WOODY ALLEN WANTS TO MAKE OBAMA DICTATOR IN CHIEF

Timing is everything. I say this being a reformed lib, raised in a family of thespians, studying "make believe" with the hopes of following in their footsteps, but eventually becoming a very young mother and raising a child in the 1960's, no less. Personally, liberalism was doomed, as the last democrat I ever voted for was Jimmy Carter -- God help me! But, my upbringing did give me a certain perspective into the mind of far left radicals (which my parents were not), especially in the entertainment field.

Life is make believe, and utopia is a one world order where everyone gets along and behaves themselves. Of course, in this utopia we have one ruler who watches over us, making all the choices and decisions individuals and private businesses are incapable of making. Then America will be just like everyone else, level the playing field, distribute individual wealth and personal property -- take from the have's, and give to the have not's -- sort of like Robin Hood and the Sherwood Forest. And, of course - no more American exceptionalism.

This is very disturbing, but it is so far out in left field. Again, we see how our country is sliding backwards into a world our forefathers fled in order to be free. Unless we keep educating ourselves AND our children (because the left will surely not), history will repeat itself. If you need more proof, take a look at what Woody Allen wants these days, in a piece by Bojidar Marinov from Vision to America:

Woody Allen Wants to Make Obama Dictator in Chief

by Bojidar Marinov, May 18, 2010

Erich Graetz, owner and manager of the producer of kerosene lamps and electrical systems Ehrich & Graetz AG, had inherited the company from his father Max Graetz in 1936. Max and his two sons, Erich and Fritz, were among the critics of the Weimar Republic. Ehrich & Graetz AG profited much under Hitler’s regime. The company employed the services of about 1,100 forced laborers during the war, one third of them Jewish. In 1943 the SS took the Jewish workers to the concentration camps. Erich only complained about the loss of the labor of the “non-Aryans.”

Erich Graetz is better known for his exclamation in the early 1930s, “Ist Hitler nicht ein famoser Kerl?” (“Isn’t Hitler a fabulous guy?”) He supported Hitler’s ascent to power, and he took advantage of the forced labor provided by the dictatorship government of the Nazi Party. Hitler was just fabulous, wasn’t he? He had to have dictatorial powers. That’s what Germany needed. How else would Germany be restored to power?

Of course, we know what Hitler brought to Germany—utter devastation, destruction, and suffering. Erich and Fritz lost all they had. They could have foreseen as early as 1936 what was coming. But they were deceived by their blind worship of Hitler. After all, wasn’t he ein famoser Kerl?

Woody Allen lived his whole life quite comfortably in a nation that more than any other nation on the planet had liberty and justice for all, embedded in its Constitution, and in the very fabric of its society. He had the freedom to make films that most Americans resented, and also movies that didn’t necessarily agreed with the views of the political elite at the time. He could say things that so many of us disagreed with, and he could get away with them. There were no “crystal nights” at Woody Allen’s shop, and he wasn’t sent to a concentration camp. Even when he married his very young stepdaughter, the court didn’t give him what he deserved. He got away with much.

But these days Woody Allen is of the opinion, that Obama is just brilliant, and he must be given dictatorial powers. Obama just must be allowed to force the majority of us Americans to do what he wants. We shouldn’t be allowed to make our own decisions, or have it our own way. We should be under dictatorial rule of this fabulous president. Obama must be given the power to impose “crystal nights” on the rest of us and send us to concentration camps if he considers such actions good for the nation.

In short, after taking advantage of the liberties in America, Woody Allen wants to make sure that other Americans are deprived of that privilege. Why? Because for Woody Allen, Obama ist ein famoser Kerl.

The Left has always been on the lookout to find that promised Messiah of socialism, that famoser Kerl who is “brilliant,” who knows everything, who is by definition sinless and infallible. Every generation of leftists had its demi-god who would bring about the promised kingdom of complete government control, who knows better than the people what is good for them. Leftist American intellectuals have been obsessed with Mussolini, then Hitler, FDR, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kennedy... The list of socialist would-be messiahs is longer than the list of the would-be Antichrists for the dispensationalists.

This reveals a very interesting characteristic of the Left. Even though it generally parades under the banner of atheism or “anti-religion,” the Left is profoundly and hopelessly religious to the core. It is deeply irrational when it comes to belief in its proposed messiahs. I say “religious,” but the word that properly describes it would probably rather be “superstitious.” A religious faith is usually accompanied by a theology, an attempt to rationalize the belief, to analyze and understand the object of worship, to make it accessible intellectually to outsiders. Religious faith is open to consider and meet objections and answer them. It defends itself by presenting counter-arguments and building a worldview that encompasses both personal and corporate thought and action.

The Left has nothing like it. Its faith in its messiahs is a primitive, deeply irrational superstition. It doesn’t attempt to understand or analyze them; it doesn’t attempt to defend them intellectually; it doesn’t attempt to understand any counter-arguments and answer them. They are just “brilliant,” the kind of god that humanity needed all along. Anyone who objects to this irrational superstition is by default a taboo-breaker in the eyes of the leftists; he spits upon their totem.

And of course, since the messiah of the leftists must be by default above any doubt or question, since he is famoser and brilliant, logically he must be given dictatorial powers. Anything less than dictatorial powers would be an affront to the god. The process of political representation in the Constitution of the United States presupposes that politicians are fallible and sinful and imperfect. This comes in direct contradiction with the primitive superstitious faith of the leftists. Therefore, for a consistent leftist, the Constitution has to go, and our famoser Kerl must be given dictatorial powers.

Just like Erich Graetz 70 years ago, Woody Allen is intelligent enough to foresee what would be coming to America if Barrack Hussein Obama was given dictatorial powers. The Founders of this country warned against it, and we have the examples of so many other “brilliant dictators” in other countries in recent history. But just like Erich Graetz, Woody Allen is blinded by his own primitive tribal superstition that blocks his brain and wouldn’t allow him to see the irrationality of his own words. The Apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans about folks like Woody Allen, that,

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Rom. 1:21–23).

In its flight from God and His Law, the Left didn’t find freedom from religious beliefs, neither did it find wisdom. To the contrary, the Left rejected the ordered house of the Christian religion only to live in the jungle of primitive creature worship and superstition; and instead of wisdom, it got irrationalism and stupidity. Woody Allen is an end product of this process.

Irrational superstitious creature-worshippers do not build civilizations. They can only live as parasites in a civilization created by those who worship the Creator. Woody Allen’s faith is dying across America, and his brilliant famoser Kerl will go down in history as the worst President America ever had. God is not to be mocked.

WHO YOU GONNA TRUST?

America is waking up, but is the damage done so far irreparable? I'd like to think better late than never, but there's a lot of hard work ahead in order to keep our country on its intended track as laid out by our Founding Fathers. The biggest immediate task is to carefully choose constitutional conservatives for both houses this coming November -- in SIX months.

Why has America lost its trust in government? The PEW poll reports nearly 80% of Americans do NOT trust their government. This past year we have witnessed appalling attacks on our constitution, process, and (worst of all) ehtics. We have witnessed a president lie to the American people time after time. We have witnessed congressional leaders lie in order to ram through one legislation after another. Why should we trust these people? We are losing our liberty under these people. Is this the change Obama promised us? Do we want it?

So the question kinda boils down to -- Who do you trust? We have disappointments on both sides. But, it's not a bad thing, because there are changes around the bend. Geoffrey Norman writes an excellent piece in American Spectator:


Who You Gonna Trust?
by Geoffrey Norman, April 22, 2010

There has been a lot said and written in the last couple of days about a new poll showing that only 20% or so of Americans "trust the government." The news is being gravely received and treated as further and redundant proof that the country is in a bad way.

To me, though, it sounds like pretty good news. We need more distrust of government for the very good reason that government is pretty much an untrustworthy enterprise. If more Americans had been inclined to distrust the government five, ten, twenty, or more years ago, we might not be in the fix we are in today and our distrust might not be so bilious.

Wouldn't it, for instance, have been a good thing if we had distrusted the entire Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac contraption which was the foundation of the housing bubble that, when it burst, led to the economic distress that has so many of us feeling distrustful and worse? If we had been a little skeptical of the government's claim that Fanny and Freddy were not backed by the full faith and etc. of the government and would not be bailed out if they got into trouble, then they might not have grown so fat on preposterous mortgages that they had to be bailed out using the full faith and etc. And we might all have jobs and more money today. But the people who ran those Government Sponsored Enterprises -- and got hog-rich doing it -- assured us that all was well. And we trusted them.

We can't claim innocence. This wasn't a "fool me once, shame on you," thing. By the time of the housing crash, we all had plenty of reason to know better. Still, we go on trusting, so shame on us.

We would, I think, be a lot better off today if we'd been a lot less trusting back in what we are all supposed to think of as a better, less dishonest times. Wouldn't the nation be better off its citizens hadn't accepted with docility the assertion, made in 1967, that Medicare would cost a mere $12 billion in 1990? Turns out that the actual number was a little closer to $110 billion. But how could any good citizen actually distrust a government that gets it wrong by a mere factor of almost 10? And how absolutely nihilistic of him to doubt that the Health Care Reform legislation so recently passed will both expand coverage and reduce the deficit.

Where's the trust?

Back when he was campaigning for the job, President Obama said he would do something about this trust deficit, declaring that, "…when it comes to what's wrong with this country, the American people are not the problem. The American people are the answer. The American people want to trust in our government again -- we just need a government that will trust in us. And making government accountable to the people isn't just a cause of this campaign -- it's been a cause of my life for two decades."

Well, on the matter of a different deficit, the one that has people worried about the world they will be leaving to their children and grandchildren, President Obama has resorted to an old Washington scam that we have seen before and should, by now, distrust instinctively. He has appointed a commission to study the matter and get back to us with recommendations.

Commissions like this one are established to do what everyone in Washington wants done (increase taxes, close useless military bases) but lacks the courage to do.

This commission will be chaired by Erskin Bowles who once worked in the government, for Bill Clinton, and Alan Simpson who used to work in the U.S. Senate where what they do, year after year, is vote for things they can't raise money to pay for. Among the other members of this commission will be Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois where the people in government ran the state into an economic ditch before some of them, but not nearly enough, went off to jail.

That anyone who is now, or ever has been, a member of the United States Senate is serving on the commission charged with reducing the deficit is prima face cause to distrust the whole enterprise. But, of course, we know what the commission is going to recommend before they even start running up bills to decorate their office space.

Get ready for the Erskine & Alan VAT. That would be a Value Added Tax.

When asked about the VAT, Robert Gibbs, this administration's Secretary of Distrust said, "This is not something the president has proposed, nor is it under consideration."

Which pretty much seals the deal.

Once we get the VAT, maybe we'll look back at that 20% figure and wonder how it could ever have been that high.


Geoffrey Norman is the author of Riding With Jeb Stuart and the editor of Vermonttiger.com.

HOW GOVERNMENT SPENDING HURTS NATIONAL SECURITY

We are on the verge of taking on the largest entitlement program in our history -- government run health care, unless we step up to the plate and voice our rejection. The major ramification is two-fold: government intrusion into our health decisions, and increasing our national debt to unsustainable depths.

This has to stop. The Heritage Foundation writes:


How Government Spending Hurts National Security
by Amanda Reinecker, October 30, 2009

America is one of the strongest, wealthiest and freest nations on earth; she is largely in control of her own fate. Therefore, any real threat against America will likely come from within. Today, one of the main internal threats is crushing government debt.

"Few things can march a great power down the road of decline faster than irresponsible economic policies," Heritage Foundation Vice President Kim Holmes writes in the Washington Times. Current estimates of our national debt exceed $7 trillion -- $22,000 per person -- a figure likely to increase by $9 trillion over the next decade.

Unlike in times past when the nation was saddled with exorbitant deficits, today's imbalance is long-term and will heavily burden future generations. And this financial shortfall will wreak havoc on our national security. That's because the more money we commit to ever-expanding big-government programs, the less we have for defense.

Holmes outlines the dangers we face if the nation continues down this track of runaway spending:

The U.S. military might be unable to protect a sea lane vital to trade and military supply lines. We might be unable to suppress an enemy regime that launches a terrorist attack against us. And absent the great American economic engine, we might lack the resources to stay on the cutting edge of technology, leaving our soldiers vulnerable to being matched or even trumped on the battlefield by better-equipped foes.

Maintaining our superpower status requires reining in our out-of-control spending on entitlement programs, the main driver of our long-term debts. As Heritage experts have long argued, this entitlement spending is among the greatest domestic policy challenge our nation faces. That's why we have included reforming programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as key goals of our 10-year Leadership for America Campaign.

» Learn more about Heritage's efforts to control the government's long-term spending.

America currently faces many external threats. But unless we address these serious spending problems from within, we will not be adequately prepared to face those from without.

Health care update

• The House health care "reform" bill introduced this week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sets a new all-time record: 1,990 pages. Just in time for Halloween, the House's latest version of the bill paints a scary picture for our economy and our nation's fiscal future. Heritage's Conn Carroll reports that "the bill purports to cost only $1.05 trillion over the first ten years and is paid for by over $700 billion in tax increases and cuts to Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug payments." So more taxes and more spending -- and that just lays the groundwork for a complete government takeover of the health care industry.
• The Senate Finance Committee plans to saddle middle- and low-income taxpayers with roughly a quarter of the costs of its $829 billion health care "reform" proposal. These cost will be imposed on them through a "misguided excise tax on insurance plans" that will cost upwards of $200 billion over ten years, Heritage tax policy analyst Curtis Dubay reports. This tax is in effect no different than an increase in income taxes -- so if it becomes law it would break the President's promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

A better idea would be to cap the amount of a health plan that's tax free -- and return the difference in lower income taxes. This reform, Dubay writes, would realign incentives and "ultimately reduce heath care costs without growing government further." Visit FixHealthCarePolicy.com to learn more about Heritage's health care reform alternatives.

The Left attacks school choice

The Left is working hard to block parental choice in education. For example, the effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has enabled thousands of parents to send their children to safer schools where they can receive a better education, is under attack in Congress.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder is on the offensive against this school choice program. Heritage education expert Lindsey Burke reports that earlier this week, Holder asked a former Washington, D.C. lawmaker to stop running a television advertisement supporting the program and criticizing the Department of Education's decision to rescind scholarships for 216 young District residents.

Americans deserve to know about the success of such programs and the need to protect them from the political forces that endanger them. That's why Heritage has produced a new documentary, Let Me Rise. We're taking the message of the students and families that benefit from this successful program and bringing it directly to those who have the power to preserve it.

» Watch a short version of this important film.

"Let Me Rise challenges not only people in the District, but across the nation, to better understand the critical need to improve urban education in America," Heritage's Lindsey Burke writes.

The documentary premiered at The Heritage Foundation last week. Attending the premiere were Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), former D.C. Councilmember Kevin Chavous, activist Virginia Walden-Ford and columnist Juan Williams.

The film is part of Heritage's comprehensive effort under our 10-year Leadership for America campaign to strengthen American education by empowering parents to choose a safe and effective school for their children. Every child in America -- not just those who earn the goodwill of Congress or Washington bureaucrats -- deserves the opportunity to receive a quality education.

AMERICANISM AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

A couple of items crossed my plate worth showcasing.  Since most of us know Obama doesn't have an original bone in his body, take a peek at this 1934 Chicago Tribune political cartoon:

(click to enlarge - hat tip Geoatbeck)

We are not only going down the same road as the road FDR chose, it goes even farther back -- The Roman Empire. Unlike the students of today, our Founding Fathers knew their history, and also unlike the spoiled youth of today, our Founding Fathers lived it.

This knowledge created one of the greatest works in history, and, like the Roman Empire, the power hungry politicians are chipping away at the edges. Unless America wakes up and gets engaged, we will lose our liberty, our republic, and our freedom, and thousands of people will have lost their lives in eventual defeat.

Once the Romans dropped their guard, power-seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted to them, and eventually learned they could elect politicians to use government power to take property from some and gave it to others. They even set up housing and welfare programs.  All of this leading to an oligarchy -- a tyranny of the elite. Sound familiar?

No wonder they don't want to teach history in schools.

"The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government." Here is a short video on Americanism and the American system -- The American form of government: (h/t Mom Dianne)

Watch here

DON'T ENABLE THE FINANCIAL-REGULATORY COMPLEX

Over the years Federal regulations have strangled financial institutions, forcing them to make risky loans, beginning with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 to most recently Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's shenanigans.

This administration is looking to nationalize the financial institutions, pushing America further towards financial ruin.  The Heritage Foundation reports:

Don’t Enable The Financial-Regulatory Complex

September 14, 2009

This Saturday, tens of thousands of Americans marched on Washington to protest the unprecedented amount of power being concentrated in Washington, DC under the Obama administration. And even the New York Times admits they have a point: “The government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. Between financial rescue missions and the economic stimulus program, government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II.”

And on the Sunday New York Times op-ed page, George Mason University professor of economics Tyler Cowen writes:

For years now, many businesses and individuals in the United States have been relying on the power of government, rather than competition in the marketplace, to increase their wealth. This is politicization of the economy. It made the financial crisis much worse, and the trend is accelerating. … President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the birth of a military-industrial complex. Today we have a financial-regulatory complex, and it has meant a consolidation of power and privilege. We’ve created a class of politically protected “too big to fail” institutions, and the current proposals for regulatory reform further cement this notion.

President Barack Obama will be pitching those very financial regulatory reforms today from Federal Hall, where the founders once argued bitterly over how much the government should control the national economy. Unfortunately, the blueprint for financial regulatory reform issued by his administration is a detailed mixture of overreaching policy mistakes, missed chances for real reform, blanks that will be filled in later after studies, and a few good ideas.

The President and Congress should:

• Avoid Making the Federal Reserve Serve as Systemic Risk Regulator: The Obama Administration proposes to put the Federal Reserve Board in charge of regulating systemic risk, but it is not clear how such regulation would work in practice or even if this method is the best way to approach the problem. Charging a single entity with reducing systemic risk is likely to raise false expectations. It is very doubtful that any systemic regulator will be able to successfully fill this role unless it has almost unlimited powers, and this type of open-ended power would be difficult to constrain and should be resisted.
• Do Not Create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency: The administration proposes to consolidate existing consumer regulators into a new and very powerful Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This is the single biggest policy mistake in the Obama plan. The proposal assumes that consumers are unable to understand any financial products other than the most simple, basic versions even with detailed disclosures in advance of purchase. This basic contempt for the intelligence of consumers would extend to requiring them to refuse certain basic products before they would be allowed to purchase anything else.
• Resist Giving the FDIC Resolution Authority for “Too Big to Fail” Financial Firms: Dealing with failing financial companies that could cause risk to the financial system is a valid concern, but the Administration’s approach seems more geared toward facilitating future bailouts and justifying additional intervention. Clearly, a receiver/conservator that can operate the least certain subsidiaries until they can be sold or orderly closed is necessary in order to maximize returns to debtors. But the Treasury plan assumes that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) should handle this role rather than allowing the courts to determine a receiver and then supervise it.
  

Instead of a Washington-centric top-down approach, the President and Congress should pursue a more modest approach. Rather than giving a government agency the ability to take over and operate large financial institutions, bankruptcy law ought to be modified to accommodate the special problems of resolving these firms and also allow the courts to appoint receivers with the specialized knowledge necessary to best deal with their failure. Instead of creating a regulatory scheme that results in the federal government financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated. And rather than seeking to micro-manage “too big to fail” financial institutions, it would be better to require them to have more capital than is required for smaller financial institutions.

The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen

More and more Americans are becoming outraged over bigger and ever growing government. History has taught us big government breeds entitlement, and entitlement diminishes character, eventually affecting quality of life.

Dennis Prager has been called an "amazingly gifted man and moralist, whose mission in life has been crystallized - 'to get people obsessed with what is right and wrong.'" He writes about 5 reasons why bigger government makes less impressive people.


The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen
By Dennis Prager, September 1, 2009

Those of us who oppose a massive increase in the role the national government plays in health care ("ObamaCare") do so because we fear the immense and unsustainable national debt it would incur and because we are certain that medical care in America would deteriorate. But there is a bigger reason most of us oppose it: We believe that the bigger the government becomes, the smaller the individual citizen becomes.

Here are five reasons why bigger government makes less impressive people.

1. People who are able to take care of themselves and do so are generally better than people who are able to take care of themselves but rely on others. Of course, there are times when some people have absolutely no choice and must rely on others to take care of them. Life is tragic and some people, despite their best efforts and their commitment to being a responsible person, must have others support them.

Even if one believes, as the left does by definition, that the ideal society is one in which the state takes care of as many of our needs as possible, one must acknowledge that this has deleterious effects on many, if not most, citizens' moral character. The moment one acknowledges that the more one takes care of oneself, the more developed is his or her character, one must acknowledge that a bigger state diminishes its citizens' characters.

Presumably one might argue that there is no relationship between character development and taking responsibility for oneself. But to do so is to turn the concept of character, as it has been understood throughout Judeo-Christian and Western history, on its head. The essence of good character is to care of oneself and then take of others who cannot take care of themselves.

2. The more people come to rely on government, the more they develop a sense of entitlement -- an attitude characterized by the belief that one is owed (whatever the state provides and more). This is a second big government blow to character development because it has at least three terrible consequences:

First, the more one feels entitled, the less one believes he has to work for anything. Why work hard if I can look to the state to give much of what I need, and, increasingly, much of what I want? Second, the more one feels entitled, the less grateful one feels. This is obvious: The more one expects to be given, the less one is grateful for what one is given. Third, the more entitled and the less grateful one feels, the angrier one becomes. The opposite of gratitude is not only ingratitude, it is anger. People who do not get what they think they are entitled to become angry.
3. People develop disdain for work.

One of the effects of the welfare state on vast numbers of European citizens is disdain for work. This is in keeping with Marx's view of utopia as a time when people will work very little and devote their large amount of non-working time writing poetry and engaging in other such lofty pursuits. Work is not regarded by the left as ennobling. It is highly ennobling in the American value system, however.

4. People become preoccupied with vacation time.

Along with disdain for work, one witnesses among Western Europeans a preoccupation with not working. Vacation time has become a moral value among many Europeans. There have been riots in countries like France merely over working hours. In Sweden and elsewhere, more and more workers take more and more time off from work, knowing they will be paid anyway. In Germany and elsewhere, it is against the law to keep one's store open after a certain hour, lest that give that store owner an income advantage and thereby compel a competing store to stay open longer as well. And, of course, Americans are viewed as working far too hard.

5. People are rendered more selfish.

Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?

This preoccupation with self includes foreign policy: Why care about, let alone risk dying for, another country's liberty? That is the view of the world's left. That is why conservative governments are far more supportive of the war efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan than left-wing governments of the same country. The moment the socialists won in Spain, they withdrew all their forces from Iraq. The new center-left government in Japan has promised to stop helping the war effort in Afghanistan.

Of course, there are fine idealistic individuals on the left, and selfish individuals on the right. But as a rule, bigger government increases the number of angry, ungrateful, lazy, spoiled and self-centered individuals. Which is why some of us believe that increased nationalization of health care is worth shouting about. And even crying over.

MORE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EQUAL 'REFORM'

As we continue to battle the assault of government intrusion, it sometimes helps to take a look back and add up the assaults. One by one by one does not, in itself, appear to be intrusive, but the sum of the parts is now awakening the 'sleeping giant', with government run healthcare being the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

Talk about mixing metaphors. Bernard Chapin of PajamasMedia explains:


More Government Does Not Equal ‘Reform’
By Bernard Chapin, August 15, 2009

We live in interesting times. The America of 2020 will be radically different than the America of 1920. Just as Europeans attempt to liberalize their markets, we, in the United States, endeavor to (further) socialize ours. The Increase the Size of the Federocracy Plan — a.k.a. the stimulus — imperils our ability to ever get out of debt while cap and tax seeks to punish citizens as a means to atone for environmental variation. Inadvertently, the carbon scheme will enable China to become the world’s dominant economic power and lead to an even greater loss of our nation’s manufacturing base.

The latest assault on our institutions and freedoms comes from the Democratic Party’s health care initiative. Polling data suggest that most Americans are not in favor of Congress’ vague but extensive restructuring venture (disguised as reform), as 89 percent of us are satisfied with our own medical care.

No matter, the Democrats see another area of our lives to subject to their dreams of domination and have seized the day. As with the economy and climate change, they manufactured a health care crisis to ensure that they “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Republicans are “nearly united” in opposing it, but, alas, the left has the votes to push some kind of counterproductive measure through — even if it’s not totally transformative — without their assistance. Indeed, even if the GOP fights like paratroopers stranded in Bastogne, the much-heralded conservatives of the Democratic Party appear to be more lapdog than blue dog.

Should the weaker elements on his side wobble, President Obama created a new website, “Organizing for Health Care,” to assist politicians in battles with their constituents. The new web portal harkens back to the feel-good days of 2008 when the campaign ran “Fight the Smears” — established to prevent the general public from discerning the vast expanse existing between who Barack Obama actually was and who he pretended to be.

The odds may be against conservatives, but all is not lost. Positive signs abound as more and more citizens are ending their passivity. They’re standing up to their rulers and presenting them with the Obama kryptonite of “no, no, we can’t.”

The left could acknowledge the very real concerns of half the nation, but they’ve chosen to go into war-room mode. It appears that Democrats ardently believe in the opposite of Occam’s razor — the most convoluted and dramatic explanation for an event is the one that is most believable.

To leftists, only a sucker accepts that actual Americans complain or speak out when they witness detestable government action, so rather than comment on reality they conjure up conspiracy theories.

The DNC wrote off the protesters as “angry mobs of a small number of rabid right-wing extremists funded by K Street lobbyists” while an upper-class toff in the Senate lamented the number of “well-dressed people” storming the “town hall meetings.” Ah, there it is. What else is a clubman to do, between regattas in August, besides make spontaneous visits to his congressman?

Less humorously, the speaker of the House accused critics of “carrying swastikas” to their rallies, but this was a bizarre and unsubstantiated slur. If any of them did carry swastikas then, in all probability, they would be Pelosi — or Rep. John Dingell — supporters, as one can’t simultaneously hate socialism and support fascism. Perhaps her time would be better spent lecturing her own side about their choices in fashion accessories.

President Obama warned his flock about “misleading information” and “outlandish rumors.” This amounts to suggesting that Americans should accept his promises concerning the future rather than study the actual stipulations of the 1,000-page health care monstrosity. After all, why swim in substance when you can float on fluff?

Obama loyalists were also asked to forward to the White House information regarding health care that “seems fishy.” Which means what? And what are the authorities going to do with the information they gather?

Nobody knows. Some sources hold the request to be illegal. Senator John Cornyn penned a masterful response arguing, “As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.”

No, muscling us won’t work. Americans don’t take kindly to pressure from those who purport to serve, and the last thing we need is a vain, bully of a leader. No paranoia or conspiracy theory pushed by the Democratic Party alters this truth, as our populace does not yearn for a socialist Big Brother.

Only deception will snooker us into surrendering the rest of our freedoms, which is precisely why the Obama administration is trying to win the debate by making sure that there isn’t one.

To many people, the deceitful nature of our politicians becomes most evident when their spin contradicts something you know to be true. With the health care rallies, just as with the April tea party, I was informed of a downtown gathering not by an insurance company or medical organization, but by meetup.com, where I am a member both of the Chicago libertarian and conservative action groups.

I received an email stating:

"A pro-national health care rally is being held downtown today at 4:30 p.m. If you can, please click on the link below for information and join the counter-rally. We need everyone’s voice in this. Hope to see you downtown! Quality Time with Jan Schakowsky — Rally for Health Care Reform! — Federal Plaza Tuesday, Aug. 4."

The counter-demonstration consisted of a bunch of citizens reaching each other for free via a social networking site. There was no hocus pocus, big business, fat-cat lawyers, pay-for-play promises, or knee-destroying Astroturf involved. Attendance relied neither on donors nor manipulation.

Even though I am a political conservative who is leagues from being a “moderate” on the issues, most Americans agree with my stance on ObamaCare and are turning against it. The president and his followers may disseminate the buzz phrase that “the status quo is unsustainable,” but the only thing life has taught us is that it is government programs that are unsustainable.

For a start, Medicare and Social Security are going broke while the U.S. Postal Service continues to lose billions. Further, with Amtrak remaining the sick(est) man of the federocracy, we should change the government’s motto to “bankruptcy or bust.”

It takes no special interest groups or necromancers to make Americans realize that “free” and “government-provided” are antonyms. Government initiatives have never saved money and they consistently manage to deplete the U.S. Treasury at a much faster clip than legislators initially presume.

For his part, President Obama pretended that the backlash stemmed from Republican operatives or possibly CEOs of HMOs, saying, “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

Heaven forbid we question this man. How dare we! Yet dare we must. Given that the best predictor of future performance is past behavior, no precedent exists for presupposing that the Democratic Party — or the government in general — can “clean up” any fiscal disaster.

Indeed, federal intervention invariably exacerbates the social problems it deigns to address and the debt from its undertakings endangers our future. Barack Obama responded to George W. Bush’s enormous budget deficits by making them worse.

Indeed, with the budget itself, after his inauguration, Obama called his predecessor’s unwieldy $3.1 trillion raise and re-raised him $400 billion. The president’s claim that “for all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing” is bogus.

What truly horrifies is the thought of giving Washington, D.C., any more control over our lives. Yes, health care in America can be improved, but only by decreasing the amount of influence that federal regulators have on it.

In the end, government “reform” is no reform at all. They’ve made a labyrinth of everything we’ve asked them to “solve” in the past. If anything, let’s learn from our mistakes and slash government’s role in the health care sector further.