On Saving America — What To Do?
Jeff Goldstein proposed an idea yesterday in a post about the revelatory Jonathan Gruber video [two others have been unearthed since then, by the way, where the little Tyrannical bastard says the same thing]:
Still, they can be beaten back. And the way to do that would be for the RNC to cut an advertisement that shows this smug jaggoff Gruber admitting that an already wildly unpopular — and soon to be more so, as lesser than expected enrollment figures force dramatic increases in premiums and deductibles — “signature” piece of Obama legislation was written precisely to fool them, to take advantage of their lack of political sophistication and to tout an intentional lack of transparency as a stroke of policy genius.
Boasting about the political efficacy of misinforming voters in a representative republic is akin to boasting about the relative ease of the velvet coup they “progressive” left has engaged in to overthrow it: that, after all, is what fundamental transformation is, and what it was always intended to be.
The GOP, in concert with this ad I believe should be cut, should, after all waivers expire, begin sending repeal bills to the President weekly, forcing him to veto and then justify his veto to an American public made newly and widely aware that they were not only lied to — but that the lying was part and parcel of the plan to get the legislation passed and institutionalized. I suspect such a campaign would put pressure on vulnerable Democrats and lead even to some crossover, turning repeal into a bipartisan cause.
This leaves Obama (and a sycophantic media whom people are beginning to see as protectors of the President, not antagonists of the powerful) alone on a political island: I suspect even many in the legacy media, relying on an intuitive imperative for self-preservation, will be loath to provide the President with too much cover, particularly after the effects of the unwieldy, unworkable, unconstitutional law are felt on a wider scale by the public.
Each time the repeal bill is passed and Obama vetoes it, the leadership from both Houses should call press conferences highlighting Obama’s obstructionism in service to a law one of its architects boasted only passed thanks to the stupidity of American voters and a concerted effort by those who drafted it to keep it confusing and to make its redistributive attributes as non-transparent as they could. They should note that sweeping GOP gains in the House and a comfortable control of the Senate — along with changes in governorships and state asssemblies favoring the GOP — represents a mandate to repeal the unpopular and financially devastating law, with many of those who unseated Democrats having run on the repeal of ObamaCare. They should refer time and time again to the denigration of the American electorate by one of the law’s main architects (who also was an architect of RomneyCare, for those of you who are interested in such things), and reprising the key phrases Gruber used, first, about the “stupidity of the American voter” and second, how a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” when trying to fool the electorate.
Such ad and political campaigns would be quite successful in disabusing some of the more ‘distracted’ of our fellow citizens of the notion that The Jarret Junto and it’s allies mean well. This would provide more potential support for any efforts to repeal Obamacare — which is the ONLY way to begin the restoration of the proper relationship between the Sovereign People and their government.
However, as Jeff points out:
That none of this will happen is proof the GOP establishment has no plans to repeal the law, and that they’re own campaign promises were also lies. The truth is, many parts of this law benefit their business cronies; and having redefined the relationship between the citizen and the government, with the citizen now a subject, tremendous new institutionalized power rests with the governing elite, who now will vie for who controls the balance of power and so whose favorited constituencies get to benefit in any given governing cycle.
The GOP will tell us they need full power before they attempt repeal. And this is a strategic appeal: they feel they will be rewarded politically if the people suffer, and that’s all they care about.
It is already easy enough to tie ObamaCare to Hilary; so there’s no reason, politically, to wait. But wait they shall, passing a few show votes, attempting to repeal small bits of the law beneficial to their heaviest lobbyists (the medical device tax), and hoping that they’ll be swept into presidential power — holding the Senate — on the coat tails of Obama’s unpopularity.
As he points out in a follow-up post from today:
It is all well and good to issue press releases or go on shows seen only by news junkies. But if the GOP were serious about its campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare, they’ve been handed the material necessary to do so — and in the process, show Obama as the obstructionist and harm, in the process, Hilary Clinton, who can likewise be tied to ObamaCare, or at least to nationalized health care.
Will they do it? Probably not.
But that doesn’t mean, say, the Koch Brothers and other big name libertarian and constitutional conservative donors can’t finance the very ad campaign I’ve suggested. It beats pouring money into the coffers of a party or candidate who, in the end, tries with remarkably tenacity to maintain the status quo, regardless of what political party it putatively favors.
Our only hope for the ad campaign Jeff suggests is some private citizens having the Will to fund it and carry it through as far as it needs to be.
And I see the main purpose of the ad campaign to be helping us get the necessary support for a Convention Of The States. The national government, so infested is it with Leftist Cancer Virus, is a lost cause at this point. Our Article V effort is the sole hope of avoiding violence and/or effecting a separation of several of the Several States.
My extensive readings of primary source material from, roughly, 1760-1776 over the past two years have convinced me of this.
We are, in many ways, in a much worse situation than The Founding Fathers were before they felt compelled to act: our governments at all levels are much more Tyrannical and dangerous than King George and Parliament ever were. The British, at least, were not Ideologues committed to bringing about Heaven On Earth by using any means necessary. They had absolutely no desire to tear down everything we hold dear and sacred and build Paradise on top of the rubble. They did not seek to remake Man in the image of Man as seen through a funhouse mirror. Even fat King George did not think himself, a Man, as a god.
Time to saddle-up and ride — OUTLAW.