Category: Politics

Conservatism is not what it was before FDR and the New Deal. Old line Conservatives like Garet Garret, Albert J. Nock, H. L. Mencken, John T. Flynn, Frank Chodorov, and others like them, were they to walk the earth today, would be considered right wing extreme extremists. FDR and the New Deal succeeded in pulling the continuum of what constitutes liberal vs. conservative to the left so that today’s people can claim to be conservative and still support things like Social Security, Medicare, and other government give away programs.

We are now living in times that represent another lurch leftward in the left vs. right continuum so that if the Obama administration is successful in socializing health care, the way that FDR was successful in socializing old age retirement, today’s liberals will be thought of as tomorrow’s conservatives. This will result in, as an example, tomorrow’s conservatives accepting homosexual marriage as a given but cherishing their conservative pedigree in the fact that they oppose bestiality marriages.

Roosevelt was successful in redefining left vs. right because in his socialism New Deal legislation he bought and created a constituency that would never vote against the money that the Democratic party was committed to giving them. The whole social security scam gave people just enough money to remain dependent upon the government but not so much money that they would ever be anything but dependent. Obama is seeking to do the same thing that FDR did (and LBJ compounded) by creating a constituency that once it gets hooked on the drug of governmental sponsored enterprises (GSE) will never quit voting for the party that got them hooked on GSE. If he is successful in doing this the whole continuum of what constitutes left vs. right will shift once again leftward.

The congressional race in the NY 23rd district is exhibiting why it is not wise for Christians to blindly support the Republican party and why voting third party is a good idea. In that district the Republican party has, by way of a smoke filled room decision amongst party hacks, put forth one Dede Scozzafava as their candidate to fill a seat vacated by the previous Congressman taking the position of Secretary of the Army. The problem with Dede is that she might as well be a Democrat. Her husband has serious ties to ACORN. She is pro baby murder. She is pro buggery marriage. She supports cap-and-trade anti-global warming legislation. She is in favor of the $787 billion Obama stimulus plan. She is a strong supporter of federal “card check” legislation that would force private-sector employers to recognize a union as the sole collective-bargaining agent if a union organizing drive at a given work site generates signatures indicating more than 50 percent of affected workers want to join. In short Dede Scozzafava is a Republican version of Nancy Pelosi.

A funny thing happened on the way to the general election though. Not only is Dede challenged by the expected leftist Democrat (Bill Owens) but the conservative party in New York is running one Doug Hoffman, an accountant by trade with solid conservative credentials. Right now the polls show the Democrat running marginally ahead with Scozzafava and Hoffman splitting the Republican vote.

Now according to the teachings we have seen at various time from those like Gary DeMar, Doug Wilson, Joel McDurmon and others Christians are supposed to hold their noses and vote for Dede Scozzafava simply because she is a Republican and she wouldn’t be as bad as the Democrat Owens. The argument continues that by voting third party we are insuring that the Democrat wins.

Naturally, the response to this is … so what? If we keep supporting the leftist RINO candidates that the leftist in the Republican party keep vomiting forth we are only going to get leftist candidates. If Hoffman and Scozzafava both lose in the NY 23 district race the Republican establishment will have learned (hopefully) to quit running leftist RINO’s. If enough people quit pulling levers for leftist RINO’s they can’t stand eventually some party is going to see that large minority of people and are going to respond to their concerns. But as long as we keep blindly supporting leftist RINO’s like Bush, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Crist, Specter, and Scozzafava, all we are ever going to get is leftist legislation and more leftist candidates.

It’s past time to start questioning any Christian leadership that tells us to get in bed with these leftists by way of supporting them with out vote. Certainly there is no such thing as a perfect candidate but calls in the past to not vote third party and to support McCain were blatantly ridiculous. Similarly, following that same principle that was invoked to support McCain would be equally ridiculous in voting for Scozzafava.

One more thing before I’m finished here. In my estimation Newt Gingrich, in his support for Scozzafava has insured that I will never pull a lever for Newt Gringrich. Gingrich is the preeminent neo-con and his support for this leftist Scozzafava reveals again the Rockefellar Republican instincts he had when he entered into the Republican party circa 1964.

You Don’t Pay Up, I Break Your Leg

The health insurance companies were ready to go along with socialized health care when they thought that they would make bunches of money off of the plan. Health insurance companies had thought that everybody was going to be forced to buy insurance from them and they believed that such a proposal would more than offset the coming requirement that they would be required to insure everybody regardless of pre-existing conditions. However a funny thing happened on the way to socializing health care. The Baucus bill includes the requirement for health insurers to cover all people but it only provides for a small fine for those who refuse to be insured. This means that many people will prefer to pay the small fine as opposed to health insurance premiums. Suddenly the offset between collecting more money from a larger pool of people in order to pay for insuring even sickie people suddenly disappeared. Now healthy people can wait until they get sick to purchase health insurance and the insurance companies won’t be able to say “no.” Of course such a bill means the end of private insurance companies and the institutionalizing of the federal government being the public insurer. Naturally the health care insurance companies are raising a stink. That stink included their commissioning a study that points out that the Baucus bill will increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

In response to the health insurance companies decision to fight against “health care reform” the Democrats are threatening to end their protection against anti-trust legislation. This amounts to the mob putting out a hit on somebody because they refuse to pay for protection. What the Democrats are saying is, “since you refuse to play ball on socializing health care we are going to destroy your industry.” The health insurance companies are going to lose either way so they might as well go out with a fight.

Obama & FOX News

Every network and cable “news” agency except one has been ideologically compromised and as such they kiss arse sycophants for Obama. The only news agency that isn’t playing ball is FOX. Nobody should be fooled into thinking that FOX is a conservative network. It isn’t. It simply likes its socialism baked in a nationalist crust as opposed to the international crust that networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBC, NBC, prefer their socialism filling to be baked in.

Obama has decided to try and to isolate the FOX network. Now, the best I can hope for is that the national socialists and the international socialists will beat each other up so badly that something genuinely conservative will be able to rise from the ashes.

Still, having said that something should be said regarding the blatant propaganda that the White House is putting out. The idea that FOX, unlike the other Obama lapdog networks doesn’t really give “news” but only perspective is laughable. Has anyone ever watched the red bias of the news shows of FOX’s competitors?

What Obama is doing here is following Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” Alinsky’s rule 12 states “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama is trying to get the other networks to ignore FOX. Obama’s problem here though is that the other networks have been ignoring FOX for years. What would be new? Secondly, Obama’s problem is that FOX is wiping the floor in terms of ratings with the other “networks.” If I were FOX I would turn the tables and freeze, personalize, and polarize Obama. FOX doesn’t need Obama.

In the end, I’m no fan of FOX except that it is the only resistance in town. As such, I’m hopeful that Fox and Obama and the other networks will beat the snot out of each other.

At this link I point out how many Marxists are serving in the Marxist Obama administration.

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=observations_on_the_regnant_follies&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

It seems that we can add another one we failed to mention earlier. Recently White House communications director Anita Dunn informed us that one of her favorite political philosophers was Chairman Mao Tse Tung.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/glenn_beck/

LOL … you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Can’t you just envision Anita curling up to a cozy fire with Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book?”

Yep … if you wanted to light up Anita’s arousal quotient all you had to do was whisper a little Mao in her ear. The one that would really get Anita in the mood was,

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

This is not the first time an American Presidential administration has been Marxist. During the Roosevelt administration the White House was crawling with Marxists. One was a gent named Rex Tugwell. Before the days when the current fellow travelers can be instantly exposed by Youtube, Tugwell wrote prolifically about his disdain for capitalism. In his book, “American Economic Life” Tugwell wrote that the Soviet Union’s

“worst enemies are being forced to admit that the system appears to be able to produce goods in greater quantities than the old one and to spread such prosperity as there is over wider areas of the population.’

Tugwell believed that Soviet central planning enabled the Soviets to plan and to carry out their industrial operations in accordance with a completely thought out program.” Tugwell wrote that “the available evidence as to the success of the scheme seems to indicate clearly enough that it (communism) works.”

Now the reason I mention Rex Tugwell in the context of the current White House Director Anita Dunn’s admiration for Chairman Mao is to point out the common thread of admiration between FDR’s “Brain Trust” and Obama’s Czars and staff. Despite the utter failure of Marxism the Obama administration is fascinated with this ideology. Retrospectively speaking we can say that at least FDR’s “Brain Trust” could not be convicted of knowing better. They were true believers and honestly believed that the Soviet project could remake the world. The Obama people live on the other side of the 20th century and ought to be able to see the the graves of 100 million people slaughtered by Marxists, but it seems that to true believers the belief system is indefeasible.

Dear Congressman Schauer,

Thank you for your form letter response to my personal letter to you regarding the prospective health care legislation that is creating such a stir throughout the nation.

Before I respond to the details of your letter allow me to register one small disappointment. I was most disappointed that you refused to have a town hall meeting in your district during the August recess. Certainly, Congressman, you can’t actually believe that those district wide phone calls were a legitimate replacement for a town hall meeting. The conference call methodology, which was characterized by canned questions chosen in advance, was successful only at distancing yourself from your constituency by muting your opposition. Do not think for a second that your district is any less volatile than the thousands of other congressional districts across the nation on the issue of Democratic attempts to force fascism upon this country all because you manipulated the process in your district.

Now allow me to turn to your letter.

First, you note that over a million residents of Michigan are living without health insurance. You do not tell me how many of those over one million do not want health insurance. Many young people choose to go without insurance, preferring instead to spend their dollars on other interests. Congressman, the fact that you assert, in a unsubstantiated fashion, that over 1,000,000 Michigan citizens do not have health insurance means very little unless you break that number down between those who do not have health insurance because they don’t want it and those who do not have health insurance because they can’t get it.

Secondly, you do not tell me where in the Constitution you find the authority for the Federal government to socialize health care. As a US Congressman who has taken an oath that you, “will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” surely you have justified in your mind how a Federal takeover of health care is Constitutional. I would dearly love to see your reasoning on this.

Next you tell me that you desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care situation. I am suspicious that you must have tested this phrase in a focus group setting because I notice that you use it several times in this letter and you used it several times in your “town-hall” phone conferences. Allow me to suggest that it is not possible to find a uniquely American solution to our health care woes by doing anything that has either the Federal Government taking over health care or that puts the Federal Government in the position of eventually taking over health care. That sir, as you know, is socialism and it is a contradiction of the worst variety to embrace any form of socialism (i.e. – Fascism, Cultural Marxism, Communism) as a “uniquely American solution.”

Congressman Schauer, if you really desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care woes you will pursue policies that will allow the market to do its work. You will allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. You will introduce tort reform. You will reconnect the consumer with his medical dollars spent. You will create tax free medical savings programs. You will decrease the government regulation upon the health care industry which has created our problems to begin with. You will create legislation that will allow small businesses to ban together in order to access the same cost advantage from Insurance companies that large companies get due to their size. So, you can see, I am in favor of doing many things that will help the citizens of Michigan.

Your letter to me implies that you support the public option. Please understand that at least some of your constituent understand that if a public option is crafted into this bill that means the eventual end of choice, which you say you support. Such language also means the end of private insurance options, which you also say you support. Keep in mind Congressman, we are not all blind to the slippery way that people like you use language.

As you consider your vote keep the following things in mind.

* Is the bill Constitutional? Where does the Constitution allow the Federal government to believe that all citizens have a “right” to health care?

* You say you want a bill that promotes personal responsibility. Will any bill that “promotes personal responsibility” also at the same time disallow health care or lessen the opportunity for health care by those who don’t follow the personal responsibilities guidelines as set by the Federal Government and its legislation?

* Does the plan you support shift control from insurance companies to the Federal Government? As bad as insurance companies are Congressman, I would rather deal with their bureaucrats then Government bureaucrats.

* In your desire to vote for a bill that does not raise the Federal deficit do you realize the impossibility of that without either a sweeping tax increase or severe restrictions as to who can receive health care or both?

In closing Congressman, I realize how much pressure the Democratic leadership must be bringing upon you to vote for socialized health care. Allow me to remind you Congressman how narrow your victory margin was in the 2008 Congressional race. I can say, with almost certainty Congressman, that should you vote for a Marxist health care plan that will be produced by a Democratic majority your 2010 race will be more of an uphill battle than your previous one.

Sincerely,

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church