SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt. 5

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2009-08-05 06:08

SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt. 5

Lindsay Perigo
August 5, 2009

It's been apparent for some time that President Obama is unusually sensitive to criticism.

Fox News anchors and conservative/libertarian commentators clearly get on the presidential wick, since Mr. Obama regularly singles them out by name. No doubt their broadsides hit a nerve because they speak the truth that Mr. Obama, in copybook embodiment of his hero Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, managed successfully to camouflage during his campaign for the White House: that by "transforming" America he meant transforming it from a still-significantly-capitalist nation based on individual rights into a fascist/socialist one in which the individual lives for the state. In gratuitously raising his critics' names and pouring derision on them, the President dutifully obeys Alinsky's 12th Rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

However satisfying such a course may be for a touchy totalitarian, things can only get worse for the prickly President. Town hall meetings from sea to shining sea are unleashing a ferocious opposition to Obamadinejad's attempt to Sovietize health care by stealth, haste, confusion and fudge. It's an infamous fact by now that most members of Congress haven't even read the Bill that would do so, just as they didn't read the stimulus legislation. This time, voters are not going to tolerate the steamroller tactics. The President wanted it passed by now; instead, Congressmen are having to go back to their constituencies during the summer break to face the music from an electorate that has now discerned the true nature of Obamadinejad's agenda and wants none of it.

White House press secretary, the hapless Robert Gibbs, who makes verbal diarrhoea look like constipation and Saddam Hussein's "Comical Ali" seem serious, has pronounced the meetings an exercise in "orchestrated anger"—orchestrated, he means, by the Republicans. If only!

Gormless Gibbs' boss needs to be reminded:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Most ominous of all as a manifestation of Obamadinejad's modus operandi is the following, posted on the White House blog by a spokeswoman for the Health Reform Office:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Jumping Jefferson! Can it be that the President of the Land of the Free is asking his fellow-Americans to dob each other in for thinking "fishy" thoughts about his communist health care plan? What will happen to the fishy-thoughters, once in-dobbed? A single bullet to the back of the head, Stasi-style?

In East Germany, surely an Obamadinejadian poster-state, the Stasi (an abbreviation of the word for "state security") appointed flunkeys in every apartment block to report on the activities and utterances of every tenant. They drilled holes in apartment walls and filmed through them. No one knew who was friend or foe. Everyone knew that to express "fishy" thoughts was to expose himself to mortal peril.

This is where Barack Obama is taking America. First Amendment be damned; that pesky thing will have to be "recalibrated."

The color of the President's skin is not, and should never have been, a problem; the thinness of it is. As is the color of his ideology.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


From ocean to ocean forever

gregster's picture

Did you talk to her about music?

We had some discussions about music. One was about “America the Beautiful,” which she liked. I noted that it has a phrase “from sea to shining sea,” which sounds like the line in Atlas about Taggart Transcontinental: “From ocean to ocean forever.” And she said that line was in fact based on “from sea to shining sea.” She also said “America the Beautiful” has a good structural feature: it has stopping points but only one final stopping point. She said she thought that when the ultimate esthetics of music was someday worked out, each song would be represented by an equation or a series of equations. The difficulty of the equation would be what made the complexity of the music.

Harry Binswanger, 100 Voices, pg 589.

Scott, that's disappointing news about the UKIP

mvardoulis's picture

I break a long silence from SOLO as I am finally getting my head above financial water enough to allow my attention to finally go toward the next most important thing after food and shelter - SOLO discussion!

I though the UKIP showed some signs of libertarian (classical liberal) - oriented promise but the xenophobic streak I noticed in their materials seems to include an alarming dedication to subsidized mail, as well as pushing for a unilateral departure from the EU which as you point out Scott might indeed have some open - market benefits. Perhaps Libertas could gain some strength...?

Seems like two of the world's larger Libertarian parties - here in the US and in Costa Rica (which clearly has the most successful Libertarian Party in terms of actually gaining a national seat), there is a disturbing departure from a philosophical foundation for liberty leading to all kinds of ambiguity.

And yes, the difference between Republicans and Democrats (and now, as far as I'm concerned, Libertarians) in the US is like choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum - or really, Tweedledum and Tweedledum. Andre Marrou, the LP Presidential candidate in 1992 (which by the way, should have been Richard Boddie if the LP had any sense at all) described the 'choice' in our dismal two party system as a choice between "right wing socialism" and "left wing socialism" ... name your poison, either way we'll killin' liberty!

Tweedledum or Tweedledee

gregster's picture

"To support the Republican party as an alternative to Socialism is a self-sacrificial fantasy. Are we agreed?" I think so.

Of course, the Socialists

Lanza Morio's picture

Of course, the Socialists are wrong. Their ideas clash with reality. Socialist ideas will ultimately drive any culture into the ground.

In America today, the political alternative is:

Socialism or Socialism.

President Obama at least has the "integrity" to dedicate himself to his mistaken ideas. Republican politicians have no such dedication. It is for this reason that the Replublicans cannot win this! If they ever do win, it is likely to be as a theocracy that's as totalitarian as it gets. Can you imagine them dedicating themselves to Freedom? I can't.

To support the Republican party as an alternative to Socialism is a self-sacrificial fantasy. Are we agreed?

Obama and the Perfect Political Storm

gregster's picture

"Presidents always encounter rough patches. What is unusual is how soon Mr. Obama has hit his. He has used up almost all his goodwill in less than nine months, with the hardest work still ahead. At the year's start, Democrats were cocky. At summer's end, concern is giving way to despair. A perfect political storm is amassing, and heading straight for Democrats."

Karl Rove in WSJ.

UKIP?

Scott Wilson's picture

The party that included in its campaigning at the EU election that one reason it wants out of the EU is because it "forced Britain" to open its postal market to competition? That it couldn't subsidise the Royal Mail anymore because the EU bans it?

Oh please. UKIP wants the UK independent to do what?

I voted Libertas, much smaller than UKIP, but at least it has a strong undercurrent of the EU is only useful for the barriers it removes, and is Pan-European, in that it wants to get a majority in the EU Parliament for changing the EU into something open and liberal.

General election time though, it's bleak. Why would I want to vote Conservative, unless the local candidate is admirably anti-statist? Vote Conservative - the party of the NHS - the same NHS that wouldn't operate on my increasingly crippling leg because it wasn't serious enough (I do have private health insurance). I'll vote here based on the candidates, and given my new electorate is a battle between Labour and George Galloway, I may have to vote for the lesser of two evils to evict Britain's most evil MP (and in a Parliament with former IRA bombers, and the fetid parasites on all sides, that's saying something).

More from the battle front...

Marcus's picture

...on this weeks video viral chart.

#5

#11

Great speech at the end by impassioned audience member!

A is A, Scum Is Scum

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"This president uses demagoguery to threaten, and encourages assault on his detractors. A bold faced liar, with no verifiable trail of accomplishment. Only thuggery, deceit, indifference at every turn. Cozy with convicted terrorists, anti-American racist posing as ‘preachers’, financial cheats, tax evading charlatans.. He is showing the race card for what it truly is in the USA. A meal ticket for the most despicable in our midst. We will vote them into history."

Very well said, whoever that was, of Matty's hero.

Bring on 2010!

Obama wishes he was as popular as Bush

gregster's picture

"The massive $787 billion stimulus package combined with sweeping bailouts has proved deeply unpopular, undermining business confidence and contributing to the shedding of millions of jobs and an unprecedented increase in the national debt. A new Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics poll reveals that a stunning 72 per cent of Americans believe the government should return unspent stimulus funds (hundreds of billions) to the taxpayer rather than have it disbursed. 75 per cent of Americans believe Obama will raise taxes and 60 per cent think the country is heading in the wrong direction."

Among the comments: "Obama wants to incite racial violence, to demonize the good people of America (his enemy). He stands mute while his Congressional poodles (House Majority Whip!!) pulls out the race card when held accountable. We are not falling for it. Elected officials of color are whining about racism when called upon to explain their votes. My African American pals are apologizing for this fool and look like a deer in the headlights. Not one of these ELECTED sycophants can argue their point on the facts. The good voting public are stunned when confronted with these ignorant, preening fools. Can’t wait to vote. For the most part we need to vote all (current politicians) of them out, sooner or later, they are spoiled fruit, (apologies to the glbt community). This president uses demagoguery to threaten, and encourages assault on his detractors. A bold faced liar, with no verifiable trail of accomplishment. Only thuggery, deceit, indifference at every turn. Cozy with convicted terrorists, anti-American racist posing as ‘preachers’, financial cheats, tax evading charlatans.. He is showing the race card for what it truly is in the USA. A meal ticket for the most despicable in our midst. We will vote them into history."

on Daniel Hannan

Kasper's picture

Notice the 'outrage' and 'ofense' this man has caused by his comments on the NHS in the US. How 'appalled' and 'unfair' they were. I'm yet to see the defense bring up a case.... Where are the facts? The NHS waiting lists and rationing of health care has finally been exposed and yet ironically the defense hasn't offered up a case.

Sigh.

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Hmmm - now this doesn't really surprise me. If you have a more specific accusation, gregster, I'm happy to discuss it via SOLOmail but it's not really about healthcare is it?

I think your use of "turncoat" is unfortunate in the circumstances. It implies that your key concern is that I criticised Lindsay. The only other obvious justification of "turncoat" would be that I have changed my political philosophy.

How to vote in the UK?

Marcus's picture

You mean in a general election, I guess?

The best party of Libertarian thinkers is UKIP. I voted for them in the EU election.

However UKIP have no chance of winning a seat in the next election or forming a coalition.

Therefore, flawed as they are, Conservatives are the only possible choice. At least they do still have some good people in there who understand freedom, despite their leftie leader Cameron.

Cripes Fraser

gregster's picture

As a former member of Radio Liberty you sure are a turncoat pansy.

Marcus, It's ridiculous, but

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Marcus,

It's ridiculous, but not surprising. The debate amongst the general populace has little to do with the legitimacy of national healthcare, and more to do with 'how dare the US criticise the UK?'

I doubt anyone is surprised at how entrenched the concept of state control over healthcare is in the UK, but it's encouraging to see at least one UK politician discussing it.

Conversely, US opponents of the healthcare proposals don't seem to do themselves any favours with unjustifiable claims regarding the NHS. Or then again, maybe they do. The mud may stick for members of the electorate unwilling to check the facts. Do the ends justify the means?

What's your thinking on how to vote in the UK, given the predictable Tory response?

Brits getting in a lather over Hannan...

Marcus's picture

Daniel Hannan's comments criticising the NHS on fox news (not on Beck, but Hannity) have got journalists and politicians here up in arms.
(Maybe Glenn Beck is too unknown here?)

They seem to especially resent his line: "I wouldn't wish it on anyone."

There are even calls for Hannan to be dropped by the Tories.

I think socialists especially hate anything ringing of truth, why else try would they try to shout him down? After all, it is just an opinion from a politician who has no way of voting legislation that can remove the NHS as he is only a member of the European parliament.

I do hope Hannan is interviewed tonight on BBC Newsnight. It would make good viewing!


...................................................................................................................

Daniel Hannan rebuked by Conservative leadership for attacking NHS

Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP, has been rebuked by his party leadership for endorsing American criticisms of the National Health Service.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
.................................................................................................................

David Cameron accuses Tory MEP of being 'eccentric' in NHS row

David Cameron has slapped down Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who went on American television to attack the National Health Service, dismissing his views as "eccentric".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
...................................................................................................................

From Times Online
August 14, 2009

David Cameron turns on MEP Daniel Hannan for anti-NHS tour in America

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.................................................................................................................

David Cameron slaps down Tory MEP Daniel Hannan over NHS attack

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
....................................................................................................................

NHS attack MEP rebuked by Cameron

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...

Honestly, you're such a twat

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Honestly, you're such a twat sometimes.

I'm not going to bore everyone with a substantive reply to your ridiculous hissy-fit. That's not cowardice - it's just an accurate sense of proportion, and a prudent judgement of the most appropriate forum in which to raise issues.

"Do not presume to waste my time..." (Really. I mean, what a twat).

Regards,
Fair-meta-social-foppish-blah-blah-blah-screech-squawk-get-to-the-hair-pulling...

Fop

Lindsay Perigo's picture

FYI, I'm not interested in "playing well with others." Ugh!!

You say I've behaved like a twat but proffered absolutely zero justification for that judgement. Because there is none.

I remember you well, Fraser, as just a shallow poseur like your friend Damian. Fair weather libertarians. Social metaphysicians. Passionless ponces.

Knock yourself out on Matty's behalf. Do not presume to waste my time with private communications. If you have anything to say, have the guts to say it openly. Milksop!

A Fop Replies

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Lindsay 'Doesn't Play well With Others' Perigo,

You didn't post the title of the message which was "You need a 'being a twat' alarm". Which you do...because you have acted like a twat.

The content of Matty's weak arguments is not in question in my mail - and hence my message is not relevant to the substantive topic. This is why I sent it via SOLOmail. The fact that you felt the need to publicise it and your response is just silly. Self-important (in a bad way) and silly.

I have posted to clarify that the message was from me.

Regards,

Foppish Milksop.

Obama's soma

gregster's picture

He'll need to placate the masses with something strongly hallucinogenic.

Soma (3 For Dark Eternity)

Jmaurone's picture

Hopefully they'll be plenty of soma to go around in that "Brave New World"...we'll need it.

Geez Mr Orchard

gregster's picture

You point out shortcomings with your private health insurance - imagine if a government alone was allocating its resources for healthcare provision - the die while you wait system.

I could go on but Jason's nailed it, and Lindsay et al. You go on my list of contributors not worth the time and effort.

Best of luck in your brave new world.

Bravo Jason.

Robert's picture

Well put.

As for Atlas. Yes, that would be the best place to start if only Matty could be convinced that philosophy is important (Philosophy: Who needs it? a better start maybe?). My idea was that if Matty knew more about basic economic principles (seeing as he's only interested in the practical rather than the theoretical) he might decide to dig deeper into understanding what capitalism is and what makes it tick: freedom. Maybe then he might be able to ground his Libertarianism in actual principles rather than faith (as Dr Goode also does).

And then again, pigs might fly... The government will see to it so it will definitely work!

The tragedy of it is that Sowell's book points out the basic principles of economics -- ones that even Soviet economists adhered to. It would seem that Karl Marx knows more about economists than Matty. That's a sad bloody indictment on anyone!

"Please do. But for you I

Jason Quintana's picture

"Please do. But for you I wonder if there is much point in arguing over whether my ideal system or yours works better. When I was a libertarian (and I really was, by the way) it was because Libertarianism seemed like the most moral system. Whether or not it led to prosperity of people was incidental. That’s what changed. I’ve come to believe that morality might come from what works."

Your belief that there was ever this kind of dichotomy is at the heart of all of your errors. The reason capitalism is considered to be moral by the more sophisticated people on SOLO and Objectivists at large is because it leads to prosperity. It leads to prosperity for those who have earned it most importantly, and it gives everyone else an honest chance to earn it. Incredibly it virtually gives it away to almost everyone else.

You think you've thrown off some kind of mystical superstition in favor of a simple concrete bound philosophy in which you can see direct cause and effect consequences between the role of government and the "good" actions it can take to create "positive" effects. You should understand that this is one of the most important traps the left falls into. Government action to create certain "positive" outcomes (in this case an attempt to ensure that everyone in need of healthcare gets it at a so called "fair" price) has vast consequences that someone with the philosophy you seem to have can ignore because you can point to a direct group that it has benefited. You can avoid general principles, and espouse short term pragmatism because you can see in a very simplistic way that "it works".

This is a disastrous brand of short range thinking that views government and democracy as an entity capable of effectively accomplishing, through various individual policies a plethora of positive outcomes. Education, safety regulations, social justice, healthcare reform, environmental protection, home ownership and on and on. You can always point toward individual "positive" outcomes and make these common concrete bound arguments about specific beneficial effects of government policies. Political debate all over the world is driven by this brand of argument. I advise you to look beyond this to bigger, wider consequences. Consequences you can't see without a more conceptual view of the world, human interaction, trade and the morality of allowing individual men to act on their own behalf without any unjust encumberances. Some of the literature that has been suggested to you would probably lead you in this direction. But you should probably just start over with Atlas Shrugged.

A Fop Writes ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've just received the following via SOLO-Mail:

FFS, take a deep breath. You really need a cat.
Matty doesn't seem like a 'slime ball' and your aggressive response is crazy-excessive (unless there is more behind the scenes).
'Bored' is appropropriate...'disgusted' is a bit looney.
I would have thought he only deserves a level of insult similar to that levelled at twats who only seem to post to apologise for Islam.

Let me lay it out for this milksop, who seems to post only to apologise for Islam:

The usual order of things, one which some of us work diligently to expedite, is for folk to move from being unthinking advocates of coercion (because it's so widely accepted) to enlightened opponents of it. For someone to start out as a libertarian is rare. For someone to start out as a libertarian then to become a statist is also rare. If a libertarian friend of mine becomes a statist, an advocate of compulsion, then he gets it in both ears and is no longer my friend. Just ask the pragmatically supple Deborah Coddington. Or Matty. Now, I've laid out the history in previous posts. If anyone thinks I've over-reacted then he cares as little for principle as Matty and doesn't know me.

It's Matty's life and he's free to believe what he wants. Unfortunately he's become just another dime-a-dozen fascist who would impose his views on others by force. My beliefs demand nothing of him; his beliefs demand plenty of me. He's free, by my good grace, to defend his position here, but no one should expect me to conceal or mute my disgust. I'm sure Matty doesn't.

I would like to know...

Robert's picture

by what standard he judges something to have worked.

As usual, Mark Steyn makes my point eminently better than I. By the time Matty figures out that nationalized health care (version 506039) doesn't work, it'll be too late to reverse it without a full blown armed revolt.

Morality

Curt Holmes's picture

Matty, of the things you have written, this may trouble me the most:

"I’ve come to believe that morality might come from what works."

I would like to know how you have come to believe this.

Such a do-it-yourselfer

Richard Wiig's picture

Such a do-it-yourselfer should be able to sew his own stitches eh, Sandi. I don't think that guy should own a gun, and I bet he had no inkling of who or what might have been behind him. Perhaps he's heading for a starring role in the Darwin Awards.

So do I and so do many who

Richard Wiig's picture

So do I and so do many who oppose the construction of such hardware. Against their will. At the point of the governments gun. Do you believe this is evil?

Yes.

With private health care I pay a company monthly premiums

You might or mightn't hold health insurance, depending upon your circumstances. But insurance companies are not "health care". They are not doctors, and radiology machines, etc. They are a financial service.

and then when I get sick they can comb over the fine print of our agreement and decide what my condition calls for, if anything.

Yes, and decide if they are going to fund you or not based on your contract. If they don't fund you, that is not a rationing of health care. It is a turning down of your funding.

For Matty

Sandi's picture

A guy intentionally shoots himself in the shoulder just for the hell of it.

You can view the footage on Live Leak.

Here is a comment about this man's action submitted by a very worthy viewer (Much kudos to jwolfenstein).

"He didn't harm others by shooting himself, I wouldn't call that a crime. Still, it was incredible stupid to do that, he acknowledge that himself. But I'd like to point out how this is a sample of how bad it is to have social welfare and social health care. He was treated and never paid for it. The social health care system is not able to turn him away or demand him to pay for his own medical care. And he committed himself to a mental institution, paid by productive members of society. He's also complaining about poverty. He's not poor, he may have a pathetic life but it's not paid by him. So why the complaints? He can buy guns, he's over weighted, he can afford to get drunk, he can afford to shoot himself and take time off work, he can commit himself to a mental institution and take that time off work. I can't do that, I'd die of starvation, loose my house, my car, my everything to pay the bills. I'm sure that all the others who work in the real market producing real wealth will agree.
I'm all for his right to shoot himself as long as I can enforce my right not to pay to support him or his medical needs. And if he dies, so be it. At least will both be free for once. I'd be free to use my hard earned resources the way I see fit and he'll be free to face responsibility for his own actions. That's freedom after all."

Fascist Matty

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And Lindsay,
I sincerely doubt you would have invited me if I came to SOLO with the opinions I now have. I doubt we ever would have met face to face. But I didn’t, you did, and we have.

I would not have. I just made that clear. Some run-of-the-mill airhead staying in my apartment and doing a gig at a SOLO function? Gimme a break!

Suffice to say that while I didn’t expect you to be at all happy with my change of heart, I was certainly not anticipating that you would openly wish for my death.

Eh??

Me again....

Matty Orchard's picture

“I gladly do pony up the money for military hardware, it's a proper function of government.”

So do I and so do many who oppose the construction of such hardware. Against their will. At the point of the governments gun. Do you believe this is evil? Or do pacifists have less rights than hawks in your ideal world?

“It isn't rationed anymore than any other good or service is rationed.”

I disagree. I, like almost everyone else am in a position where I can buy my basic groceries and the occasional luxury Item, day to day, depending on my needs and resources. That’s fine.

With private health care I pay a company monthly premiums and then when I get sick they can comb over the fine print of our agreement and decide what my condition calls for, if anything. And they might just try to save a penny here and there with where they approve for me to be treated in spite of my doctors recommendations. To me that’s rationing.

I’m not saying the health insurance industry is always that bad, or that it doesn’t do a lot of good, or that we should get rid of it. But it sure aint perfect and I think in some places government offers a good alternative. Profit motive doesn’t always lead to the best outcome.

“Have you considered my suggestion to learn about economics? If you want, I can lend you an audio copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.”

Please do. But for you I wonder if there is much point in arguing over whether my ideal system or yours works better. When I was a libertarian (and I really was, by the way) it was because Libertarianism seemed like the most moral system. Whether or not it led to prosperity of people was incidental. That’s what changed. I’ve come to believe that morality might come from what works.

And Lindsay,

I sincerely doubt you would have invited me if I came to SOLO with the opinions I now have. I doubt we ever would have met face to face. But I didn’t, you did, and we have.

I would expect a different tone in the way you speak to a person you’ve met and a person who you only know through writings and an avatar. Suffice to say that while I didn’t expect you to be at all happy with my change of heart, I was certainly not anticipating that you would openly wish for my death. Forgive my naiveté.

Dear Galt!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

How does a frenetic fascist fuckwit like Matthews even get employed?

In a world driven by the anti-values of the likes of Matty-scum, I suppose.

Airhead America.

Damn!

Protestor has balls of steel...

Marcus's picture

...not looney Chris Mathews.

Obama protestors storm....

Marcus's picture

...the video viral charts (last week).

#3

#10

#12

Anti-smarm

Lindsay Perigo's picture

One thing I should clear up for the record. Matty said, in response to my question, "How did I ever get taken in by you?":


There was an innocent misunderstanding, Linz. I didn't realize that I had your friendship solely on the condition that I shared your political views. Needless to say you're not the only one left deeply disappointed by the whole experience. I wouldn't recommend your company to anyone open to changing their mind.

Whether Matty shared my political views was not an issue at the time. He pretended he did. He agreed to do, and did, a gig at SOLO's Atlas Shrugged bash. Matty, do you seriously think I would or should have given you a second of my time, let alone my hospitality, if you were just some run-of-the-mill airhead like your peers, spouting the "cool" fascist rubbish you've been spouting here lately? I valued you precisely because you swam against that sewage-infested tide. Now you've reversed direction, "suspended your principles" and are swimming with the tide. You're "disappointed" at my reaction to that? I'm beyond disgusted by you, in case you didn't get that already.

Folk unaware of this history are addressing you in good faith with arguments I assumed you were familiar with as far as the workings of a free market are concerned. Perhaps I assumed wrongly. I await your response to them with interest.

Aha!

Robert's picture

Can't give you the page where this analysis appears but I can tell you that the audiobook is, in fact, the extended and revised edition.

Because I am a two finger typist (transcribing would be far too painful), I have pasted someone else's the summary of Thomas Sowell's lesson.

Thomas Sowell's economic analysis of the Spanish siege of Antwerp in the 16th century provides an excellent example. As a result of Philip's blockade, the price of food in the city began to rise rapidly. Yet its population remained reasonably well fed because blockade-runners were able to evade the Spanish barricades. One interpretation is that these "greedy" suppliers sought to "take advantage" of residents' plight by selling food to them at "unfair" prices. Another is that these suppliers' circumvention of the blockade not only exposed them to considerable commercial risk (the confiscation and hence loss of their supplies): it also subjected them and their employees to grave personal danger (injury, imprisonment and execution). Surely, then, the prices they received for the food they brought into Antwerp provided reasonable compensation for the considerable costs and risks they bore?

Alas, officials in Antwerp did not agree. They decided to forbid "price gouging" and imposed severe penalties upon violators. Blockade-runners quickly decided that under these conditions the risks of blockade running outweighed its rewards, and so they plied their trade elsewhere. As a result of the politicians' "compassion," the supply of food in Antwerp was soon exhausted, starvation threatened – and the city was obliged to capitulate to Papist tyranny. Clearly, the underlying and eternal problem is not that suppliers are "greedy" – it's that politicians are idiots.

I would only add that the essential points that Sowell makes in Basic Economics can be found here.

And in case downloading and reading this is too much for you Matty let me just say this:

The inherent reality is that there are not nearly enough healthcare services to go around. Why? Because the sum of everybody's desires with regard to healthcare (live for ever, eat what you want, never exercise and all the while looking like Brad Pitt) exceed the sum total of healthcare resources that exist. And as new resources are invented, those desires will increase. It's a fact that just when folks earn enough to live comfortably, they wish to live extravagantly (see the demise of the housing market that led to the current recession).

So even though Congress has declared that healthcare is a basic right of all Americans, it cannot alter the realities of the situation. There is no way in hell that anyone can meet the wishes of all of the people all of the time.

So you have a choice: allow prices to act as a guide for consumers and producers who can strike a bargain that is mutually acceptible or allow Obama and arsewipes like his Science Czar (Dr. "let's spike the water supply with chemical sterilizing agents" Holdrin) decides who gets what and when.

And remember. I am merely arguing from the economic standpoint. I have yet to mention the immorality of nationalizing healthcare. Basically Matty, either philosophically or practically, Obama's argument hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Extra Material

Jeff Perren's picture

It's possible. More likely the audio is based on the 2nd edition, which may have extra material. (I have the 1st edition.)

I'd forgotten there was a 2nd edition when I wrote.

Robert, you give a great example

Sandi's picture

of the disasterous consequences of price controls. (good post).

Have you ever read Ken Follett "Pillars of the Earth" or "A world without an End"?

Hmm...

Robert's picture

Is it possible that the audiobook edition contains extra material? I will listen to the book again and get back to you. Nothing much else to do on the hour long commute to work through eastern Kansas...

No Siege Reference

Jeff Perren's picture

Sorry, can't find the reference. The chapters on Role of Prices and Price Controls contain no such story. The index entries on shortages don't either, nor is there any reference there to Amsterdam or siege. There is one reference to 1628 Italy (Chap 3, Pg 37) that talks briefly about a local harvest shortfall, which was met by the magistrates with price controls, which of course failed to increase supply. No siege, no blockade, no conquest.

Point of a Gun

Jmaurone's picture

Robert: "You have a right to pursue healthcare. You have no right to obtain it from someone else at the point of the government's gun."

Matt, in case you haven't figured it out yet, THAT'S why I posted that video in response to your comment.

Matty

Robert's picture

Have you considered my suggestion to learn about economics? If you want, I can lend you an audio copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

It would correct your mistaken notion that a shortage of economic goods is a problem that Capitalism cannot solve and solve quickly.

Rationing occurs and persists in centrally planned economies because you have a small number of men attempting to organize the supply and timely distribution of thousands of goods.

Think about that. To centrally plan a universal Healthcare system in an equitable fashion would require the collection and analysis of real-time data on 300 million Americans spread over four time zones. And after the analysis, the managers would have to make sensible decisions about where their limited pool of money should go. Central planning isn't just fascistic -- it is impossible. And the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada have spent the last 50 years proving that over and over again.

There isn't a man on the planet smart enough to analyze that much information. There isn't a computer system that could store and keep up to date that many patient histories. And there isn't any bureaucracy efficient enough to take the appropriate actions in a timely matter. And when they fail to distribute the goods to meet a shortfall that's where rationing comes in -- because they invariably move to stop the price of the rare good from rising.

In Capitalism, shortages see the goods rise in price. This is an instant inducement for entrepreneurs to step in and make money by supplying those goods. The higher the profit, the greater the effort they are willing to make to move the goods.

There are examples (the siege of Amsterdam in the 17th Century? Could somebody with the actual book source that one for me please?) that Thomas Sowell gives where entrepreneurs have run military blockades to supply blockaded cities with food. The city he quotes only fell when the government instituted price controls. This reduced the profit margin and the entrepreneurs were no longer willing to risk execution to supply food. The city was starved into surrender shortly there after.

The only way it works is if every individual plans for their own healthcare needs. That's because healthcare is an economic good, not a right. You have a right to pursue healthcare. You have no right to obtain it from someone else at the point of the government's gun.

People sure as hell need blood to live....

Frediano's picture

So, should a government:

a] force people to give blood against their will, and build blood banks far from cities, so that we aren't bothered by all the screaming?

b] regulate a blood for money marketplace, so that we get our blood from drunks and winos and addicts and derelicts? (I used to live on top of a blood for money bloodbank as a student. They foyer always smelled of urine. That, and a variant of Gresham's Law kept decent folks away; "If that is what a blood donor is, then I am not a blood donor...")

c] rely on voluntary donations of blood, blood donor drives?

If we relied on voluntary blood donations, are we afraid that people in hospitals will die because of insufficient blood supplies?

I can't imagine anyone --except a monster -- advocating 'forced blood donations.' And yet, sure as Hell, patients 'need' blood.

But, substitute 'money' for 'blood', and suddenly, no qualms at all. Precisely because of a cognitive disconnect regarding the means of our life and the living of our life.

How much of my blood, sweat, tears, -- my life, are you willing to take from me by force, in order to fulfill your worldview of what is a birthright of others?

We've ruined the health care marketplace by turning it into a ring-around-the-rosy, abusable at every turn. Before Medicare/Medicaid in the US, the process was:

Patient A gets service from provider B, who looked A in the eye and handed them a bill for service. Patients participated directly in and had intimate painful knowledge of the costs associated with their treatment options, and providers had to 'meet the market' under the self-interested watchful eyes of their client/patients, which provided market discipline.

Patient A, if they had insurance, went home and submitted a claim to their insurer, and was reimbursed. If not, they paid their bill, or they sought charity/welfare, but the entire marketplace benefits from the market discipline, controlling costs. There was no Grand Poobah of 'rationing', just as there is no Grand Poobah of rationing of bread at the 7-11.

Providers did not directly start dealing with insurers until after the massive Medicare/Medicaid programs in the sixties required of them to establish back offices capable of handling third-party payer relationships. The resulting 'ring-around-the-rosy' perverted the marketplace and led to the easily predictable out of all control present day insanity of "A gets service from B who bills C who collects premiums from D, who increasingly isn't even A..."

The irrational wish, "Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful if health care fell from the skies like rain, unabetted, like candy canes and gumdrops, oh what a world that would be! Lets do whatever we must to make it so!" is nothing less than our current Madness of Crowds insanity.

It will just ... break, as it must. Our present 'crisis' came from somewhere, and that somewhere was exactly constructivist government meddling in the health care marketplace. Our current 'fix' is more of exactly what broke it to begin with. The welfare portion of our current healthcare marketplace -- Medicare/Medicaid -- is busted, coming out of its peak period of demographic subsidy(the Boomers at or near the peak of their earnings and taxpaying years.) The suggested 'solution' to the current perversion of the marketplace is ... to pervert the entire marketplace with this constructivist, puddingheaded nonsense.

It should be and is a DOA concept, ready for the trash heap of American history.

One down(GOP), one to go. It didn't take long at all for the Democrats to screw the pooch by over-reaching on this pipe-dream, and they did. Obama, in the end, will do more to unwind FDR/LBJ constructivism than a thousand Reagans.

The movie version of 'Atlas Shrugged', hopefully coming out in the next few years, couldn't be timed better. The self destruction of the GOP and the Democrats are setting the stage for one of the biggest political swings in the history of history. The going nowhere, floundering around we are witnessing is the painful death throes of scientific statism in America. The shrill announcements of 'Happy Days are Here Again!' to the contrary, the CronyFest on the Potomac is finally just ... breaking, right in front of our eyes. America will long outlast its current tribal infestation of nonsense, and wise up.

Matty

Ross Elliot's picture

Nothing in a freemarket is rationed. Supply, via price, equals demand.

It's government force that prevents that happening. That's rationing.

Govt. offers care at sub-market prices. Demand exceeds supply because the price is too low. How do you balance demand in such a system? You ration it, that's how.

An analogy: imagine government forced the price of bread below the market price. The result would be a shortage of bread on supermarket shelves. The only way to fix that would be to ration the amount of bread sold to each person.

Sound familiar?

I gladly do pony up the

Richard Wiig's picture

I gladly do pony up the money for military hardware, it's a proper function of government. Providing people with health care isn't a function of government. It's a private matter, not public. As for a laissez faire system rationing health care, how do you come to that conclusion? It isn't rationed anymore than any other good or service is rationed.

Ross

Matty Orchard's picture

Thanks, I've always liked your posts.

But lets not pretend a laissez-faire capitalist system doesn't involve "rationed" health care.

Only in the United Sates of America

Ross Elliot's picture

In other countries, such as my own, this debate is about as dead as someone on a public waiting list. And that's pretty fucking dead. We are so inured to the indignities of the public system that we can't see the forest for the trees; can't see the water for the stormy seas.

Only the American system still holds true enough that voices of indignation are raised against the proposals of rationed care and the injustice of socialised medicine.

Only in America, the one great love of my life, could this calumny be challenged with vigour.

Thank you, sweetheart.

Matty: it's a bitch being wrong.

Richard

Matty Orchard's picture

I don't have that kind of money for one let alone any given person.

You support the Iraq war, Why don't you pony up all the money for tanks and cruise missiles. I mean, it's only fair, right?

Well, if you feel that

Richard Wiig's picture

Well, if you feel that strongly about so-called innocent people (innocent of what?) then why wouldn't you just voluntarily put up your own money? That would be the moral thing for you to do.

Richard

Matty Orchard's picture

Because it's a last resort and it's better, and more moral, than letting an innocent man die when we have resources that could save him.

If you get brain cancer and

Richard Wiig's picture

If you get brain cancer and you're not insured and you can't possibly get the cash and there's no private organization to bail you out, I think that tumor has to come out. If government/tax payers have to fund it, fine.

Why is that fine, Matty?

Obama's Doctors reduced to mere cogs in a wheel

Sandi's picture

Great gal ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... on Hannity just now, fresh from confronting Arlen Specter at Town Hall meeting. "We do not want Russia here."

Ugghh

Jeff Perren's picture

Thanks for that.

Interesting, isn't it, how they actually boast of things that any decent government would be ashamed to admit in a locked room with no microphones. That's one of the prime reasons I never bought the conservatives notions of "We don't really know who he is or what he stands for," etc. It was all too plain from the beginning what this guy was up to and the window dressing was always thin enough to see into the room easily.

I sometimes wonder, in this connection, whether those Oists who thought McCain would have been as bad or worse still believe that. I have to grant that contingent one thing: this sort of clarity does help move the ball... if we can survive it with the republic intact.

Mr. P. ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Straight from the horse's mouth!

Source?

Jeff Perren's picture

Linz,

Do you have a source for those? (I'd like to avoid searching the 1,000 pages of ever-changing proposed House legislation).

Matty's Natty National Socialism

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Joys of Socialism. Of the fascist variety: private "ownership," government control. Something for Comrade Matty to cream his pants over. Here's what Obamacare proposes to hobble insurers with:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Jeff

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"If government/tax payers have to fund it, fine. " [Matty]

This says everything one needs to know about Mr. Orchard's philosophy. A man who can conclude that has no principles to suspend.

Alas, he pretended to once. Have a read of some of his blog entries, about "moderate Islam" and the anti-smoking zealots, for example. And see his self-description when he signed on:

My name is Matty Orchard, I'm currently working as an occasional stand up comedian in Christchurch and am planning on pursuing a career in acting (I'm 18 so having achieved next to nothing is perfectly excusable) My politics are throughly Libertarian, so it basically goes without saying that I sympathise with Objectivists. Currently I would classify myself as a Libertarian-Humanist.

Now he fawns all over Obama, says America is racist and believes socialism is hunky-dory. And he wonders why I'm disgusted with him? Or was. Now I'm bored already. Nothing more boring than a humorless PC clone who once had the guts to spoof all the crap he now embraces.

"But that's not what I meant!"

Jmaurone's picture

"If government/tax payers have to fund it, fine. " [Matty]

Clarity

Jeff Perren's picture

"If government/tax payers have to fund it, fine. " [Matty]

This says everything one needs to know about Mr. Orchard's philosophy. A man who can conclude that has no principles to suspend.

"no private organization to bail you out"

Robert's picture

Yeah, that's because this President is planning to tax charitable donations.

Linz

Matty Orchard's picture

“So you approve of this quest for intelligence on dissenters, do you, Matty?”

I don't really give a shit to be honest. I think it's pointless but I don't see a 1st Amendment issue. I think it's probably a talking points crafting exercise. As I say, pointless. They can't speak to everything ever said against them. I also doubt they'll be compiling an enemies list made out of people like Glenn Beck, Bill Krystol or old Zeke who keeps handing out fliers in the local KFC parking lot. But we'll see.

“And you approve of nationalized health care, do you? “

I've come around (again) to seeing the argument for government funded health care. If you get brain cancer and you're not insured and you can't possibly get the cash and there's no private organization to bail you out, I think that tumor has to come out. If government/tax payers have to fund it, fine.

“Still suspending your principles for that evil creep are you?”

Here and there. That isn't to say I support him across the board or that my support is unconditional.

“How did I ever get taken in by you??”

There was an innocent misunderstanding, Linz. I didn't realize that I had your friendship solely on the condition that I shared your political views. Needless to say you're not the only one left deeply disappointed by the whole experience. I wouldn't recommend your company to anyone open to changing their mind.

For what it's worth I still do appreciate your hospitality. No smart ass quips. Thanks for having me.

"More than 31 bureaucrats bewteen you and your doctor"

Sandi's picture

Presentation from Congressman Ken Brady to the Houston Tea Party - re: Obama healthcare

Part Two

And now ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Pelosi is calling the town hall protesters "unAmerican." That's rich from that bitch.

Love Pelosi too do you Matty?

Obamadinejad-slime

Lindsay Perigo's picture

First of all your question is ungrammatical:

What do you think the White House is planning on doing with the information they receive?

Is/are the White House singular or plural (hoping you even understand those terms)?

Second, I believe the White House will compile a Nixon-style enemies list. Fortunately, your boy will meet a fate similar to Nixon's (or even better, Mussolini's). The American people are apparently much more alert to abuses of their founding principles than I thought, and much more than you.

How did I ever get taken in by you??

Linz...

Matty Orchard's picture

I only asked you one question. I think it's fair to ask for the one answer to mine before I answer your 3.

Ah!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It speaks! The blind mindless Cobain-addled Obama-worshipper finally steps up.

So you approve of this quest for intelligence on dissenters, do you, Matty? Yes or no. And you approve of nationalized health care, do you? Yes or no. Still suspending your principles for that evil creep are you? Yes or no.

Slimeball.

Linz...

Matty Orchard's picture

What do you think the White House is planning on doing with the information they receive?

Deafening Silence ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... on this thread from Messrs Orchard, Scherk and Goode, the SOLO Axis of Evil. Ashamed of their boy by now but too stubborn to say so? Come on lads, step up on behalf of vileness! You were never inhibited in the past!!

I'll second that...

Olivia's picture

News in NZ is bland, vanilla and terminally boring. The Six O'Clock News is responsible for more suicides than is broken hearts. It's prescribed to insomniacs who don't respond to strong drugs.

I don't thing I've watched TVNZ news once right through since I got Sky... nothing can compete with Fox anywhere. It's easy to see why Obama feels so threatened by them, as well he should.

Perhaps...

Ross Elliot's picture

...that's what I'm recalling.

Muldoon ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... never asked for questions. I interviewed him countless times and worked with others who did also. He was always happy to slug it out without advance notice of the questions. The one exception was when he asked for a list of questions from Simon Walker on the Russian submarines thing, because it was technical. Naturally Simon departed from the script and the interview became part of NZ's folklore!

That's dead right, Greg

Ross Elliot's picture

I sense the passage of time has deposited a patina of respectability upon Muldoon that he doesn't deserve.

If he'd gone on much longer there would have been no need to show him the questions because the question would have been written *by* him.

New Zealand was close to becoming a banana republic, without the saving grace of a domestic crop of bananas.

Muldoon...

Ross Elliot's picture

...I'm fairly certain *did* get to see the question list.

Unfortunately

gregster's picture

Sir Robert Muldoon would have called any politician a "sissy" if he required a menu of questions in advance of an interview.

Then he'd get back to micro-managing the Polish shipyard economies he'd caused.

RNC

Jmaurone's picture

So does this mean that the violent clashes caused by protesters at the WTO, RNC, etc. were backed by the DNC?

Billy Beck nailed it. It's coming to civil war.

Here's how the Times...

Marcus's picture

...is reporting health-care protesters.

As thuggish right-wing brownshirts?!!!!!!
.......................................................................

From Times Online
August 8, 2009

Right-wing protest over President Obama’s Health Bill ends in violence
Imre Karacs in Washington

Rampaging mobs, “Brown Shirts” with swastikas, death threats and Orwellian conspiracies — accusations and fists are flying as the US endures a summer of discontent.

Town hall meetings, intended to drum up support for President Obama’s controversial health reforms, are turning into violent battlegrounds between conservative voters said to be marshalled by sinister right-wing forces and trade unionists accused by opponents of resorting to thuggery.

The latest clash, on Thursday night in Tampa, Florida, pitted about 1,000 opponents of “socialised health care” against several hundred Democratic supporters, mostly unionists. Some protesters managed to get inside the hall and began shouting “tyranny, tyranny”; organisers locked out hundreds more chanting outside.

A cameraman was attacked, allegedly by unionist bullies. As tempers frayed, Kathy Castor, the Democratic Congresswoman who called the meeting to canvass her voters’ support for the Health Bill, had to be escorted out of the building by police...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

As far as I am aware

Sandi's picture

Sir Robert Muldoon would have called any politician a "sissy" if he required a menu of questions in advance of an interview.

Yes

Ross Elliot's picture

"No politician need fear not knowing the questions in advance. "

That would be funny if not so true.

Help!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Who cut the font in half??!!

Elaboration

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Our broadcasters are required by law to present both sides of the story. If you don't, you are taken out the back of the satellite truck and executed. I'm semi-serious.

Alas, it's even worse. Broadcasters routinely present only one side of the story—the Left's—and are not executed. Eye

It's not all that long ago that the Prime Minister was handed the questions he was to be asked before an interview so that he could redline anything he found awkward. Just ask Lindsay.

It's a while ago. Holyoake, in fact—before my time. No Prime Minister ever dared do that with me, or my immediate predecessors. But again, the actual current situation is worse. No politician need fear not knowing the questions in advance.

The worst thing now is the kiwisation of speech. Samantha Hayes is the perfect example. Beautiful, but dead behind the eyes, and uttering not speech but a succession of quacks. Truly disgusting and barbaric. As Professor Higgins would say, "Look at her, a prisoner of the gutters; condemned by every syllable she utters."

BTW...

Ross Elliot's picture

...for the education of my American cousins, you don't know how fortunate you are.

In NZ, the very idea of Fox News Channel would be met with horror and disdain.

It would also be *illegal*. Yes.

Our broadcasters are required by law to present both sides of the story. If you don't, you are taken out the back of the satellite truck and executed. I'm semi-serious. It's not all that long ago that the Prime Minister was handed the questions he was to be asked before an interview so that he could redline anything he found awkward. Just ask Lindsay.

News in NZ is bland, vanilla and terminally boring. The Six O'Clock News is responsible for more suicides than is broken hearts. It's prescribed to insomniacs who don't respond to strong drugs.

We have a Bill of Rights, but it is an ordinary law, and to the best of my knowledge it has yet to be used it to tell the state to go fuck itself.

Fox

Ross Elliot's picture

"Fox News anchors and conservative/libertarian commentators clearly get on the presidential wick, since Mr. Obama regularly singles them out by name."

I've noted a hardening of Fox's editorial stance. Beck was the first move. They simply let him loose. And he's gone apeshit.

Hannity was always opinionated, using poor Alan Colmes as a sock puppet, and made no apology. His regular guest, Dick Morris, I have a lot of time for; he's become more principled and less turgidly academic.

Krauthammer is a triumph despite his conservative leanings, firing pithy truths from the hip.

The ongoing disappointment is O'Reilly. But maybe not really. He revels in his Jeffersonian anti-corporatism to the exclusion of all else. But I know TJ; he'd have slapped O'Reilly and told him to harden up.

That was a chilling clip Richard

Sandi's picture

It is all unfolding so fast now.

I only hope that the people see it for what it really is. The real war is collectivism versus the individual.

Good link, Jeff

Ross Elliot's picture

I found this image on her site:

The slogan should say: Socialism is Organized Crime.

The Persecution Complex

Ross Elliot's picture

These simps wrote the manual on mob tactics, and their mentality is child-like: I'll throw a tantrum at will, but draw attention to my behavior, or--!--throw one yourself, and I'll spit at you for having the audacity.

As I've said before, these people will advocate free speech right up to the moment they nationalise the last printing press.

Mob Ad Loathsome

Jeff Perren's picture

That ad is one of the lowest I've seen. Progressives have not a leg to stand on, so of course they're reduced to out and out lies to maintain a semblance of reasonableness. Was anyone in that video engaged in violence? Were they even shouting loudly? And, wasn't that quick shot of someone being hung in effigy a cardboard cutout, not of Obama, but of George Bush? Who was the figure with the horns? (He looked like Glenn Beck.)

As for the contention that "extreme right-wingers" have lost the confidence of the public after "eight years of failed policies"... to suggest that George Bush (not to mention the wimps in Congress) was an "extreme right-winger" is beyond ludicrous. We could only wish. If he had been, Obama would not have been elected. If "extreme right-wingers" (code word for consistent advocates of freedom) have lost the confidence of the American people, the DNC ad-writers clearly would rather not be confronted with the latest polls, showing -- among other things -- Obama's ratings dipping 10 points over the past three months, along with majority opposition to every major piece of legislation passed or considered in the past six months.

Absurd. Vicious. Lies.

Progressives should not even have a seat at the table of public debate, for the same reason that neo-Nazis, communists, and other extreme anti-freedom groups should be shunned by decent people. They are, in fact, less honest than those others who at least have the balls to forthrightly tout their vicious policies without double-talk and dissembling.

[Update:] Right you are, Ross. Here are some videos compiled and reported on by Michelle Malkin of Leftist mob violence.

Go the mob!

Ross Elliot's picture

The Great American Mob--incited by that "community organiser" par excellence, Sam Adams--who tore down the houses of tax collectors in Boston on the eve of the revolution, didn't take kindly to being fired upon by King George's redcoats.

King Obama would do well to remember that.

Enough of The Mob:

Richard Wiig's picture

Enough of The Mob:

The Great Uniter...

Michael Moeller's picture

Has taken to labeling citizens that show up at townhall meetings as a "mob"? He wants fellow citizens to spy on them? The man is turning the government into Acorn. Can we get through at least one week in this country without Obama making an open assault on one essential freedom or another?

On the plus side, I do not know how he expects his popularity numbers to hold up with such actions. I don't think citizens are going to appreciate being called stooges for the pharmaceutical companies and a mob when trying to voice their opinions to their representatives. I would love to know how people like Matty Orchard defend such actions.

If this represents his ability to handle dissent, I have a feeling he is going to come apart at the seams if healthcare and cap-and-tax get shot down. And I will enjoy every minute of it.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.