Monday, September 7, 2009

Readin' And Ritin' And Rithmatic

"Taught to the sound of Obama's schtick." But not quite as much schtick as the Educator-in-Chief had originally planned. Buried in the scandal of the Van Jones communist-fest and resignation, and hidden in the doldrums of the news on a holiday weekend is the information that Obama's plan to propagandize the nation's schoolchildren has been altered.

White House aides, citing a "misunderstanding" by the millions of parents who objected to their children being forcibly subjected to a leftist president's concept of the role of citizens in relation to their elected leaders, have re-written the planned indoctrination for the first day of school in most districts.

The aides claim that the intention was a generic message about helping presidents, in general, to do their job rather than specifically helping this particular president to carry out his duty to convert American to socialism. So they are fixing the "misunderstanding." They only wanted it to be "an inspirational, pro-education message to America's youths."

The original material to be handed out to impressionable K-6 students immediately after the dear leader is done mugging, posturing and bloviating about a republic which he completely miscomprehends included: "Write a letter to yourself about what you can do to help the president." And "After listening to the speech, engage in a discussion about what the president wants you to do."

Now writing a letter to oneself (a memo, if you will) about how to help a president carry out the proper duties of his office is not such a bad idea. The hangup here is that this is not what this president is doing. His duties sure as hell don't include tossing the Constitution aside in the pursuit of a multi-culti socialist paradise led by unrepentant communists turning American freedom into Euro-style serfdom.

But I have a real problem with the second half of his little lesson plan, and it's obvious I was hardly alone. Young kids who are no longer being taught to obey their parents were at the same time to be indoctrinated in learning how to do what "the president wants us to do." My grandkids already got the message from me and their parents: Who gives a damn what the president wants us to do? Our form of government is about the president finding out what we want him to do, and then doing it. Every dictator in modern history has started off by substituting his will for those of parents and churches. And where better to do it than in the halls of a submissive educational establishment? The early school grades were targets for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor says "We're clarifying that language." He means "we got caught trying to indoctrinate your kids, and we'll back off until we can figure out another way to do it." The revised version says the students would "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." That isn't a revision. That's a complete surrender to reality. If that had been the original message, nobody could have reasonably objected. That's good old-fashioned education and teaching of self-discipline.

Vietor showed either his naivete or his disingenuousness during his news release. "The reaction to the lesson plan may not have been so strong had the curriculum been circulated after people heard the speech, which does not mention any political issues and does not stray from a clear message encouraging children to excel and stay in school." We saw the materials and we knew we didn't dare wait until after the speech to raise our objections. The cart-before-the-horse discussion Obama wanted to instill in the kids' heads about the proper role of an elected president in a constitutional republic was more than enough to raise the tocsin for those unwilling to have their children become mere subjects of a repressive government. That message was political as hell, and it expressed exactly the wrong politics.

Democratic mouthpiece Mo Elleithee called the outrage "beyond silly" and the "kind of hyperpartisanship that people so soundly rejected last November." Are you listening, Saul Alinsky? Ridicule, demean, lie, misdirect. Yep, they got it. "I can't think of anything less partisan than this," says Elleithee, "It's admirable that President Obama would challenge our schoolchildren to do their best, and it's the kind of message that most level-headed Americans can easily get behind." Elleithee, I think you meant "empty-headed." That wasn't the message, and you bloody well know it. The message was "practice how you can help dear leader Obama reach his goal of turning you into socialist automatons."

One of the questions to be asked is "Does the speech make you want to do anything?" Do you mean besides puking? Another is "Are we able to do what the president is asking of us?'' Well, yes, if you don't mind kissing 220 years of the greatest constitutional government on earth good bye.

It doesn't appear that the grades 7-12 (secondary indoctrination school) material is going to be changed. They are expected before the Great Educator speaks to answer the question "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today?" Even that is misleading. He isn't going to speak "with" anyone. He's going to talk at the kids. And following that question come two very lawyerlike leading questions (objection, your Honor): "How will he inspire us?" and "How will he challenge us." It never occurred to these people that a great many of us parents and grandparents might think that he couldn't inspire a mouse to eat cheese, and he will challenge the kids and teens to stop thinking, and start feeling love toward the dear leader.

So explain to me how that is a conversation about education and not about the president himself. The assumption that a president will inspire at all is somewhat political, and usually reserved for presidents who have been in office more than eight months. It's also usually reserved for presidents who have inspired something more than a zombie-like trance. Having already been told in the opening leading questions that they will be inspired by Obama's hypnotic mantras, the kids are then told that after the speech they should discuss "what inspired you about President Obama's speech." The only conclusion for any student smart enough not to be inspired is "I must be missing something. With all this inspiration going on, all I could think of is who I'm going to ask to the prom. What's wrong with me that I am not totally filled with inspiration?" And then, "What lines and phrases from the President's speech will resonate with you." Hopefully, the part where he says "that's all, folks."

Again, it's not about education or working hard to get ahead, it's all about dear leader Obama. I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Beaches where the totally self-involved Bette Midler character has gone on about her wonderful career, her wonderful singing voice, her, well, wonderful everything. She pauses for a minute, realizing she's been selfish in monopolizing the conversation with her quiet friend, and says: "Well, that's enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?"

I remain skeptical of the idea that this revised information and the attendant materials will get to the schools by Tuesday morning, and given the state of our unionized teachers in most public schools, I'm not even sure the revised materials will be the ones used. But it's at least another example of the Obamacrats completely misjudging the will and the mood of the American people. And I am most of all encouraged by the willingness of the hosts of middle Americans to ferret out the rats being bred by the socialist Democrat in the White House.

72 comments:

LL said...

Excellent - thoughtful and concerned comments.

I agree completely that Dear Leader's efforts to create a cult of personality to sway the youth of America to his utopian socialist cause is absolutely inappropriate.

Ask not what your Dear Leader can do for you, but what you can do for your Dear Leader... it's all about Obama, not about the nation, the states or the communities. That is the danger, that is the trap, that is the stick the carrot is impaled on.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, While I agree with your article, I think it's time we put this boogey man of Saul Alinsky to bed. The guy was a nobody. He was an assembler of information that a hundred others were already doing and had already been preaching for fifty years. He's not a mastermind. He's not an evil genius. He came up with nothing. He's just another Marxist.

LawHawkSF said...

LL: Thanks. And you are so right. It's all "look at me, trust me, love me." And underneath it all is the steely will-to-power of a pathological narcissist who cannot comprehend the idea of anyone else having anything worthwhile to say.

Unlike Obama himself, his advisers are beginning to realize the bloom is off the rose, but that won't stop them from doing anything they can to help him clear the road to serfdom. So they quietly caved into public pressure without admitting their overreaching. But they'll be back, with subtler forms of subliminal projection.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: I couldn't disagree with you more. Of course Alinsky was just a compiler. And a damned effective one. The fact that he built on the work of others doesn't alter the fact that an entire generation of radicals, currently with a stranglehold on the Democratic Party, used his compilation of Marxism, socialism, cadre organization and "the big lie" to effect massive social change, most of it bad, on America. As a political theorist, Alinsky wasn't much. But as a "how to do it" textbook writer, he's right up there at the top. I come from that generation of radical activists, and believe me, he was massively influential.

Writer X said...

This whole exercise has nothing to do with the students but everything to do with the President. He was banking on people being asleep at the wheel and transfixed by his charm but, once again, the majority of people have said "no."

This does nothing but distance Obama from the majority of the country. I say, keep these circus acts coming! Most importantly, I hope people continue to stay vigilant and speak out.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: The beauty of this whole thing is that the Obamacrats are so imbued with their own brilliance and the messianic zeal of their leader that they simply can't understand the groundswell of public disgust that is growing up right under their noses. They've gone from total self-confidence, to shaky self-confidence to modest confusion in a few short weeks. But being ideologues, they will not abandon those parts of their agenda that don't work. And that will lead to self-doubt and ultimately strident panic. They're losing the war for the hearts and minds of America, and they are incapable of understanding why.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Alinsky did not "get involved" until the 1930s, by which time Stalin was already doing everything you are crediting Alinsky with. Stalin started the infiltration of labor unions, churches, minority communities, and the American left. He tried to undermine American institutions and export Russian revolutionary tactics to the United States. Alinsky, like a thousand others, just went along for the ride.

To elevate this man to evil genius status is ridiculous. If he had never been born, not a thing would have changed in how the left has acted or continues to act in this country.

And frankly, if it wasn't for the idea that Obama was "indirectly" influenced by Alinsky's teachings, we wouldn't even be talking about this clown.

He is a boogey man that rightists use to scare themselves into thinking that we are on the verge of becoming a communist country.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk and Andrew, I am of the opinion that since we know of the rules for radicals, I E their playbook, we have the upper hand.

For too long, we have been under the assumption that these guys are damned effective. All they have been using is one handbook. The tactics used are now very recognizable and can be blunted or neutralized.

Since we know THAT Obama is going to speak to the children Obama can't pull a fast one on us. Oh, some of the teachers will TRY but it only is effective if we don't know about it.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I don't see anything Obama has done as effective. I think the man is an empty suit and his political team is inept at best. He is the first three weeks of the Clinton administration all over again (without the ideological ferver), playing on a loop, never learning.

Sanmon said...

One thing that many are missing is how schools plan months ahead of time the courses they teach and it is a daily plan. On August 26th the President decided to altar the plan.

What gives him that right? He not only wanted to do a speech he had his own course studies for days laid out.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew, the largest increase of the Federal Budget ever has been passed and signed into law. Obama HAS a shadow government of Czars. The only thing he doesn't have is a reliable army to back him up.

All this is made possible by Obama using the book Rules for Radicals effectively until August of this year. Where he got Cap And Trade partially passed through Congress.

AndrewPrice said...

Sanmon, I agree entirely (and welcome!).

This whole thing makes no sense except as an attempt at self-promotion and indoctrination. He sees his poll numbers going down, and the tv appeals aren't working, so he decides that the best strategy is to use people's kids in the hope that they will then influence the parents. It's despicable.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel,

In terms of czars, he has more than prior Presidents, but they used them extensively as well -- ever since Bush I.

In terms of budget, sure it's huge, but Bush did the same thing compared to Clinton's budgets, and Clinton to Bush I and Bush I to Reagan, and so on. Also, it's no different than what many Republicans were pushing -- not to mention, he didn't craft the budget, he let Pelosi do it.

As for the rest, epic fail. He has a huge majority in the Congress and he can't get anything through the place. He doesn't have cap and trade, no Obamacare, he abandoned the assault weapon ban, the second stimulus appears dead. He's achieved nothing except put a couple union guys onto the board of GM -- a failing union dinosaur.

And finally, even putting all of this aside, how did Rules for Radicals achieve anything?

Joel Farnham said...

I liken the current situation to a duel. Where we know the moves the opposition is going to make. The shadow government of Czars and the American People are the duelists.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew, It was used to get Obama into Office.

LawHawkSF said...

Adnrew: You miss the point entirely concerning Alinsky, and that's why he's dangerous even today. Stalin didn't have any original ideas either. But nobody's citing Stalin on how to undermine American society. Stalin wasn't an on-the-scene American activist ready to strike during a crisis in confidence which had its legitimate roots in the civil rights movement.

Unlike Stalin, Lenin, Marx or even Engels (remember Engels?), Alinsky was right there in the middle of it, and unlike "thousands of others" he did not just go along for the ride. He saw an opportunity, right then, right there, and he exploited it. In the 60s, his Rules for Radicals was as ubiquitous among young activists as the Little Red Book among Chinese communists. Marx and Lenin were theorists. Stalin was a faraway Russian. Alinsky was right there among us, and the only one who captured the day-to-day nuts and bolts of radical organizing and propaganda in a way that was instantly implementable and comprehensible to those who wanted quick social change and yet weren't devotees of communism or governmental mind-control.

Don't confuse me with the right wing know-nothings who have suddenly and recently discovered Alinsky and are using him as a boogeyman. He may have been no more intellectual or an "evil genius" than Joe Schmidlap or John Doe or Jane Roe. But Schmidlap, Doe and Roe didn't write Rules for Radicals. Alinsky is significant only because he was in the right place at the right time with the right book. Much of history has been determined by just such a fortuitous confluence of time, place and opportunity.

I have no delusions about us being on the verge of "becoming a communist country," but I am very concerned with us becoming a leftwing radical country if we dismiss Alinsky, his acolytes and his radical manual as insignificant. I will continue to invoke his name, from very personal knowledge and experience, so long as a President of the United States is heavily influenced by disciples of Alinsky's distillation of other people's thoughts.

Many thousands of student activists, myself included, practically had Rules for Radicals committed to heart. A woeful few of us saw the light later on. The rest are now in charge of academia and deeply ensconced in the Obama team. This may be an historical anomaly for you to pooh-pooh, but for us it was real, present, and one step away from gospel. Regardless of why others may invoke Alinsky's name, including your boogey man analogy, I invoke it because he was real, he was immensely influential, and many of his disciples are using his little how-to-do-it manual to keep the Obama administration on the left road. You may find it easy to dismiss him as insignificant and just another radical, but people like David Horowitz and I know better. So did William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and the rest of Obama's close friends.

Sanmon said...

Andrew:
It may be that they wanted Republicans to complain. Then do this basic speech of "do good in school" all along. Not many will follow this issue close enough to know what the original agenda was. Saul Alinsky by the book. I know how much you like Saul buddy.

The goal being, make you opponent look foolish for complaining.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon, That would have worked, but the American people now are not so quick to judge the ones making any complaint of this administration. They are now willing to listen.

LawHawkSF said...

JoelFarnham: I agree that the more Alinsky's influence is pointed out and the more familiar the American people become with the whole game plan, the easier it will be to counteract it. "Know your enemy."

Sanmon: Welcome. And as you said, Obama came up with a plan, then altered it, all simply because he could,not because he should, or even has the right to do it. One of the rules we learned in the 60s was "if the rules get in the way, ignore the rules, or change them in the middle of the game."

The fact that Obama hasn't been successful in many of his grand schemes only means that we have to continue to be vigilant. He will keep trying until he succeeds or we vote him out of office. And as Joel said, "it got him elected." Fortunately, now that we're hip to his tricks, we can counter them and make sure he doesn't get re-elected.

LawHawkSF said...

Sanmon: "The goal being, make you opponent look foolish for complaining." You read the book!

AndrewPrice said...

Two questions:

1. What exactly did Alinsky advocate that everyone else on the left wasn’t already doing?

(Also, you say Stalin wasn't on the ground, and that's true in as much as Stalin was not physically here. But his agents were and his money was. Stalin is the man most responsible for radicalizing the American left. His people are the people who gave birth to the generation of 1960s radicals. Alinsky rode that wave as a passenger just like the others you name -- he did not create it.)

2. If Alinsky was this all-power Oz, why has his name largely been lost to history? Shouldn't his name be ubiqutuous in our politics, not forgotten until someone decided that Obama was kind of sort of influenced by someone who was influenced by Alinsky?

Take a look at Alinsky's very favorable wikipedia page, and see the list of "prominent" people that he supposedly influenced: Ed Chambers, Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Wade Rathke, and Patrick Crowley. Recognize any of them. . . without looking them up?
Not a very influential group are they? Where are the names that everyone knows?

And where do people rank him in terms of influence? “Jack Newfield writing in New York Magazine included Alinsky among ‘the purest avatars of the [populist] movement,’ along with Ralph Nader, Cesar Chavez, and Jesse Jackson.” Again, hardly a list of influential people.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, how was it used to put Obama into office? Did he skip the primaries? Did his people cause Hillary to implode or cause us to choose McCain, or McCain to fall on his face -- as everyone knew he would?

Joel Farnham said...

One thing the Rules for Radicals did achieve. It helped awaken a sleeping giant.

Mrs Clinton used Saul Alinsky's book for a paper, I believe.

Mark Levin first became aware of Saul Alinsky's book when he was in the Reagan Administration. He found boxes of that book in the Whitehouse. It was a holdover from Carter's Administration.

Sanmon said...

Joel, We live in a bubble and think many others live there to. Not that many americans are informed. What 3 to 6 million max know issues from formulation to conclusion.

Don't be fooled due to Town Halls and Tea Parties. They are the same people. The MSM is still in control and that is where the majority get their news.

The Health Care debate took 6 months for people to take a strong side. The school speech is to short of a time cycle for a majority to even know he is giving a speech. IMHO

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew, It was used during the primaries to defeat Mrs Clinton.

AndrewPrice said...

Sanmon, that's faulty thinking. That assumes that Obama wanted to create a firestorm against himself, angering parents nationwide, in the hope that the Republicans would respond. . . so that he could cave (always seen as a bad thing in politics, no matter what the issue is) just to claim that his initial plan had been misinterpreted by the outraged parents, so that those same parents who are now outraged would suddenly say "oh those silly Republicans!"

I kind of doubt it.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon, We used to live in a bubble. How long did Jones last? How long did it take for the Curriculim to be changed? Have you averaged the age of the people at Townhalls? Most of those seniors voted regularly for a Democrat, any Democrat.

AndrewPrice said...

Again Joel, how. Don't just tell me he use the book to beat her, tell me how. I could say the same thing about a comic book.

And isn't Hillary supposed to be a disciple of this evil genuis as well? How did he use R4R to beat some was presumably also using R4R?

Joel Farnham said...

Well, he used the race card against her. He used caucuses. He only won against her in states with caucuses. She didn't catch on until it was too late. She didn't expect her own tactics to be used against her.

Individualist said...

LawHawkSF

I was watiching my DVD cooies of Rome and I think that Juliaus Caesar bave similar speeches for the young when he took over as emporerer.

Perhaps Barack is just trying to takes his rightful place among emprorers by starting out as they all do.

P.S. I could care less who Alinsky was...... his message however is another thing. Where ever the influence comes from the fact that the media seems to be implementing it is what conserns me. And yes Andrew is right about one thing. IT is the same regurgitated leftism. Problem is while the rhetoric is Marxist, the application is Fascist. Obama does not want to replace corporations. He just wants the government to own them. Does America still own 30% of Citigroups stock, 80% of Bank of America, GM, GE who esle. When is the public auction ot those shares to pay down our debt. I am missing these announcements.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk, One thing. I hope we are not creating a Sun Tzu death ground for Democrats in Congress.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Question 1--the answer is "not much." Again, it wasn't his advocacy that mattered, it was his compilation of all the ideas of others into a simple "how to do it" manual that made him influential. I didn't carry a copy of the Communist Manifesto (many of us despised communism), nor a copy of Das Kapital, or Mao's Little Red Book. I knew Hegelian dialectic a great deal better than Marx's dialectical materialism. But I wanted to effect a quick end to segregation and racial repression in the South, and later to end the war in Viet Nam. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin had nothing to offer me there. But Rules for Radicals put it all together, in one short and convenient form, and that book I did carry with me. Theory was all well and good, but I wanted the technical manual. Alinsky provided that for an entire generation.

Answer to Question 2: It was the rule book he wrote that was important, not his name. A thousand unknowns working together from a common scheme are more influential than any one famous person. That's one of the rules--it isn't about who becomes famous, it's about advancing the cause. ACORN, and the Alinsky-Obama-Ayers-Dohrn connection are all part of that, and Obama just happened to be the one who came to the forefront. I would also add that it is very naive to think that Nader, Jackson and Chavez were not influential. They may not have "won," but they certainly played major roles in American history. Porsche and Ferrari didn't invent the automobile, but they sure as hell figured out how to refine it. Alinsky saw clearly what needed to be done because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Unlike Newton's giants, Alinsky stood on the shoulders of evil giants, but giants nonetheless.

LawHawkSF said...

Individualist: There is another similarity with Julius Caesar. He was a Roman noble and elitist who knew how to play to the masses. He was considered a traitor to his class by his fellow Senators. Like Obama, he knew the standard tricks. Give them monuments, a false feeling of importance, bread and circuses and lofty words. That way they won't notice you're just the same elitist in a different package, and that like all good dictators, you intend to consolidate your power, not share it.

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, that's exactly the point I'm hoping people realize.

Obama's policies are what matter. And turning Alinsky into a boogey man to trying to find some evil genius behind those policies is just a silly diversion. It sounds paranoid to anyone who doesn't already believe it, and, most importantly, it mistakes the messenger for the message.

Obama is not doing anything that hasn't been done already 1000 times all the way back to ancient Rome. The idea that the dead hand of some community organizer is playing out is just wrong.

(Joel, the primary strategy is as old as political parties, as is the race/gender/ethnicity/religious card. That's nothing new from the 1960s.)

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew, It is not a silly diversion to learn your opponents strategy. Fortunately, in this case, it comes in a handy dandy pocket sized version.

Sanmon said...

Lawhawk,
No I have not read the book but did stay at a Holiday Inn last night :)

It is not a book I need to read I lived it 30 years ago. By profession today I am a trouble shooter. I know the value of divide and conquer. I have heard enough of Sauls writings to know the defense must be Soft Jijitsu. We must use their weight against them. They will virtually always be on the offense as a Progressive must be. So we must take many blows till we use their weight to shine a clear light on this Agenda. We will not even know what the key is that will get the american people to wake up.

Look how the MSM played and portrayed Van Jones and Conservatives. Van Jones is the victim. This is a long war for Liberty, time will tell if conservatives have what it takes to win. I can tell you Republican leadership does not have what it takes to win today.

I know in the America I believe in all it would have taken to get Van Jones kicked out was the fact that he is a self admitted Communist. But in todays America that had little or no affect. Hence many blows must be taken.

LawHawkSF said...

Sanmon: I love it--Holiday Inn! One of the things I was thinking of during the development of this entire thread is how many people routinely say things that come from the Bible or Shakespeare without having any idea that was the original source. There is a whole generation of modern students who don't know George Washington from Dinah Washington, and are equally unlikely to know the name of the author of Rules For Radicals. And they may very likely not even know where they got their ideas about shouting "racist" or "fascist" at anyone who disagrees with them. But their professors and mentors know.

Sanmon said...

Andrew,
"Sanmon, that's faulty thinking. That assumes that Obama wanted to create a firestorm against himself,"

Exactly my point you got it. Answer me this. How many people even knew the agenda of the course before it was changed. My guess is 100,000 at most. Why was it changed so quickly? To play the victim card. The new agenda is what MSM would talk about not the old agenda.

Story being conservatives over reacting to President asking kids to do good in school.

AndrewPrice said...

Everyone, I just read Obama's speech. It's remarkably boring and surprisingly full of comments I agree with. It strikes me at first read as a speech with a good message. Here's something I found interesting:


"I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things."

AndrewPrice said...

Sanmon, Rush reaches 20 million people. Fox News at least that many. Both covered his desire to have kids write a letter about to help the President. And that doesn't even cover all the parents who will inform themselves of what the debate is about. You're talking more people than voted in the last election, not 100,000.

This, like many of his other ideas, was just a bad idea that blew up on him. So he readjusted. That's what all politician do -- they send up trial balloons, like pre-releasing the controversial parts of speeches, so that they can gauge the public's reaction and readjust if needed before committing.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon,

I think you underestimate the power of the internet. MSM didn't tell the people about what is in HR 3200. Tea parties didn't spring up because of MSM talking about one guy complaining on the floor of the stock exchange.

Sanmon said...

Lawhawk,
Your point is well taken by me on the Bible. I thought I knew from the time I spent in church reading parts of the Bible and TV what was in the Bible. Then I read it, then I read it again. Good thing for me there are study Bibles because there sure are a lot of pastors with agendas that differ with what the book says.

Good Blog, I like your articles. Hope you figure out a way to get audio comments because the conversation takes to long to type :)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Very good point. The internet is becoming an amazing tool for bringing people together with a common cause.


Sanmon, I suspect that voice comments are little beyond our technical grasp! LOL! Thanks for commenting though, and please feel free to comment any time. We really do want to hear from everyone -- whether they agree or disagree with us.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: I agree that it is highly unlikely that Obama would float an idea as a trap for unwary conservatives. Too dangerous. As you said, I think he was testing the waters, and a jellyfish got him. What will be interesting is to see what they try next. Their failure rate is quickly exceeding their success rate, and it's a good thing. More than that, it's becoming a pattern. But I still advise caution--they will not quit until they win or get knocked out of the ring. We conservatives will play an active part in assisting their exit.

LawHawkSF said...

Sanmon: You don't want audio, believe me. If you think you're tired of hearing Obama's voice, wait 'til you get a few seemingly endless hours of mine. Just ask my kids. LOL

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk, Also with this commenting back and forth, we can sometimes get the right thought just so. :-)


Like I wrote earlier, I hope we are not creating a Sun Tzu Death Ground for the Democrats in Congress. If at some point, they feel they have nothing left to lose, they might vote all of Obama's agenda in out of spite.

Sanmon said...

Andrew and Joel,
You just read the speech and say you some what agree with it. Rush and others saw the first outline and blew up on it.

These guys at the White House are not stupid. They wanted Rush and others to blow up on it. And Obama can give the passive speech that is not that objectionable. We see news as it happens. Others see news as it feed to them.

You can argue numbers and impact if you want. I am not a "right" fighter. I may be off base. I know I enjoy conversation with folks like you that at least think and can express themselves. Time will tell how this all turns out.

We recognize that we are fighting for liberty and to me that is what counts. I cannot predict the impact of every issue. I just know there will be many issues thrown at us and this is not an easy war to win. So I will leave you with this.

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
Benjamin Franklin

LawHawkSF said...

JoelFarnham: Anything's possible. I do think the left wing doctrinaire types in Congress might be willing to commit to passing legislation without the support of the American people (including using the simple majority tactic of emergency reconciliation in the Senate). Realistically, I think there are enough Blue Dog Democrats who aren't willing to join David Koresh in the flames. This may be the beginning of the end for the left wing Democrats, but we have a long way to go to see the end of the party's majority, let alone its destruction by suicide. We haven't backed the Blue Dogs and self-survival Democrats into a corner from which they cannot retreat, and from which they cannot advance without all-out attack. So they'll dither and negotiate and hope to salvage something so they can declare a "victory." But they won't fall on their swords to protect Obama. He moved fast, but not fast enough.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon,

I don't think they are stupid in the sense of tactics. What I think is that they are stupid in the sense of strategy, in the sense of the internet, in the sense of history and in the sense of thinking things through.

Communism sounds good when you first hear of it, until you think it through. What it eventually means is that your hard earned pay will go to someone who isn't working hard at all. That is in it's purest sense. What happens before that, dictatorship.

The one thing that Saul Alinsky didn't put in his book, was how to govern once you won. We are witnessing Saul Alinsky's dreams to fruition. Isn't it a beautiful thing? ;-)

StanH said...

Dispel the importance of Saul Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals,” in our present political atmosphere at our own peril. Not because he is some kind of modern day Svengali, but because he was a Svengali of ‘60s radicalism on college campuses throughout America, no ifs, ands, or buts. He inspired many of the ‘60s radicals we know and love, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Bobbie Seale, William Ayers, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and on to Barry Obama. Most of our political class who graduated from college in the ‘60s and the ‘70s knows who this creep is, “know thy enemy.”

patti said...

blech. washing our hands will not remove his stain (that sounds nauughty), BUT a vote lever will.....

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: That was the point I was trying to make in this rather lengthy thread. But I also want to add that Andrew has made a very good point that we should be aware of. Too many pundits who should know better invoke the name of Alinsky as if it were some sort of magical incantation, meant to have some independent potency all its own. We need to call constant attention to the implementation of his "Rules," but he has no true significance today beyond his rulebook. The left made the mistake of using "McCarthy" as a magical incantation, and it has backfired as young people ask "who the hell is McCarthy?" If and when we invoke the name of Alinsky, we must make sure that the uninitiated know why we specifically did so, or it ceases to have any meaning. And spitting out "Rules for Radicals" rhetoric must be tempered by making sure the listener is made fully aware of how a dead radical is relevant today. Otherwise it becomes simple "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, what he said. :-)

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: You naughty lady. And no leftist army is so powerful as a ballot whose time has come. We have to keep up the pressure (even when it means washing out those stains from my old radical tie-dyed tee-shirts).

BevfromNYC said...

BUT, the bottom line is that we must learn to choose our battles carefully because the issues are coming quickly on purpose. We must watch out for those issues that are the intentional diversions - the deliberate misdirections - and maybe just have to let some of that stuff go to stop the big stuff. We must have priorities otherwise we will look just as foolish and obstructionist.

While we are crowing over defeating Van Jones and mewling over School speeches, we are being diverted from the big picture issue of Obama's speech on Wednesday on healthcare. We will be blindsided if we are not careful.

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: You couldn't be more right. That is an excellent summary of Obama's tactics. His strategy is to remake America into a socialist, government-run monopoly. And the only tactic that has worked so far is to throw everything at Congress and the people as quickly as possible, in massive onslaughts, and hope that we will get distracted by occasional victories while taking our eyes off the next massive program. He knows that if he gives us too much time, we'll organize against him and thwart him at every turn. But do it quickly and massively while using the art of distraction, and he might get more of what he wants than any of us can tolerate.

Joel Farnham said...

Bev, I agree, but I believe we are ahead of the curve so to speak. Another way of putting it is we can see the stiches on the fastballs coming our way.

More and more people are following exactly what Obama and his minions are doing and it is getting out there quicker and quicker exactly what his plans are. Including counter-thrusts. For instance, there was a thing on Glenn Beck being associated with a 1990 death. Already there are articles clearing Gleen Beck.

Sanmon said...

Joel,
If you think they are good at tactics then you must conclude they are good on strategy. Strategy always comes first before tactics ALWAYS.

You will not get me to compromise on this at all. So I will drop this. But you may want to review your conclusion. I mean this in a kind way.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon, No offense taken. :-)

Tactics and strategy are two different things. To put it simply, Strategy is more planning. Tactics is more executing. Obama's overall strategy is to transform the United States culture into a socialist or communist structure.

Can we agree on that?

Sanmon said...

We sure can agree that Obama wants some "ism" and it sure is not Libertyism :-)

Joel Farnham said...

:-) Nor capitalism.

LawHawkSF said...

Every war plan is perfect--until the shooting starts. Obama is just learning that lesson, and so far, he isn't adapting well. Wednesday night's appearance before Congress might tell us a lot. He may show he can adapt, which will mean incrementalism on the way to his goal of fully state-controlled health care. Or he may go on meltdown, stick with the left wing of his party on single-payer, and push for quick passage of nationalized medicine. Both are dangerous, but I worry more about the former than the latter. The former wouldn't change his goal, but it might make him look statesman-like, and that could lead many people to the wrong conclusion, lulling them into a false complacency. I hope I'm wrong.

Sanmon said...

Joel,
100% agreement. Now we just have to figure out what this bass tard is up to. He keeps on bringing up "World" but who would follow him?

I do not see him as NWO but Sorros maybe. Once we know for sure who the puppet master is, we will know what the puppet is up to.

Joel Farnham said...

NWO --> New World Order?

Sanmon said...

Lawhawk, you mean this kind of incremental change?

OpenCongress Summary

Offical Summary
The Serve America Act of 2009 (H.R. 1388) aims to expand the number of volunteer service opportunities for Americans, with a federal goal of 250,000 positions for AmeriCorps volunteers, seniors, students and veterans. The legislation creates a framework for an expanded service program, and would cost $5.7 billion over a six-year period. The legislation was signed by President Barack Obama on April 21, 2009. He has requested $1.1 billion in the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to fund the first year.

LawHawkSF said...

Sanmon: That would certainly be part of it.

Sanmon said...

Joel,
Yes New World Order. I don't follow this stuff to closely and I am sure this Administration would place its own spin on it anyway. He just keeps dropping the word "World" all the time. I do not see him as a person the world would follow. Can you imagine Putin following Barack :-)

Heck I did not see this country as one that would follow him after 2 weeks of just a little research before cable started looking into him.

Who is the puppet master? Someone is, and it is not BHO.

Joel Farnham said...

Sanmon, I don't know about puppet master. King maker, maybe.

Sanmon said...

Lawhawk,
I see GIVE Act and many more to follow is what we need to be concerned about. Health Care, Cap and Tax, and Stimulus are the distractions. Important yes, but illusionist are busy at the White House. Follow the right CZARS closely if we can, they hold the answers.

Saul said to flood the system, Barack is saying yes Sir.

Sanmon said...

Joel,
I play lose with terms at this stage so if you see me use term like Puppet Master I have no problem with others saying King Maker. I do not have enough clarity yet to pigeon hole him yet. I just know something sure smells funny coming out of this White House and it is not the cooking in the kitchen

Joel Farnham said...

Fair enough. I understand your point.

LawHawkSF said...

Sanmon: Big, small, or somewhere in between, everything being put together by the current administration is part of the fabric of expanding government control. Whether it comes in pieces, or all at once, their goal remains the same. The Bush administration did nothing to stop the growth of government, but it was not their goal. It is the goal of the Obamacrats, and they will get better at it as they go along. Eternal vigilance is called for.

Post a Comment