THE PLAN IS WORKING

President Obama recently stated that:

"We tried our plan - and it worked"

Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it.  But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November.  Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid.  I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!)  I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths.  I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me.  But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit.  Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time.  One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos". 

This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse.  What would they replace the capitalist system with?  Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course.  A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".

Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war.  We have neither on our shores,  and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region.  In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about?  By overwhelming our system in other ways.

Why is it important to talk about this theory now?  Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT: PROPAGANDA EDITION

Dana Milbank isn't someone I agree with often, but his article in the Washington Post today was a real eye opener for me.  Mr. Milbank is (somewhat surprisingly) not very supportive of President Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule", which is supposed to reach the Senate floor for a vote next week.  It's not expected to pass.

In fact, the president himself called the whole thing a "gimmick".  Isn't it great that the Senate is spending its valuable time on this purely political attempt to re-elect one man instead of doing its constitutional duty and passing the first budget in more than three years?   Good to know they have their priorities in line.

THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE

Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

CIRCUS RECAP

Well, the Circus is over.  The six hour health care summit stretched to seven hours.  The breakdown on speaking was Obama - one hour 53 minutes, Democrats - three hours 53 minutes, Republicans - one hour 50 minutes.  Yeah, that's bipartisan.  Hot Air's Allahpundit has a great rundown on what he calls the 'Freakshow'.

Obama came off a little snippy and, surprise, surprise, arrogant.  Republicans really brought their A game, in my opinion.  Not that they got a lot of floor time, but that was to be expected, and they really made the most of the time they were allowed.  They were on point talking about the differences between what the dems want and what they want.  The democrats relied on a string of sob stories and some wild statements like Harry Reid saying no one has been talking about reconciliation.  Really, Harry?  Really? 

Queen Nancy went at it from another angle - jobs.  Yup, you got it - this bill is all about jobs.  Four million of them.  Apparently 400,000 of them will be created immediately.  The thing is, as ridiculous as it may sound, she's probably right.  Unfortunately, all of those jobs will be created because of the giant behemoth government bureaucracy they are trying to set up, but, hey, a job is a job, right?  Of course, all those doctors retiring and/or quitting will change those numbers a bit, as well as all of the jobs lost when the insurance companies start closing down because they are being priced out of the market or crippled by overbearing regulations and artificial pricing.

The republicans were talking policy and trying to find the points of agreement and explain their opposition to other points, and the democrats were busy spewing one sob story after another, working that liberal guilt to within an inch of their lives, either unwilling or unable to explain their positions.  It was a little pathetic, actually.

I understand that there are people out there who are victimized by shady insurance policies; I know that people fall through the cracks.  But they are talking about reshaping an entire industry from top to bottom when things like simple regulation to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions would be sufficient.  The republicans were trying to point out that lowering costs by implimenting tort reform and interstate commerce, among other things, would enable more people to afford insurance, so more people would be insured -  without a government takeover of the health care system. 

The problem with that argument, of course, is that, for the democrats, the whole point of 'reform' is government takeover.  There is no middle ground on this, because the two sides are diametrically opposed.  The democrats are offering socialized medicine in the European model, and the republicans are offering free market solutions.  The democrats refused to even discuss tort reform and interstate solutions because they would work (well, and also because they don't want to tick off the trial lawyers - they're a goldmine for campaign contributions).

For all of Harry Reid's denials, reconciliation is on the table.  Before the democrats jump on that grenade, however, they should consider that it might possibly be the death knell of their party for a generation or more.  Disapproval for their bills have been holding steady at about 56% for the past three months.  Over 60% want them to start from scratch.  A majority oppose the partisan tactic of reconciliation, including, apparently, one of the creators of the process.  They proceed with it at their own risk.  But considering how incredibly tone deaf they have been so far, don't be surprised if they pull the trigger anyway. 

I have to admit that I was worried that the Republicans would fare poorly today, but they did great.  And if Obama's surly expression and attitude are any indication, he knows it - and so do others.

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....

NEA NO-NO

I first read about a conference call to the National Endowment for the Arts a few weeks ago. It has been flying under the radar because of ACORN and the health care 'debate', but it is time it gets some attention. Why now? Because there is more afoot than just a phone call.

First of all, why should a conference call with the NEA be of concern? Well, the topic of the call was how the various artists funded by the NEA (which, in turn, is funded by our taxpayer dollars), could help the Obama administration 'get the word out' about the president and some of his major policies that the administration is pushing, such as health care and cap and trade.

This is a big no-no - taxpayer dollars are not allowed to be used to push political agendas. This is one of the big beefs people have with ACORN (yes, it all does come back to ACORN!), and for good reason. Watering the weeds of far-left organizations from the seemingly bottomless, yet ever drier well of taxpayer funding is a bad thing - our very own grass roots are feeling the pain of it already.


For the Executive Office to initiate a phone call to the National Endowment for the Arts to work with them on a campaign to help pass legislation is questionable, at best.


No matter how you slice it, it's propaganda, pure and simple.


Now the administration wants to 'set up guidelines' to make sure something like this never happens again. What bothers me about this is that their statement implies ignorance of the rules. But this quote from Yosi Sargent, the (now ex-) NEA representative from the actual phone call, tells a different story (emphasis mine):



""This is just the beginning," Sergant says on the call. "This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally. We're still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites of Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it's being made, so bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely. And we can really work together to move the needle to get stuff done.""



They knew that what they were setting up was illegal, and they were/are in the process of finding ways around those laws.


Tweaking the system, you might say.


So now the administration is 'setting up guidelines'. Hey, I've got a guideline for you, champ - don't dictate to artists what propaganda you need them to produce. Not even suggestions. In my opinion, political art should automatically be exempt from governmental funding, period. That is what private sponsors are for.


The left collectively roll their eyes when some point to the socialist (progressive, thankyouverymuch) theme this administration seems to be adopting and try to shame their critics, claiming paranoia and ridiculousness. But then something like this comes to light, and all those niggling doubts come back to the fore. This, in combination with an unprecedented power-grab and in-the-tank media harkens back to eastern European socialist bloc countries of days gone by.

The media, for the most part, has already morphed into Pravda West, merely taking dictation from the White House and Congress instead of reporting news, and now our art communities are working on their very best Leni Riefenstahl impressions.

No, I'm not calling Obama Hitler. Those crazy Lyndon LaRouche democrats seem to have cornered that market. However, Leni was propagandizing a socialist utopia, and quite magnificently, too.

It just seems as though this attempt at propagandizing our art communities is yet another check mark on some list.

Doesn't the fact that they knew this wasn't allowed, and yet still tried to do it anyway say anything?

Propaganda is priceless, especially when one is promoting the Cult of Personality.