05 August 2009

Report All Violators To The Ministry Of Truth



"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests." ~ John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.

(And the left lost their cookies over the Bush administration's "domestic spying" program.)

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House." ~ Cornyn wrote, referring to former president George W. Bush.

*I apologize for all the political posts recently, but the current debates and pending legislation in Congress could fundamentally alter America in ways that are not in keeping with our founding documents, liberty, and freedom. But, this is history and does fall within the broad subject matter of this blog. I do have some very interesting history & WBTS related posts that are pending. They will be posted soon.

14 comments:

James F. Epperson said...

So, in your conception of things, opponents of the President's policies are allowed to lie and distort (as did the producer of that well-done clip), but the President is not allowed to solicit help in combating these lies? After all, the material Obama is soliciting is just as much political speech as the stuff you so much want to go unanswered.

There are two sides to most issues. Surely you are not saying that the people are not allowed to support the President if they want to?

You see, there is a difference between reporting that John Doe is in violation of some law, and reporting that John Doe has published a YouTube video which distorts the President's positions. You do see that, don't you?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Nice try James. It is the President and Congress, as proved by their own words compared to what's actually in the proposed legislation, who are lying. Where does this clip "lie and distort"? Be specific.

If you want to defend the White House creating an enemies list made up of American citizens, go ahead.

It's despicable.

James F. Epperson said...

"Where does this clip 'lie and distort'? Be specific." --- OK:
At about the 0:40 mark, the narrator speaks of a "government take-over of health care," which is not contemplated in the legislation. At about the 1:58 mark it talks about "state-run health care," which again is not in the cards. Your doctor will still be your doctor, probably self-employed, as he probably now is. At the 2:04 mark it speaks of some tons of folks losing their employer-based health care, which is yet another false and distorting claim. Three lies/distortions in 150 seconds is pretty bad, IMO.

You of course would not accept my characterizations here, but that's OK. The Administration is allowed to make its argument in defense. All they asked was to be made aware of the source of the misinformation. You don't like it? I don't like that he has to do it. Welcome to democracy in the digital age.

James F. Epperson said...

Oh, BTW, here's another interesting link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124812571962066393.html

James F. Epperson said...

Another informative link, which proves (IMO) the falsity of many of the more outrageous claims made here:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=338

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"the narrator speaks of a "government take-over of health care" which is not contemplated in the legislation."

What legislation are you reading? The proposals are, without a doubt, a government take-over of health-care. In fact, the very CBO site you suggest in your last comment specifically:

"the coverage specifications would establish a *mandate* for most legal residents to obtain health insurance" and . . .

"regulate the pricing and terms of private health insurance policies"

"Your doctor will still be your doctor, probably self-employed, as he probably now is."

That is somewhat deceptive. Yes, your GP will be your GP or dermatologist, etc. However, if they determine you need further treatment, i.e., surgery, that will have to be "approved" by the Feds. It's in the legislation. The power is taken from the patient and private sector and transferred to a bureaucrat. Again, its in the legislation.

"At the 2:04 mark it speaks of some tons of folks losing their employer-based health care, which is yet another false and distorting claim."

Wrong again. Already addresses that one. Due to the fact that private carriers must make a profit, they will be unable to compete against the public option, subsidized by debt owed to the Chinese which does not have to make a profit. Come on James, Economics 101.

"Welcome to democracy in the digital age."

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. Obama's own words prove he's lying.

chaps said...

The Peoples' Republic of Ann Arbor has been heard from. I can just hear the Internationale played in the background.

Yes. The proposed bill does not say "government take over of health care" or "state-run health care." Neither does it says that millions will lose employer-based insurance. However, if you, unlike a Congressman, actually read the bill, you will see plainly that those are outcomes which are intended by the more innocently-worded provisions.

Report your fellow citizens? Maybe the music in the background is "Die Fahne Hoch Die Reihen Fest Geschlossen...."

Anonymous said...

Given statistically significant success/survival rates between hospitals and doctors who perform the same procedures, it's unimaginable to lose control of who we can pick to perform our medical procedures. If you read who supports nationalized healthcare, then you realize it's not only NOT a majority, but also that its from a segment of individuals who are not facing serious medical procedures.

BorderRuffian said...

James F. Epperson-
"You see, there is a difference between reporting that John Doe is in violation of some law, and reporting that John Doe has published a YouTube video which distorts the President's positions. You do see that, don't you?"
==========================

What could be the purpose of reporting names???

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

BR:

The purpose? Intimidation and the possibility of developing an enemy's list. You mean to tell me that the White House with all its resources needs citizens to inform them of what's out there? Bull.

jacksonianlawyer said...

That there is any "argument" of this issue is patently absurd. This is straight out of Nationalist-Socialist Germany. Big Brother realized. If Republicans undertook these same measures, they would be immediately vilified, with shouts of McCarthyism being made. Yet, it is somehow understable, nay, encouraged by the Obama masses? Simply unbelievable. Those who see no wrong in such efforts cannot profess to have any substantive understanding of our nation and the principles upon which it was founded.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yes, the left when bananas over Bush's domestic "spying" program (which Obama expanded, by the way), but are strangely silent over Obama's expansion and this new intimidation tactic. Very revealing.

jacksonianlawyer said...

Very revealing indeed sir. When the left went nearly postal over their belief that Bush was listening to and/or monitoring every phone call, they now welcome this with glee and describe it as somehow necessary. Unreal.

BRBOYD said...

I would like to report FISHY stories. Where do I turn in NBC, CBS and ABC?