Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom noted:
‘If you know what’s good for you, you’ll stop with the dissent and let us run your life.’
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Democratic National Committee released a sharply-worded statement Tuesday accusing Republicans of colluding with “K Street Lobbyists” to incite “angry mobs” of extremists to disrupt health care town halls in congressional districts around the country
[...]The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.
However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of ’socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.
The numerous libels in that short excerpt are breathtaking. There were no cries of “socialist” or “communist” from speakers at Palin rallies. The “birther” movement was born out of the Hillary Clinton supporter camp.
And if these mendoucheous, leftist gasbags want to accuse every dissenting person who showed up at a Tea Party as being paid by “K Street lobbiests” then come prove I received any checks.
The stink of fear is strong with these amoral f***wits.
I’m sure that Art Downs would like to know where his check for attending a Tea Party is! After all, he has a sports car for which he has to pay!
Just what would our friends on the left have said had the Bush Administration set up this kind of program?
Call For Informants: If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It
If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.
From the White House website:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.
The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.
Interestingly, as Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams’ 1770 “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.”
(h/t Jon Henke)
UPDATE: As Erick, one of RedState’s resident lawyers, points out here, this program may go beyond sinister and actually be a violation of current U.S. law.
Further, email@example.com is not currently subject to Freedom of Information Act requests — something a freedom-loving legislator (Jim DeMint? Tom Coburn? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor?) should seek to correct at his or her earliest convenience.
I’d like to say that I’m surprised, but I’m really not. Socialists have always had a tough time with dissent, because dissent is invariably tied to the notion of individual freedom, and individual freedom and liberty are diametrically opposed to socialism; the more you impose programs for the good of society as a whole, the more you must trample upon the rights of individuals who disagree, on people who do not want to participate in the programs.
Communist states, naturally, had no problem with the imposition of direct programs to stifle, and punish, dissent. For decades, American and democratic European Communists ignored the Soviet Union’s concentration camp system, the GULag, and there were active defenders of the show trials. The milder socialists, the ones who couldn’t stomach the repressive Communism developed by the USSR, had more problems with suppression of dissent, because they came from systems where individual liberty was held in higher respect than in Russia. (Russia went almost directly from the tsarist autocracy to authoritarian Communism; though there was a short-lived provisional government under Aleksandr Kerenskii in 1917, the Russian people had very little time to get used to the notion of some political freedom.)
Yet, in the end, socialism is, and must be, diametrically opposed to individual liberty. A system which holds that it must provide for the greater good of society — and, in our favorite Kiwi Kommenter’s GINI argument, more evenly distributed economic rewards, regardless of merit or hard work or productivity — cannot help being in opposition to individual liberty, since individual liberty is opposed to the leveling mantra of socialism.
We saw this in the 2008 campaign. When Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”) had the temerity, had the unmitigated gall, to question Senator Obama’s tax policies. The Democrats immediately started looking into Mr Wurzelbacher’s past, trying to discredit him in any way possible. Of course, the Democrats didn’t control the government then, so they couldn’t
just have him arrested report him to the White House. Now they do control the government, and it seems that yes, they can report dissenters to the White House.
I’m waiting, patiently, for our friends on the left to denounce this reporting system, but Alas! I suspect that my patience will be sorely tried anticipating such. Like the American Communists who overlooked so much, who tolerated and excused the behavior of the Soviet Union, because they somehow saw it as leading to a greater good, our friends on the left may be surprised that the Obama Administration would set up this Ministry of Truth and its reporting system, may be somewhat uncomfortable with the idea, an internet version of Cuba’s Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, but at least so far, they have been quiet and compliant.
I’m guessing that they’ll stay that way.