Archive for October, 2008

Obama’s fascist Third Way

Posted in Uncategorized on October 13, 2008 by Tadd Lumm

In Barack Obama’s new health care commercial the velvet-smooth narrator intones, “On healthcare reform, two extremes, on one end government run healthcare, higher taxes. On the other end, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong. His plan? Keep employer paid coverage, keep your own doctor, take on insurance companies to bring down costs. Cover pre-existing conditions, cover preventive care. Common sense, for the change we need.” As my favorite talk show host, Michael Medved would say after hearing such pie-in-the-sky drivel, “uh-huh.” Of course the brilliant thing about this tax–ahem–healthcare plan is the third way aspect. Barack Obama stole one right out of Benito Mussolini’s handbook! As Jonah Goldberg put it in his superb book Liberal Fascism, “Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a ‘middle’ or ‘Third Way’ between capitalism and socialism. Mussolini zigzagged every which way, from free trade and low taxes to a totalitarian state apparatus.” Goldberg later continues, “The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically, the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayers say that there are no false choices–’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian beacause they–like communist and heretical Christian movements–assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes that the right man–or, in the case of Leninists, the right party–can resolve all of these contradictions through sheer will.”
Are the pieces falling together now? Is this portrait clear? Barack Obama, the man who would be king–who fosters so much ambition that he can’t serve more than a year in a national office before starting a Presidential campaign–is now advocating a Third Way, and this isn’t likely to be confined to just healthcare. Obama’s overriding ambition and utopian idealism are a dangerous combination. And with a Democratic majority in both the house and the senate, the damage that could be done might be monumental. Don’t be fooled by Obama’s promise to let us “keep employer paid healthcare” (is that better than allowing people to buy and choose their own healthcare?) he is promising to allow those without healthcare to get the same coverage that government workers get. Which is, of course, better than many or perhaps most of employer subsidized health care plans. So how many people are going to keep their employer paid healthcare if they can get cheaper coverage from the government? Just reading Obama’s healthcare plan exhausts an entire year’s worth of suspended disbelief. But this is the man who requires that you believe in to such an extent that he can raise spending by a trillion dollars yet still cut the budget–without any proposed budget cuts to speak of. Is this hope? The true believers sure have hope. They believe. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I want proof.  

 

If only John McCain were as on point as his ads…

Posted in Obama, Politics on October 11, 2008 by Tadd Lumm




Nothing creepy or cult-like here…

Posted in Obama, Politics on October 7, 2008 by Tadd Lumm

“I begin with the young. We older ones are used up but my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at all these men and boys! What material! With you and I, we can make a new world.” Adolph Hitler, encouraging children to join the Hitler youth.

Who is responsible for our financial crisis?

Posted in Uncategorized on October 6, 2008 by Tadd Lumm

This is a very hard question to answer, believe me I’ve tried and tried to figure it out. And it’s only because I don’t have a reactionary temperment, nor endless hours to research that it’s taken this long. The answer: nearly everyone. Is one political party more resposible than another? I am very confident to say that it was more the Democratic than Republican party, but it comes down to individual members than whole political parties. Even Alec Baldwin, as loony left as they get, acknowledges that Democrats, especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, have a great deal of responsibility. Read this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/04/baldwin-blames-financial-crisis-clinton-dems-barney-frank. More thoroughly, the eminent economist Thomas Sowell addresses the culpability in one of his recent columns. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100308.php3. It is titled “Do Facts Matter?” because Democrats enabled the financial crisis. And of course, one of Barack Obama’s chief financial advisors, Frank Raines just happened to be running Fannie Mae, which nearly single-handedly causes this crisis. But for some reason people “feel” that Obama can help us out of this crisis. It’s like a bad joke.

Rejecting Political Rigidty

Posted in Politics on October 6, 2008 by Tadd Lumm

“The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend and ally not a 20% traitor” -Ronald Reagan
They’re coming again, those well meaning but ultimately dangerous advocates of political puritanism are back on the attack, up on their high horses. They claim that John McCain’s support for the bailout bills prove that he’s some sort of socialist or worse. The truth is, I’m not sold on how great or awful any of the proposed bailout bills were. There were plenty on both sides of the issue who on other issues would be very unlikely to disagree, and frankly I didn’t have the time and/or patience to read each bill. Obviously, the initial bill was flawed, but to keep insisting that any of the bills would actually cost $700 billion is a bit dishonest since the bills involved purchasing assets and then eventually reselling them. Of course, it is usually this part that conservatives balk at. Clearly, buying and selling property isn’t a normal function of government, and it certainly should be one of the last things that this government does. There are many who have insisted that we should let the free market resolve the credit crisis caused by the unwise use of credit by lenders and lendees, but it wasn’t, in fact the excesses of the free market that caused the credit crisis, but government intervention. Should the market be forced to to correct the wrong that well intentioned federal policies have caused? Perhaps it is betraying my free market principles, but I don’t know how to put the genie back in the bottle. Can we return to a pure free market now, when we have allowed socialism to creep in so far? I hope we can, and it’s too late to debate this since the bill has finally passed, but the credit crisis disabled the free market, and though it would eventually free itself, I don’t see a great deal of harm in this single instance of government intrusion. I certainly could be wrong though, I must admit. It is rare that I feel so politically uncertain as I do right now. But there were many reasonable members of congress who voted for the final bailout bill, including: Bachus, Shadegg, Boozman, Lundgren, Herger, Radanovitch, McKeon, Tancredo, Putnam, Weldon, Souder, Lewis, Rogers, Alexander, Boustany, McCrery, Hoekstra, Camp, Kline, Blunt, Boehner, Schmidt, Cole, Sullivan, Fallin, Shuster, Barrett, Brown, Wilson, Wamp, Sessions, Conaway, Thornberry, Brady, Granger, Cannon, Cantor, Ryan, and Cubin, who all had at least a 90 or higher conservative rating (on a scale of 1-100) from the American Conservative Union in 2007, many who had a perfect 100 rating. Was this the right bill? It’s hard to say, it certainly was very far from perfect. The urgency behind it, though disconcerting, was probably necessary considering the shape of the market last week.
I didn’t mean to go into such detail concerning the bailout bill, because there was a bigger point I wish to make, but it certainly is the biggest political issue since the decision to go to war against Iraq, so I certainly couldn’t ignore it. The point I need to make is that McCain’s lack of perfection isn’t a good enough reason to vote against him. It certainly would be understandable to vote against McCain in the primaries, but this is the general election coming up and rigid political idealism in a national Presidential election would mean voting for someone who has no chance of winning. For a serious conservative, voting for a third party candidate or not voting for President is the same as voting for Obama. For those who proclaim the importance of personal responsibility, copping out and not voting for John McCain is inexcusable, because John McCain is the only candidate who has shown an ability to reject a spending bill, and Barack Obama has never seen a tax he didn’t like. Moreover, there are likely to be two or three new Supreme Court justices in the next 4-8 years. John McCain has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges, Barack Obama prefers activists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. The Supreme Court justices should be enough to convince any on-the-fence conservative that voting for McCain isn’t optional. How a conservative can say they are voting their conscience and not vote for McCain in November is beyond me. To me, it seems they are voting with their heart, because I think their conscience would take issue with not voting against Barack Obama, and that’s the real issue, make no mistake. Primary voting is over, and the candidates are the candidates. We don’t get a do-over in November, we just have to make do. A Barack Obama Presidency would be a disaster, one which would be exceedingly difficult to redeem. And remember, there will be no Republican majority in the house or the senate this time. A McCain Presidency is the only thing that will stand between a Democrat majority and total socialism in the United States. Socialized medical care. Higher taxes across the board. Less religious liberty. No more war on terror. A weak national defense. The list is endless. Just try sell to the American people cutting all the programs Obama will create in four years. And you won’t have the McCain voters to blame.