the voice of the people. Do. Not. Back. Down.

RedState also posted a fascinating video of an organized AARP meeting that the members took over and ran themselves. Pay attention to the arrogance of the AARP rep, who is clearly not over 55; listen to the Marxist claptrap from their organized speaker, who I swear must be one of those paid union organizers like John Steinbeck wrote about in In Dubious Battle. Watch the young people leave with the AARP rep as the members simply refuse to be cowed into their pre-arranged Obama cheer-leading coffee klatch. This is what’s really going on in America, not the lying crap coming from Progressive and union organizers. Watch:

08/05/2009 (5:43 pm)

What Happens When the Left Tastes Its Own Medicine

Citizens all over the country have risen up and confronted their elected representatives over the charade that is ObamaCare, and the Democrats in power have responded to the voice of the people… by attempting to paint them as mobs of extremists organized by cynical political fixers, who can’t possibly be sincere because they’re too well dressed. Seriously.

Michelle Malkin takes the left to task today for its utterly predictable, utterly disingenuous reaction to legitimate voter anger over having national health care jammed down their throats. Read:

The same Democrat Masters of Astroturf who encouraged their followers to use “in your face” tactics during the campaign season now balk at vocal opposition from their fiscally conservative neighbors and co-workers. Obama’s architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now, they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health care takeover legislation (which no one has read) of orchestrating “manufactured anger.”

Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astro-turfed ground troops for Obamacare – underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN, and your tax dollars — have resorted to projection. As I’ve reported previously, the single-payer lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned political operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. Now, that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk radio loyalists, bloggers, and first-time protesters against socialized medicine of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed.

In a comical missive issued Tuesday afternoon, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse complained: “The Republicans and their allied groups — desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill — are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.”

The DNC definition of “thoughtful:” Sitting silent about the lack of transparency, deliberation, truth in numbers, and reciprocity on the Obamacare plan. The DNC definition of incitement: Asking out loud, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash For Clunkers?”

Of course, most of this is not organized, though it would be perfectly legal and appropriate even if it were. The truth is that the majority of Americans do not want the government taking over health care, particularly if it will add to the deficit. The likelihood of that — adding to the deficit — is 100%.

“President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress appear to be losing the public relations war over their plan to revamp the nation’s health care system,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

And since they’re losing, they start hurling lies. How… classy.

There’s no sense getting angry about the left’s reaction. What we’re seeing from some of the unconnected Democrats (like Boxer’s comment about them being well-dressed) is just a confused, wounded reaction to learning that the public does not love the Master that feeds it. However, what’s coming from the White House is pure, Soviet-style disinformation. It turns out that the completely manufactured sound bites we got used to hearing from the Soviets were not something particularly Russian, but something particularly Marxist — the Alinsky-style tactic of simply lying about your opposition. It’s what they do. They’ll continue to make such noise even as they go down in flames, and when the voters throw them out in 2010, we’ll have had a “tantrum,” or worse — we’ll be “vigilantes.”

Mob rule is when the mob takes the law into its own hands and forces other citizens to conform to its will. When a crowd of angry citizens confronts the government representative and demands action consistent with their advocacy, it’s not called mob rule, it’s called petitioning the government, an activity favored by our founders and explicitly protected in the US Constitution. If you want to see what real mob rule tactics look like, Malkin has good videos of tactics being carried out by leftist activists, here, or you can recall this mob activism launched against a Los Angeles restauranteur in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, or this flood of filth aimed at getting a Miss USA contestant to stop violating the mob’s sentiments, or even this threat from the President of mob activism against bankers, or these from the campaign trail. They’ve been doing it for years.

Do something legal but heated in return, and you’re a “teabagger” and a “thug.” But at least they seem to like our clothes.

A caller on Michael Graham’s talk show this morning (WTKK, 96.9 FM, Boston) who had attended one of the town hall meetings, related what the shouting was about at the meeting she had attended. The organizers passed out note cards on which the citizens were to write their questions, saying that the Representatives would read the questions and respond. The citizens did not like this — most of them, apparently, were not favorable to the government’s health care plan — and liked it even less when the Representatives started reading the questions, and every one of the questions that were read were favorable to the government’s plan. Realizing that they were being deliberately ignored, they started shouting their questions and demanding responses.

Who’s the mob, and who’s the victim? Who’s strong-arming whom, here?

But, as I said, this is who they are. We need to consider — is it possible for a republic to remain free when one of the two major parties does not actually intend to abide by the rules of the republic, but will assert dictatorial rule by whatever means necessary? If not, why should anybody not of this party consent to participate with them? Even if we manage to get the government out of the hands of these thugs, how long will it be before they manage to lie their way back into power again? We need to consider what it means to provide new guards for our future security; continuing to participate with incipient tyrants makes no sense. I say, partition the nation, and let the Progressives have their own land to ruin as they see fit — but let’s get them the hell out of ours.

The cake of the day goes to the craven Democratic Representative who lacked the courage to cancel his town hall meeting, but also lacked the courage to face an angry public. His solution? Announce the time of the meeting incorrectly, to minimize the crowd (a lot of them are doing this), and hold the town hall meeting… wait for it… at a children’s hospital.

It’s who they are.

humanshield004

Graphic from Michelle Malkin.

« More Recent PostsOlder Posts »