The Chris Christie-Barack Obama School Of “Punishing Your Enemies” Thuggery

Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate.  Yikes.  That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own.  My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.

Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters.  Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own.  This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.

And it’s worked.  We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.  Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.

Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand.  It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces.  Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant.  According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.

No, thanks.  I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.

I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive.  Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues.  They know this.  We know it.  So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing?  They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles.  We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.

I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day.  I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next.  The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it.  Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just?  Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched?  Um, no thanks.  Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong.  The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.

Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.

So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.”  If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies.  That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey.  Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.

There is no “but” there.  This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug.  As is his stance on any number of issues:  he’s pro-amnesty, prosharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative.  Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey?  Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion?  We defend him . . . why?  I just can’t wrap my head around it.  I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually.  He may yet.  But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it?  I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?

Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support.  And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama:  he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned.  There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing.  And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama.  They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus.  Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.

Thanksgiving At Fuzzy’s: Oh, Yes, OFA, We Discussed ObamaCare

This Thanksgiving, I took the kind advice of Obama’s propaganda-thug group OFA and was all set to make sure that 0Care was a topic of conversation at some point during our gathering.  Yes, we have a few die-hard lefties hanging on the family and extended family tree, but they are low-hanging fruit, easily picked off with . . . woah! don’t go there! . . . facts.   But as it turns out, one of our own got the OFA memo and bravely, if ineptly, tried to “sell”  0care to us.  Sadly, for him, we are informed.

The conversation went something like this (I will change the names to protect the ignorant.  And in an obvious case, to protect the patriotic.  The latter from IRS audits):

RObot: It’s so nice to see you!  [RObot glances furtively at black magic marker scratchings on his forearm]

Okay, I made that part up, but he was so clearly confused that it seemed like he should have had crib notes from OFA scribbled on his body.

“Hey,” RObot asks, “did you hear about Obamacare?  About how, erm, it’s . . . ugh, yeah, good for women?  And other people?”

Yes, this last was a completely separate question.  Dear old RObot wasn’t sure who was being helped, but he felt pretty sure someone, somewhere was.

Fuzzy: [glares at RObot, mentally picking over her options: does she respond or does she keep the peace on this wonderful holiday?]

Fuzzy’s mom swoops in to save the day: “Now, RObot, wouldn’t you like some nice appetizers?  Come over here . . . that’s right, waaaay over here. There’s a dear.”

RObot, now waaay over there, to Uncle Liberty: “Mmm, these are good, but hey, nothing’s as good as that Obamacare, huh?”  [guileless gaze]

Uncle Liberty expresses his views of Obamacare in a lengthy, lucid monologue that lasted a full twenty minutes.  I’m not sure he took a breath throughout the whole thing.

Uncle Liberty went into great detail about everything from the locking out of Republicans during the early deliberative process (unless you think “compromise” means doing what Obama, whose only retort to Republican ideas was “I won,” wants) to the stubborn refusal to hear the people not only in town halls across the nation but when Scott Brown was elected to replace Senator Kennedy.  Uncle Liberty explained why over 5 million have lost the health insurance, doctors, and hospitals that they liked and why up to 100 million more will do so in the next two years.  He talked about the ways that 0Care destroyed jobs, income, the economy, and people’s dignity . . . all while doing absolutely nothing to improve access to or quality of health care.

I think it’s going to be much more than only a hundred million Americans who lose their plans, doctors, access to local hospitals, but Uncle Liberty was sticking to facts and numbers put out by the CBO and other viable sources.

I  almost felt sorry for RObot.  But a couple of known lefties were sidling over to get in on the “kill,” so I waited to see what would happen.

RObot, dazed but not out, slowly shakes his head and says–hold onto your hats, everyone, because here it comes–“but but but, you don’t support ObamaCare?  Are you [and I think–maybe choose to believe–he was trying to be sincere] a racist?”

The sidling lefties beamed happily at this.

Uncle Liberty looks at RObot with disbelief.  He sighs.  All those words–twenty minutes worth–totally lost on this person.  He looks good old RObot straight in the eye and says, “hey, RObot, let’s leave Obama out of this.  Let’s just you and me, one ‘privileged’ white man to another, talk about ObamaCare.  Let’s hear what you believe, and then I will tell you what I believe in response to your points.”

RObot, and his would-be rescue brigade, looked a bit taken aback by this development.  You can almost hear the gears grinding . . . wait! I have to defend this?  I can’t just call someone a RAAAACIST and shut them up?

Uncle Liberty wasn’t done: “Only you and me, RObot.  No one else of any other race, gender, class, or other convenient go-to pigeon-hole is included.  I’ll talk about these socialist ideas, RObot, with you on one side, and me on the other.  No vast rightwing conspiracy, no accusations of Koch brothers’ meddling (I’ve known you since you were born, Son, do you really believe that anyone, anywhere has enough money to make me lie?), no scurrying into name-calling when you can’t think of an answer. Just you and me, man to man, we’ll talk about ObamaCare.  How’s that sound?”

Fuzzy: [does silent cheers and mental happy dance all around Uncle Liberty.  Here was a man who got it. Bravo!]

The look on RObot’s face was beyond priceless, and the sidling lefties were suddenly much interested in my mom’s recipe for stuffed mushrooms.  There is nothing I could ever have said that would have left poor old RObot so speechless, so confused, so pathetic.  For what, after all, is a discussion with a leftist that doesn’t descend into name-calling (on the leftist’s part) and other verbal practices that most would deem not-so-subtle bullying? Calling people names in the desperate hope of shutting us up is, quite literally, all they have.

Needless to say RObot didn’t fare well when Obama (or more precisely, his race) was taken out of the equation and the onus was on him to explain why the health care infrastructure for 253+ million people had to be completely upended to accommodate less than 10 million (remember, the CBO estimates that even with 0Care, 30 million Americans will still not have health care.  And all for the cost of $1.79 trillion.  That’s trillion, as in trillion taxpayer dollars.  So much for “not one dime.”).

RObot wasn’t miraculously cured from his years of drinking the 0bot KoolAid, but he was given food for thought for a change.  Unable to attack his opponent on spurious grounds, he found himself unable to defend something that is, fundamentally indefensible.  Maybe that will wake him up, and if not, maybe one of the shifty sidler cowards who bailed when the race card was taken off the table will get a clue that if their only defense of an expensive, destructive boondoggle is “RAAACIST” they may not have much to work with.

Regardless, I plan to practice this in future. How better to engage leftists in ideas than by insisting that they actually stick to ideas, defend their ideology as themselves and not as some talking point-spewing propagandist puppet?

There is no libertarian, conservative, or TEA Party member who wouldn’t welcome this challenge.

Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

A Leaderless America? Not So Much

If one more person tells me some variation of “there is no leader in the WH,” my head may explode. Of course there is.  This idea that Obama is somehow removed from, above, or not up to his scrawny neck in what his administration is doing must be dispelled. Now, do I think he’s the brains behind the operation?  No way, I don’t think he’s that bright, but I do think he’s surrounded himself with people who have plenty of brains and plenty of nefarious, traitorous plans.  I also believe that he’s well-aware of and ideologically happy with every single thing that has led to the myriad scandals that stink up our White House.  Do I think that he gets his hands dirty (beyond going out and spreading vile lies, doubts, and suspicion of the TEA Party and conservatives more generally), that some “smoking gun” will be found tying him directly to the IRS, DOJ, AP, Rosen, NSA, or any other scandal we currently know about or ones that may yet be revealed?  Nope.

But it’s his Chicago stench that permeates every single scandal, up to and including Benghazi.  The bullying, the thuggery, the blackmail, the boot on the neck, the manipulation of events for a specific end . . . all of it is straight out of Chicago, specifically, and leftist “thought” more broadly.

It’s no mistake that his czars and other appointments are a rag-tag assortment of dirty dealers, traitors, commies, anti-Semites, radicals, and fascist zealots.  Those people didn’t just materialize around him; remember, he sought out this type of person all the way back in college.  That never ended, as we can see all too clearly.

What kind of a person appoints the freaks and fringe fanatics that Obama has?  Remember his TSA nominee who stated that white supremacists and “Christian identity groups” were America’s “biggest threat”?  That’s what Obama believes with all his tiny, shriveled evil little heart. Hell, his DHS said as much in their memo to all of America’s law enforcement in 2009.

Last week, Obama announced the war on terror over; for him, it is.  Indeed, it was never really about Islamic terror for him; he happily supports both in word and deed (and with our money) all sorts of Islamic terrorism and terrorist groups.  Hell, he calls various Islamofascist groups his “peace partners.”  That he’s droned a bunch of them doesn’t change that fact.  And it’s right in line with Obama, anyway, he’s famous for sacrificing friends, family, leftists, whomever for “the cause.”   But Islamic terror isn’t his focus, what he does has been a means to an end–his support for the Arab Spring wasn’t an accident, nor was he unaware that Islamofascist states would emerge (everyone was saying so from Glenn Beck to John Bolton).  Neither were any of Obama’s moves an accident from basically encouraging Iran to nuke up to removing the missile defenses in Poland.

We may not be able to connect the dots yet, but it’s becoming pretty clear that it’s all of one piece, including what he’s been doing right here in America.  To Obama, the nation’s real enemies, his real enemies, are people who “want to make America a better place to live,” people who support the 10th Amendment, people who are pro-life, Christian, Jewish, white, patriots.  He’s made this crystal clear since practically Day One with every appointment, every czar, every policy, every word.

Back in September of ’09, I wrote:

[Van] Jones is a racist, a self-proclaimed communist, a “truther,” and a proponent of destroying the American system and replacing it with a . . . well, with another one that favors people of color and subjugates whites.  I’m not making this up.  Van Jones has said it.  All of it.  He talks of white people purposely poisoning minorities with pesticides, he signed a document demanding investigation into our government’s role in either allowing or actually perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on this country, he’s spoken of using the green movement to install minorities in key positions of power and remaking the system to favor them, and he’s called republicans assholes.  Well, okay, that last one doesn’t matter; we’ve all said worse about our political adversaries at one time or another.  But the other points, they matter.  Each of them alone should exclude him from the president’s inner circle, and together, they paint a picture of a dangerous, racist, anti-American communist who should not be allowed to enter the White House gift shop let alone sit in the Oval Office and snuggle with the president.

. . . . .

You have to wonder, if you’ve got a brain in your head, what is going on with the other BO czars.  Who are they and what are they hiding?  What is BO’s agenda in having such radical and controversial figures surrounding him, advising him, making policy for all of us and doing so well outside the checks and balances set up by the Constitution?

Well, there’s John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar, who has a neato idea to control population.  Apparently, he’s a big fan of China’s forced abortion policy and even advocated putting sterilization drugs in America’s food and water supply.  He’s also said that forced abortions “could be sustained under the current Constitution.”  Um, okay, but don’t you think that’s a bit much?  And this man is in key policy position, unchecked by Congress or anyone else, advising the president of the United States.  He’s not in some think tank or university espousing crazy theories and philosophizing, he is actually helping shape American policy.  This is the problem, not his wacked out ideas.

Holdren apologists point out, correctly, that Holdren preferred “milder methods” of population control.  Um, okay, so what happens if the people don’t line up for population control abortions of their own free will?  Do you honestly think that if the government controls the healthcare system and Holdren or BO decide that “population growth” is a threat to either the environment or the economy/healthcare system that they won’t start limiting the number of children people can have, forcing abortion on those who’ve maxed their “quota”?  This sounds crazy, but what the hell is someone with crazy ideas like this doing in the White House if not to put those ideas in motion?  Again, the apologists say that these ideas were expressed in the 1970′s and as such are “dated” and not relevant today.  Another apologist angle is that the book presents a “theory” and does not recommend a “practice.”  Well, so did The Communist Manifesto.  Remember that nifty little book?

Another fun BO czar is Mark Lloyd, BO’s Diversity Czar.  He’s a fun guy who thinks that Chavez’s coup in Venezuela was beautifully accomplished and that his control of use of the media should be emulated here in the U. S.  God forbid the people have access to anything that might be anti-BO.  I wonder how much he had to do with the “flag the fishy” campaign?  Anyway, he finds free speech rather pesky especially from the conservatives, having the unfortunate effect of allowing people to express their dissent.  The best place to stop free speech, according to this lovely man, is by forcing right wing radio off the air with 100% taxes on their operating costs; once that pushes them off the airwaves, their license will be handed over to a (liberal or progressive) minority group (this is where the “diversity” thing comes into play, I guess, you know making sure that all talk radio leans left.  Lots of diversity there.).  I never listen to talk radio, but apparently, there are far right discussions taking place on those stations.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t listen.  The people who are listening are obviously of the same mind, so shutting them down won’t do anything about changing ideology, it’ll simply drive people to the internet (if BO doesn’t declare an “emergency” and shut it down, anyway) or to Fox News (which I do watch).  At least until they figure out a way to push Fox off the air.  Again, though, not being able to see or hear views with which you agree does not change your own views, so I find this rather silly.  And frightening.

And let’s not forget Michael Copps at the FCC and “net neutrality”:

And there it is, the admission.  There is a narrow window of time, while BO is still prancing around the WH playing grown up, to force through his radical agenda, an agenda that apparently includes regulating (or whatever you call “filtering and funneling” the right information to the American public) the internet, ensuring that information (the correct information, Herr Copps) reaches the masses in the correct manner and correct measure.  Can’t rely on “flag the fishy“campaigns forever, now can we?  And note, too, that like all good progessives, Copps understands that they may need to settle for a “down payment” (aka “a starter home“) on the publicly-funded, government-run propaganda machine of the (not so distant) future.

Part of what we’ve seen develop over the past few weeks is the Obama camp’s purposeful promotion of the image of a detached, disinterested, ditzy dimwit so that we will all blame someone, anyone other than Obama himself.  I’ve bought into it myself, so I understand where people are coming from, but if nothing else has become clear over the course of the past several months, it’s that Obama is central to what is going on in terms of discriminating against conservatives, Christians, veterans, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on any point.  Might he be a puppet?  Sure.  That’s even likely, but it does not exculpate him.  He is not an innocent victim here.

The innocent victims are we, the people and our Constitutional Republic.  People keep thinking that he’s incompetent, a failed leader, but that’s true only if his goal is to support America, keep her and her people safe, to protect and defend her Constitution.  Because, yes, a thousand times, yes, he’s totally incompetent at that.

But here’s the secret: he’s not applying himself to those goals.  He never has and he never will.

Listen again to the great and fearless Andrew Breitbart:

Flag the Fishy and Obama’s Enemies List

Remember when Obama’s White House set up an entire arm of his administration to deal with people who opposed ObamaCare?  The project was known as flag@whitehouse.gov and requested the names, addresses, etc. of anyone in America who didn’t support Obama on health care.  This wasn’t hidden, it was right out of the White House.  Flag the fishy, as it came to be known, was nothing more than a McCarthy-esque witch (or fish) hunt. It was the early incarnation of Obama’s enemies list.  Anyone who was thought to disagree with ObamaCare, anyone who was disseminating “false” information (i.e. not reading from the White House talking points), anyone who was saying “fishy” things about ObamaCare should be reported . . . to the president of the United States of America.

The direct connection to the White House was deemed the problem back then, so the Obama machine simply re-imaged flag the fishy as Attack Watch.  This fabulous development went beyond simply reporting your neighbor for “fishy” ideas about Obama’s health care proposals but extended to reporting suspected thoughts:  one of Attack Watch’s stated goals was the stamping out rumors before they started.  Precrime, if it is indeed a “crime” to think differently than the president in the United States of America.  And in case you are in doubt, yes, it actually is, now, a crime–if not in and of itself, then by virtue of the Obama administration sending various executive branch agencies “after” you until you sit down and shut up.

Looking back now, in light of what we know the Obama administration did in targeting and silencing conservatives, these Big Brother-meets-the-SS efforts to gather information on Obama’s “enemies” is sinister.  Of course, I thought it was sinister then, but everyone else seemed to think it benign, no big deal.  So what if Obama wants to gather masses of information on American citizens who don’t agree with him?  After all, it’s not like he’d actually use the federal government to “go after” these people, right?  He’s not the mafia.  He’s not Hitler or Stalin or Mao.  Um, okay, except now we know, for a fact, that he not only targets his enemies but sends out the IRS, ATF, etc. to harass, intimidate, frighten, and ultimately silence any and all opposition.

Leftists have mocked and belittled conservatives who’ve been warning about Obama and his traitorous horde since before he won in ’08.  When we said he’s a Marxist or socialist, they sneered.  When we said that he’d use the power of government against the American people, they sneered.  When we said that Obama aspired to be a tyrant and dictator, they sneered.  When it became clear that he’s not only a Marxist but fully committed to communism, they shrugged.  When Obama used the immense power of government–the IRS, the FBI, the ATF, the EPA, and the DOJ are all we know about. So far.–they shrugged.  When Obama by-passed Congress to go to war illegally or to “legislate” the DREAM Act, they shrugged.

And make no mistake, they’d care if he were a Republican, if the groups were targeted because they had “progressive” or “organizing” in their names, they’d care so much that Obama would never ever have been allowed to finish his first term (he should have been impeached over Fast and Furious and/or Benghazi, for example).  This IRS scandal would have erupted in 2010 when it was first reported, as it should have, and he’d have been forced out in shame and disgrace.  As he should be.

You know, I always wondered how on earth the German people allowed the Holocaust to happen.  When visiting the Holocaust Memorial in Boston (it’s great), I read again Niemöller’s most famous quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

I’d read it before, of course, but I couldn’t wrap my mind around a culture and society who would not only allow such tyranny, such evil, but who would actually cheer it.

Until now.

Now I get it.

And it’s horrifying.