An Immoral Wall?

By

Old Gadfly

As of today, nonessential portions of the federal government have been shut down for 19 days.  Tomorrow, thousands of these individuals will not be paid.  Some have already applied for unemployment benefits.  Why is this happening?

President Trump has not agreed to sign an appropriations bill that would provide funding for the federal government because it does not include $5.7 billion for a wall at our southern border.  This is one of the campaign promises that led to his election.  New Speaker of the House Pelosi calls this promise immoral.

Yesterday, President Trump met with Congressional leaders to negotiate a deal.  After about 20 minutes, the President asked the new Speaker of the House if she would agree to funding the wall if he approved government funding, and she said no.  At this point, he stood up, said "we're done here," and walked out.  Leaving the White House, Democrat leaders immediately addressed reporters describing this part of the meeting as a tantrum: "the President slapped the table and stormed out."  This tactic was recently described by Speaker Pelosi as a "wrap-up smear" that Republicans employ, which is itself a "wrap-up smear" because there is little to no evidence of Republicans using this tactic especially in light of a mainstream media that is ideologically aligned with the left.  Republicans in attendance said the President never raised his voice, slapped the table, or "stormed out."  Yet, "stormed out" is the language used on the front page of today's The New York Times.  Shepard Smith even used that expression at Fox News. 

The night before, even before the President’s Oval Office address, many of the news outlets were cautioning those who were prepared to tune-in about all the lies to be told and that fact checkers were already prepared to point out the lies.  Should we be concerned?  Douglas Hyde, a Brit and author of I Believed, described his conversion from a believing Christian to a militant, atheistic Marxist (Communist).  Here is how he reflected upon the Communist movement riots, strikes, and other violent forms of protest:

And then?  The end of capitalism and the end of all crises, all unemployment.

After all, there was evidence which appeared to support this argument for the communist and left-wing Press was daily proclaiming the liquidation of unemployment in the Soviet Union.  And if the opposition Press said that Russian unemployment was concealed by the millions in forced labour camps, why, that, we knew was just bourgeois propaganda and, as such, suspect.  Was it really to be wondered at if a generation which had grown up in the din and strife of modern propaganda rejected all that which came from official and “respectable” sources and accepted only what fitted in with what it wanted to believe?  There was a certain “kick” to be had out of rejecting all that came from the most respectable quarters and accepting all that came from those who were most abused and distrusted (pp. 35-36; published by The Reprint Society of London, 1952).

Earlier today, a good friend forwarded a video clip of Charlie Kirk, of USA Turning Point, responding to a question about the border wall from an attendee at one of his public appearances.  The implication in the question is that those who argue for the wall provide no evidence or logic.  Unfortunately, the young man asking the question, like so many in America, is at the mercy of the “wrap-up smear” that dominates most of the news networks.  Kirk answered the question with facts and explained the importance of fairness and sovereignty as they relate to border security.

Thousands of Americans lost their jobs just before Christmas when General Motors closed three plants.  They weren’t furloughed like today’s federal employees.  General Motors jobs are gone.  The real crime here, however, is that General Motors’ plant closures came after a $10 billion bailout from the American taxpayer.

On border security, Americans are hoping for compromise.  For Democrats, compromise is really capitulation:  win-lose, or lose-lose.  Win-win or no deal are not acceptable options. 

My prediction is that Democrats will double down and force President Trump to invoke his Constitutional responsibility to protect our nation by declaring a national emergency.  Democrats already have a bench of prepositioned federal judges to block any action by the President.  Meanwhile, “catch and release” for illegal aliens crossing the southern border will continue and collateral damage (low skill job competition, crime, and federal subsidies paid for by American taxpayers) outside the Washington D.C. swamp will accumulate.  The Democrat-controlled House will crank up the heat by re-energizing the Russian-collusion meme even though there is no indication that special prosecutor Mueller and his team succeeded in uncovering any criminal activity here.  There will be plenty of “wrap-up smear” to be employed, just as Douglas Hyde realized during his own seduction by the militant left.

This is the new America: the “transformed” America promised by a previous occupant of the White House.  Shall we get used to being called “comrade”?  The alternative could be decapitation and not knowing we are bleeding.  These are not nice people.  Several associates of President Trump are experiencing the wrath of a political party that refuses to accept the presidential election results.  I guess to Democrats, these political targets are just road kill, as opposed to mere “speed bumps,” (the former White House occupant’s label for the four Americans killed at Benghazi) on their way to power.           

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

IM:  Gentlemen, remember scenes when Forrest Gump’s mother coached him on life matters?  One of the notable quotes in the movie is from Forrest’ own observations:  “stupid is as stupid does.”

Old Gadfly:  Where are you taking us with this theme?

IM:  Current talk about a possible government shutdown.

AM:  And the question is typically worded this way:  Are Republicans willing to shut down the government to push legislation to defund Planned Parenthood? 

Old Gadfly:  What exactly is the logic being implied by this question?

AM:  The majority of Americans are repulsed by videos portraying the harvesting of fetal tissue for profit.  Responding to this concern, Republicans in the House have advanced legislation that shifts nearly half a billion in taxpayer funds away from Planned Parenthood and to reallocate these same funds for other health providers providing similar services, but not the abortions.  Democrats are saying they are opposed to defunding Planned Parenthood and will vote against the legislation.  Republican leadership in the Senate, fully aware that Republicans were blamed for the last shutdown talk about kicking the can down the road because even if the Senate passed defunding legislation, President Obama will veto it.

IM:  If Democrats and the Administration are not willing to acknowledge the will and intent of the majority of Americans and to compromise with Republicans who are legislating on behalf of the people, then why is it logical to blame Republicans for shutting down the government?  It sounds like Democrats are not willing to compromise, but expect Republicans to fully capitulate, that is, surrender any moral obligation to stand on principle.

Old Gadfly:  Americans have short memories.  During the last shutdown, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried several iterations of legislative language to defund or at least delay funding portions of the Affordable Care Act.  The final version gave Democrats everything they wanted but delayed funding for some of the more controversial measures of the Affordable Care Act.  Two months earlier, the Obama Administration issued an Executive Order delaying the employer mandate by one year because it would have been a political disaster for upcoming Democrat elections.  Not only was the Executive Order unconstitutional, it was an insult to the Republicans who already understood the consequential impact on the American economy.  Ever since the passage of the Affordable Care (without a single Republican vote) the labor participation rate plummeted and is now the lowest it has been since October 1977, with most of these Americans now on government subsidies.

It was the Democrat caucus that refused to compromise even on this last version proposed by the House.  By choosing not to compromise, Democrats are the ones that chose to shut down the government because they could shamelessly blame it on Republicans for refusing to compromise.  Republicans made numerous compromises.  Democrats allowed none.  This Democrat-manufactured notion that Republicans shut down the government is called a meme, and it took on irrefutable truth in the minds of Americans.  This was a case of unconditional surrender, and Republicans bought it.  And now they own it, until they grow a backbone and argue for the actual truth. 

AM: So, why are Democrats willing to lie and cheat to keep Planned Parenthood funded?

 IM:  It’s all for political power.  Planned Parenthood spends millions each year lobbying the government and contributing to political campaigns.  Just in Colorado, according to Secretary of State data, Planned Parenthood spent $3.3 million since January 2013.  This money was spent on promoting Democrat candidates, defending two Democrat incumbents during recall elections, and on opposing statewide ballot measures to redefine the term "person.”  These data represent only one of the 50 States.  Can you imagine the impact defunding Planned Parenthood would have on Democrat resources for political campaigning?  The half billion in funding does not just go away.  House Republicans reallocated the funding to other health care providers to provide similar services, minus abortion.

Old Gadfly:    Walter Cronkite, often called “the most trusted man in America,” wrote the preface to a 1983 Signet Classic version of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Here is an excerpt: "If not prophecy, what was 1984? It was, as many have noticed, a warning: a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages." In our time, it is manufactured "pop culture" folklore (such as “the war on women” and “war against reproductive rights”) that wires so many to think the way the political establishment wants. Progressive Democrats cannot continue their success in advancing an administrative state (as we discussed in our last conversation) without the duplicitous, mendacious, and complicit collaboration of Planned Parenthood.  This is why Obama and Democrats in Congress have drawn a line in the sand.

IM:  So, if I may be so blunt, who are the stupid ones?

Old Gadfly:  Well, I think we can identify at least three groups:  (a) establishment Democrat politicians who subscribe to their own lies and deceitfulness; (b) Democrat constituents who subscribe to the establishment narrative; and (c) establishment Republican politicians who are either naïve in the face of blatant duplicity, mendacity, and complicity, or lack courage to stand for moral principle.

AM:  How about Republic constituents?

Old Gadfly:  Republican constituents are frustrated and disappointed.  Elected Republicans failed to deliver on expectations following elections in 2010 (Republicans took control of the House) and 2014 (Republicans kept even stronger control of the House and regained control of the Senate).  The notion that “we just need to elect the right people” is not working.  Thus, there is now a growing movement to seek another solution to overcome the corruption in Washington, D.C.  It is called the Convention of the States Project (www.cosaction.com; authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution under three main topics:  fiscal responsibility, power and jurisdiction, and term limits.  If 34 State legislatures pass a resolution for such a convention, Congress shall establish a date and a location.  Any amendments proposed by the convention would then be sent to the State legislatures for ratification, which requires 38 or more States to approve.  This is a peaceful, Constitutional solution, advanced by “we the people” on behalf of State legislatures to rebalance political power in our nation. 

IM:  Of course, understanding the vision and wisdom of our Constitutional framers, who anticipated the need for such a solution, requires some refresher education. 

Old Gadfly:  The fate of our nation depends upon such a refresher and a commitment to action if we are to preserve our self-governing Constitutional Republic.  We cannot assume this problem will take care of itself.  We will all own the consequences, whether we choose to be stupid or not.

Obama's Rubicon

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, yesterday, President Obama took full credit for reopening the government and saving our nation from default.  Here is what he said:  “Well, last night, I signed legislation to reopen our government and pay America’s bills.  Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over.  The first default in more than 200 years will not happen.”  Based on his desire to speak to the American public in the way he did, how would you characterize Obama’s vision of a “transformed” America and the logic of his arguments? 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Let me start.  If we reflect upon Obama’s strategy over the past few weeks, it clearly indicates that he is repeating Julius Caesar’s political power overreach in crossing the Rubicon.  The Rubicon crossing meant that Caesar wanted complete imperial power in defiance of the established distribution of powers at the time. 

In defiance of the Constitution and the laws of our nation, Obama has indicated he has absolutely no need for the role Congress plays in his vision of a transformed America.  Incidentally, let’s recall John Stuart Mill’s arguments in his essay, “The Contest in America,” that we discussed last month in our conversation, “Beyond Negotiation.”  Both Democrats, yes even Democrats, and Republicans in both houses of Congress were mere “human instruments” in the service of master Obama.  Democrats and their collaborators in mainstream media, if they have any reasoning capacity, moral decency, and respect for the Constitution and its insistence upon the sovereignty of the people, then they should feel degraded.  Republicans were truly targeted as the enemy of the master, with the firing of canon fire and thrusting of bayonets “in the service and for the selfish purposes of the master.”  I watched ABC’s World News with Diane Sawyer yesterday evening and it was clear the mainstream media is doing Obama’s bidding by employing Saul Alinsky’s rule number 13.

Old Gadfly:  It is unfortunate that the ideal of a free press advanced in the First Amendment is so blinded by the progressive ideology.  Obama obviously has achieved a concentration of political power according to prevailing mainstream media public narratives.  AM, aside from a lot of rhetoric, why do you believe Obama’s behavior justifies being characterized as crossing the Rubicon?

AM:  Obama wants to change the constitutional process of government and concentrate more power in the executive branch.  Here is what he said in today’s speech: 

But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change.  Because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people -- and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust.  Our system of self-government doesn’t function without it.  And now that the government is reopened, and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that’s grow this economy; create good jobs; strengthen the middle class; educate our kids; lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul.  That’s why we're here.  That should be our focus.

Old Gadfly:  Despite the arrogance of telling us where we can or should not get our information on current affairs, there are a lot of abstractions and rhetorical platitudes in that quote.  How does any of it relate to actually crossing the Rubicon?

AM:  In a nutshell, Obama wants a single, vanguard party that enables a large, centrally managed statist administration.  That single party would be a progressive Democrat Party.  That’s what he means when he says Washington must change.  While he says he’s open to ideas and is willing to compromise, Obama refuses to negotiate or compromise in actual behavior.  The past sequester was not a compromise.  It was Obama’s idea, supposedly in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.  The “appearance” of compromise was a deliberate attempt to inflict visible pain presumed to follow the effects of the sequester.  The plan was to use “human instruments” in service to a master to reinforce a narrative that Republicans do not care for the people.  This is what Obama and progressives hoped to achieve by shutting down the government because they knew they could count on the mainstream media to repeat their logic in shaping the public narrative.

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama’s Rubicon is the complete and irreversible commitment to transforming America, which involves changing the constitutional logic of governance.  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), let’s hear your thoughts on the logic.

IM:  All this transformational action is being done using Orwell’s “newspeak” and by controlling the public narrative.  The logic of Obama’s arguments is designed to “frame the issue” in order to control the narrative; this logic, by the way, is also advanced by other members of the progressive caucus.

Old Gadfly:  What do you mean by “framing the issue”?

IM:  Obama and his progressive cohort are masters at sophistry. 

AM:  Define sophistry.

IM:  The sophists believed in the power of rhetoric.  Arguments merely need to be plausible, not necessarily true.  Dictionary.com defines sophistry this way:  “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”

AM:  That concept nails what we are enduring under Obama.  Sometimes, the approach is not so subtle.  I heard today from one of the “talking heads” Obama told us to avoid in his speech yesterday, that while Obama was appearing presidential during the government shutdown, members of his administration were tweeting followers with pejorative (Mill’s canon fire and bayonet attacks) comments about Speaker Boehner and the Republicans.

IM:  Absolutely.  Let’s get back to the logic.  Obama and his progressive followers use syllogisms to frame issues.  This, by the way, is a tactic George Lakoff had advanced and employed in training progressive politicians and political activists.  Some of this intellectual indoctrination and training took place through The Rockridge Institute before it lost its 501c(3) status.  But, the intellectual momentum and activism continues through Cognitive Policy Works.

Old Gadfly:  Before we get into specific arguments, explain what you mean by syllogism.

IM:  A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that includes a major premise followed by a minor premise that in turn leads to an apparent conclusion.  Here’s an example:  The major premise states:  educated people are liberal.  The minor premise states:  Mary is educated.  Therefore, it follows that Mary is a liberal.  The problem with syllogisms is that oftentimes major premises are not true.  In the example just provided, we know “educated people” are liberal, conservative, and in between.  Thus, the fact that Mary is educated does not necessarily make her liberal.  Yet, there is a prevailing meme that educated people are liberal.

Old Gadfly:  One of the arguments I keep advancing in our discussions is that many Americans who claim to be liberal, are not.  They are progressive.  And, as F.A. Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom, many who claim to be “liberal” are really “conservative” in terms of preserving privilege.  We discussed evidence of this notion in the presumption (major premise) that Democrats protect classes of people (unions, minorities, reproductive rights, illegal immigrants, gays, and so forth).

IM:  So, in the “government shutdown,” what progressives have advanced in terms of a syllogism are the following arguments:

Argument 1:

Major premise:  House Republicans passed a bill to shut down the government.

Minor premise:  The government was shut down.

Conclusion:  House Republicans shut down the government.

Argument 2:

Major premise:   A government shutdown will hurt people.

Minor premise:  News reports indicate examples of people who were adversely impacted by the shutdown (e.g., WW II vets, furloughed government employees).

Conclusion:  The government shutdown did in fact hurt people.

IM:  So, collectively these arguments lead to an even stronger narrative:  House Republicans shut down the government to hurt people.

AM:  Exactly.  This narrative was blatantly obvious in the mainstream news.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s correct the logic.

IM:  First of all, in his speech yesterday, Obama lectured Republicans by saying

So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse.  That’s not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government.  You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it. But don’t break it.  Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.  That's not being faithful to what this country is about.

IM:  Our founders envisioned a limited government, not the Leviathan Obama and progressives want.  The Tea Party is not anti-government.  The Tea Party represents Americans who fully understand what our founders had in mind regarding limited government with appropriate checks and balances.  While Obama presumes to lecture Republicans, he completely ignores the fact that “self-governing” Americans argued against Obamacare when then did elect members to represent them in the House of Representatives.  Obama and progressives in government and the media refuse to acknowledge the fact that in 2010, following the partisan passage of Obamacare, Democrats lost 64 seats to give Republicans a majority with a 49-seat margin.  Granted, Republicans lost eight seats in the 2012 elections, but this was due to the Obama Administration via the Internal Revenue Service successfully demonizing and censoring the Tea Party voice between 2010 and 2012.  Yet, despite a majority voice in the House of Republicans, they are treated as a fringe, extremist minority in one of the branches of government designed constitutionally to maintain “power of the purse.”  And regarding Obama’s comment, “don’t break it,” Obamacare has broken the founder’s ideal of self-government.  Obama is a bully with a pulpit and a legion of Copernican drones repeating his messages.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent analysis, IM.  Let’s get back to some corrected logic.

IM:  The arguments should look like this:

Argument 1:

Major premise:  As 2010 elections arrived, the majority of Americans had concerns about the effect of Obamacare on the economy and individual freedoms.

Minor premise:  Democrats lost 64 seats to Republicans, giving Republicans a 49-seat margin as the majority party.

Conclusion:  Self-governing Americans wanted to repeal Obamacare.

Argument 2 (aside from over 40 House-passed bills to repeal, defund, or delay Obamacare or various provisions, none (that is zero) were sent to committee or presented to the Senate for an up or down vote):

Major premise:  In the current crisis, House Republicans passed a bill to fund the federal government with the exception of Obamacare (representing the will and intent of those who elected them).

Minor premise:  Senate majority leader Reid refused to allow a vote on the bill, claiming Obamacare must be fully funded.

Conclusion:  Reid (not House Republicans) would not allow the federal government to be funded.

 Argument 3:

Major premise:  In a spirit of compromise, House Republicans passed a bill to completely refund the federal government and included a one-year delay on implementing the individual mandate (despite the President already granting numerous exemptions or delays, in violation of the law he pushed and approved).

Minor premise:  Senate majority leader Reid refused to present the bill the bill for a vote, claiming Obamacare must be fully funded.

Conclusion:    Reid (not House Republicans) would not allow the federal government to be funded.  Thus, the government was allowed to be shut down by Reid with the full support of Obama (who had blatantly indicated he would not negotiate).

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama’s idea of compromise is really capitulation or surrender.

AM:  That’s exactly right.  And after nearly five years of perverting the idea of what the founders had in mind in combination with an abysmal economy with millions either unemployed or underemployed, lower incomes, and fears of additional costs for Obamacare, he is even more confident in crossing the Rubicon.  Add to this his ability to completely dodge, for now, scandals such as Benghazi and the IRS harassment of the Tea Party that are far more egregious than Watergate, strengthen his resolve to further exploit obvious mendacity, complicity, and duplicity among those who control the public narrative.

Old Gadfly:  As we discussed just prior to national elections this past year, Walter Cronkite foresaw 30 years ago what is currently playing out in the lives of Americans.  Cronkite said the following in the Preface to a 1983 edition of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984:

Seldom has a book provided a greater wealth of symbols for its age and for the generations to follow, and seldom have literary symbols been invested with such power.  How is that?  Because they were so useful, and because the features of the world he drew, outlandish as they were, also were familiar. . . . We’ve met Big Brother in Stalin and Hitler and Khomeini.  We hear Newspeak in every use of language to manipulate, deceive, to cover harsh realities with the soft snow of euphemism [George Lakoff demonstrates this in Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think when he metaphorically classifies liberals as nurturing parents and conservatives as strict fathers].  And every time a political leader expects or demands that we believe the absurd, we experience that mental process Orwell called doublethink. . . . If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imaginations of earlier ages.[1]

AM: Obama is a seasoned community organizer and he has surrounded himself with communications experts who are experts in the use of social media technology.   I have often wondered what symbolic role Obama’s personal logo has played since he started campaigning for president.  I visited his website Organizing for Action.  Here is an example of how the logo has been used in organizing followers:

IM:  This is eerie.  In the movie, 1984, a logo also plays a key role.  Here’s a snapshot from one of the scenes:

AM:  What does INGSOC represent?

IM:  INGSOC is Newspeak for “English Socialism,” a political ideology advanced by the political party that had power over society.  Obama’s logo signifies a rising sun within a circle that represents “O” in Obama.  The sun represents hope over the “changed” landscape of America as symbolized in the complete restructuring of the elements of the American flag.  The change is the fundamental change Obama keeps promising and pushing in violation of the “self-governing” ideal “gifted” to us by our founders.  AM, I agree with your notion that Obama has crossed the Rubicon.

AM:  Sad . . . so very sad. 

Old Gadfly:  Yes, but I think the situation is still redeemable.  We’ll discuss such a strategy during our next conversation.

---

[1] George Orwell, 1984, (New York:  Signet Classic, 1983), pp. 1-2

Beyond Negotiation

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), In our last conversation, we discussed how the dominant progressive narrative is beyond engineering public sentiment.

           IM:  Yes.  To be blunt, we talked about strong evidence of disinformation.  The President’s pompous, trivial, and unpresidential speech today was another case of unadulterated disinformation; and the speech was enshrouded in a cloud of utter absurdity.  Patting himself on the back, Obama bragged about being the first American leader in over three decades to negotiate with his Iranian equivalent, in this case, Hasan Rouhani. 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  By the way, if you want excellent analysis of Iran’s role regarding control and instability within the Middle East, read Dexter Filkins’ article, “The Shadow Commander,” in The New Yorker Magazine.  After reading the article, you’ll see how naïve the “American leader” is.  But, in terms of political theater, claiming a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran was a clever way to set the tone for the rest of the speech.

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama takes credit for being the first in over three decades to negotiate with an Iranian counterpart, while refusing to negotiate with House Republicans?

IM:  That’s the gist of it.  Obama will negotiate with a party that has trained and funded actual suicide bombers while refusing to negotiate with what a White House staffer (i.e., communications director Dan Pfeiffer) has called “suicide bombers” in the House.  Republicans are expected to compromise, while Obama has no intention of compromise.  Yet, in his speech, Obama accuses Republicans of grandstanding.  It takes two to tango, but only one dancer will be held accountable in this scenario, and it won’t be Obama.  Isn’t it grand to be king with an indentured press to repeat the king’s proclamations?  I guess we long ago lost the meaning of the Boston Tea Party.  And these great Americans were considered extremists by King George as well.

Old Gadfly:  Give some examples of disinformation in the speech.

IM:  The elephant in this room is Obamacare, a law that was passed without a single Republican vote.  Last week, the House, acting in concert with their constituents, forwarded a bill to the Senate that fully funds the government, but defunds Obamacare.  The Senate Democrats could compromise by agreeing to the House bill.  But, they will not because of the sacred cow, Obamacare.  Further, Obama claims the House leadership has been held hostage by the extremist Tea Party faction, as if this group represents a fringe minority in its opposition to fully implementing Obamacare, and other government expansion efforts.

Old Gadfly:  I did not hear Obama mention in the speech that the majority of the American people are opposed to implementing Obamacare.  Do the people not matter in this debate?

AM:  The people only matter when Obama can use them for human instruments, as in background props while giving speeches.  Obama’s tone and rhetoric have even compelled many Americans to react emotionally in regard to any mention of the Tea Party.  If you can even get one of these Copernican drones to engage in a conversation, they cannot explain what it is about the Tea Party that makes them so hateful.

Old Gadfly:  I know what you are getting at, AM.  Remind us about human instruments.

AM:  During the American Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote an essay, “The Contest in America,” to convince the British government not to intervene in order to keep cotton flowing in support of their textile-based economy.  Mill closed his set of arguments with this observation:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.[1]

Old Gadfly:  Do you think union leaders are starting to feel “degraded” after serving as human instruments in the service of a master? 

AM:  Yes.  Unions danced with the devil they thought they knew.  Now, union leaders are angry and becoming vocal as they learn what is in the bill that had to be passed before they could know what was in it. 

IM:  So, AM, it sounds like House Republicans are exerting themselves by fighting the increasingly apparent injustices of Obamacare. 

AM:  And, ultimately, the fight is against the threat progressivism poses.

IM:  Ironically, Orwell described the evolution of political power when the animals took over the farm in Animal Farm.  He described how the seven commandments devolved into only one commandment:  all animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.  Progressives in the White House and Congress are increasingly more aggressive in practicing this commandment.  When the President chooses which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not, we have another Orwellian Napoleon calling the shots with the help of Squealer (Dan Pfeiffer and/or a complicit press), but these American characters are not fictional. 

AM:  I guess this is what progressives mean by social justice—take from some to give to others.  In the end, those who are not part of the club end up being mere human instruments.   Then again, there appears to be a large swarm of Copernican drones, who drink the club Kool-Aid, being used as human instruments as well.  They represent a large portion of the grass roots organization.  The Organizing for Action website is pretty hypnotic.     

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to disinformation specifics in Obama’s speech.

IM:  Obama also bragged about the most aggressive reductions in deficits since the Second World War.  The highest deficit in the Bush Administration was less than half a trillion.  The lowest deficit in Obama’s Administration was $973 billion—more than twice the largest deficit recorded under the Bush Administration.  The other four years under Obama ranged from $1.1 to $1.4 trillion.  But what these figures do not tell you is that the cost of government is still growing, not receding.  And despite Obama’s rhetoric to the contrary, taxes have gone up.  While fewer Americans actually pay federal income tax, that minority is paying even more.  Without the increased tax revenue, there would be no deficit reduction.  Here’s the data from the Fiscal Year 2014 Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Table 1.1:

    

AM:  As I recall from an earlier conversation, the cost of the federal government in 1933 was about $600 per person.  Today, when adjusting for inflation so that we are using constant dollars, the cost of the federal government is now $12,000 per person.  This is 20 times greater.  Yet, poverty is as high as ever, median incomes are decreasing, and record numbers are on food stamps and disability.

Old Gadfly:  Am I missing something?  Obama wants the public to think he’s reducing deficits, which should reduce our overall debt.  Yet, did he not put Republicans on notice that they better increase the debt ceiling next month?

IM:  You did not miss anything, Gadfly.  This is a patent example of disinformation.  While deficits contribute to our national debt, it is the debt that puts our economy at risk because it can eventually exceed our capacity to generate the wealth from which tax revenue is drawn.  Obama wants the public to think the government is spending less by exaggerating deficit reductions . . . but our government is growing and so is the national debt.

Old Gadfly:  IM, does the government data indicate any statistical relationships between party affiliation in the House (where the power of the purse resides) and the size of government?

IM:  Absolutely.  Between 1981 and 2012, there is a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between House party affiliation and full-time equivalent positions in the federal government, where r = -.70, p = .000.  This means that as political power shifts to the left (Democrat), full-time equivalents increases significantly.  As the power shifts to the right (Republican), full-time equivalents decrease significantly.

AM:  This may explain why the federal bureaucracy is so heavily unionized.  Democrats like big government, and those who make up the government have champions in the Congress, with union dues helping to finance reelection campaigns.

IM:  What aggravates this dynamic is that there is also a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between full-time equivalent positions in the federal government and percent employed in the private sector, where r = -.64, p = .000.  This means that as federal jobs increase, jobs in the private sector decrease, and vice versa.  The balance between the cost of government and the capacity of the private sector to produce the wealth that is needed to sustain the cost of government is critical.

Old Gadfly:  What did Obama have to say in today’s speech about the economy?

IM:  He said, the Republicans are about to “throw a wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those gears have gained some traction.”

AM:  What traction?  In our last conversation, we talked about how bad the job situation is. Here is what I said:  “The percent of our working population actually employed is at 63.2% (as of August 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the lowest in over 30 years.  And many who are ‘employed’ are in less than 40-hour a week jobs.”  Here’s the graphic to illustrate how significant this situation is.

Old Gadfly:  Can any of these circumstances be directly attributed to Obamacare?

IM:  Absolutely.  We already talked about union leader concerns.  Further, analysts for Investor’s Business Daily have conducted research that indicates jobs have been significantly affected by Obamacare.  According to IBD, “In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.  As of Sept. 25, our ObamaCare scorecard included 313 employers.”  This only represents what is currently known.

AM:  Let’s summarize.

·         There are obvious issues with Obamacare.

·         Obamacare has already adversely affected jobs.

·         The majority of Americans do not want Obamacare.

·         Republicans are willing to fund government functions with the exception of Obamacare.

·         Obama wants all of a growing government funded to include Obamacare.

·         Republicans want to fix a bad situation on behalf of their constituents.

·         Wouldn’t an intelligent person be willing to negotiate based on these circumstances?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  However, Obama is an intellectual, who is dogmatically locked into the progressive ideology that he plans to impose upon all Americans as part of his agenda to transform America.  This notion was evident in his March 22, 2009 victory speech on the passage of Obamacare.  Despite the majority of Americans still not in favor of the comprehensive bill known as The Affordable Care Act, midway into his speech (6 minutes and 7 seconds), Obama looked into the camera and into the homes of every American watching, and said, “This is what change looks like.”  Yes, from day one, Obama has assumed the mantle of a modern Grand Inquisitor and has had no intention of negotiating. 

AM:  So, we can choose to be human instruments in the service of a master, or we can fight for liberty and justice.  You know where we stand, Gadfly.

---

[1] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine, April 1862. This essay is in the public domain and available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5123/pg5123.txt