A FREE MARKET SOLUTION
In her article, Three Cheers for Romneycare, Ann Coulter insists that Romneycare and its mandate was a Free Market Solution. Of course a government mandate to buy a product is not a "free market" solution, it is a slave market solution. Using a government mandate may be a market based solution but there is nothing free about it. The purchaser isn't free not to buy. The seller is only able to move the product through coercion and has to qualify with the government to be able to force-sell the product.
It's certainly not free market, and while it can be viewed as a "conservative" solution, it's only a form of conservatism that rejects human freedom and free enterprise. It's a nanny state conservatism, which is exactly the attack that Romney and his supporters have used against Santorum.
Coulter's only defense of Romney's nanny state policy is that it's state based, and did not take place at the Federal level. AsI pointed out last week, if Romney supported a mandate as a state executive, there is no serious reason to believe that he would oppose one as a Federal executive, except "principle" and Romney does not exactly radiate principle.
The mandate allows for a less liberal version of national health care, and it's such a conservative free market solution that the famously conservative free marketer Barry from Chicago ended up adopting it. But the mandate is not conservative or liberal, it's certainly not free market, but it is corporate.
What the mandate really is, is Brooks' "free market socialism" that he called on Obama to adopt in his Times column that ran before the State of the Union address.
Free market socialism gives the left its program but routes it through corporate owners. Obama has been responsible for numerous variations of this across different industries, most notably in Green Energy. We know the maneuver better as Crony Capitalism.
The mandate gives the left national health care and gives health insurance companies mass slavery by forcing every American to buy their product. The left wins, health insurance companies win, everyone else loses.
But the truly brilliant thing about Coulter's defense of Romney is that it takes everything he did as Governor of Massachusetts off the table. No matter what he did, we are assured that he won't do when he gets to the White House because he is committed to states rights.
Suddenly Romney's record doesn't matter and everything hinges on the notion that is a staunch Constitutionalist.
And the mandate? As Coulter puts it, "No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance."
Coulter leaves out the words, "be forced to" but that's a natural mistake. Still supposing that's the case, then the Constitution doesn't give each person an unalienable right not to be forced to buy a subscription to the New York Times or a Chevy Volt.
There is a Jewish religious legal principle, "Menuval BiReshut HaTorah" which warns that it is possible for a person to follow the letter of the law and still act like an abominable human being. There is more to being a good person than just remaining within the boundaries of the legal codes. There is also more to believing in the Founders vision for America than in supporting repressive nanny state laws that serve corrupt interests, but do not technically violate the Bill of Rights.
If the left was really forced to implement its agenda while remaining within the limits of the Constitution, they could do it. It would take them longer than it might the way they are doing it now, but it is still doable. At one debate, Santorum pointed out that Ron Paul's ideology rigidity might have led to a serious blow against the Second Amendment. And that is also a reality. Just because the left rejects Originalism, does not mean that they could not operate within such a system and turn it to its advantage if they had to. That is why it is important to remember the principles of liberty in practice, not just the codes in abstract.
At the Daily Beast, David Frum lays it out pretty clearly in a column titled, Three Cheers for Ann Coulter.
More cheering yet is the logic implicit in Coulter's phrase "free-market alternative." Alternative what? Answer: alternative mode of providing universal health coverage. That's what Gov. Mitt Romney accomplished in Massachusetts—universal coverage via private insurance. Universal coverage is what Romneycare provided, and if you give Romneycare three cheers, universal coverage is what you are cheering.
So three cheers for Ann Coulter's three cheers—and for this public step toward a more humane and rational vision of conservatism.
Frum leaves out progressive, but that's implied. And why not a progressive conservatism. It can be like burning ice or oilwater.
When we see tens of millions of people going without insurance—and thereby either suffering much worse health outcomes or else dumping their costs onto others (or both)—we're not seeing a principled aversion to coverage. We're seeing a crisis of affordability.
Or, and this is a third option, purchasing services and products on an 'as needs' basis. But when you think in terms of national and global solutions, then individuals don't make "different" decisions, they make good or bad decisions. A good decision is in line with the technocracy, a bad decision is out of line with the technocracy.
Those who aren't on board either haven't gotten "access" to the opportunity and require a social justice remedy. Those who object are parasites who are exploiting the system. Not wanting to be part of the system is not an option for the humane and rational system of the technocracy.
Either you are with us, too deprived to be with us and need our help... or you are against us.
What's the soundtrack to that number? "You don't know how lucky you are, boy. Back in the USSR."
THE TROUBLE WITH DEMOCRACY
After all the efforts made to keep the Sandanistas out of power, El Salvador’s supreme leftist pedophile Daniel Ortega is back in the Presidential Palace in Nicaragua. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is polling well ahead of his left-wing opposition rival. In Brazil, former leftist terrorist Dilma Rousseff boasts even higher approval ratings.
Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the second largest party in the Russian Duma is the Communist Party. Its actual vote totals are probably higher due to the fraudulent nature of the elections under the control of Putin’s United Russia Party. This roster is rounded out by the Liberal Democratic Party, which is run by a career lunatic who has proposed conquering Alaska, dumping nuclear waste on nearby nations and rounding up the Jews into camps.
From my Front Page Magazine article, "Democracy's Demons"
WORDS MEAN NOTHING
A condensed understanding of the Obama strategy can be gained from two quotes from two articles.
Axelrod and other Obama political advisers saw anti-Keynesian rhetoric as a political necessity. They believed it was better to channel the anti-government winds than to fight them. As much as it enraged Romer and outside economists, the White House was on to something. A President’s ability to change public opinion through rhetoric is extremely limited. George Edwards, after studying the successes of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan, concluded that their communications skills contributed almost nothing to their legislative victories. According to his study, “Presidents cannot reliably persuade the public to support their policies” and “are unlikely to change public opinion.”
It is beyond audacious. How can a president simultaneously hammer real job creation with the Keystone XL pipeline decision, then go into the country and claim kinship with the anxieties of the jobless? No problem. Just do it.
Condense that into a phrase and it would be, "Words mean nothing."
Obama's speeches are a strategy to gain ground with voters. They have no connection with his policies which are a strategy to gain ground by taking over or destroying American institutions.
In the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx wrote, “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.” Today it is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that is haunting America, and though we have access to the original text, the modern day disciples of Saul are far more reluctant than the authors of the Communist Manifesto to make their creed and agenda known.
Deception is the creed of the new radical who wraps himself in the flag while tearing it apart from the inside out. Who sings the National Anthem while knowingly mangling the words. Who uses American patriotism in the service of manufacturing a Post-American world order. This is the specter of Alinsky that we hear during each State of the Union address, which we read in the platforms of the Democratic Party and the proceedings of the Democratic-controlled Senate.
from my Front Page Magazine article, Exposing the Alinsky Party
Weber now serves– along with the forces behind the Ground Zero mosque and leaders of several Muslim Brotherhood groups including ISNA–on the board of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, the declared aim of which is to change the attitudes of the American public toward Islam and change American foreign policy
While Weber is partially balanced out by such figures as Dov Zakheim and Walid Phares, it is doubtful that Phares would have any real influence with a Romney White House. Weber does have an extensive history of being pro-Israel while in office, Recent interviews however have been far more ambiguous.
Obama has committed to bringing U.S. pressure for a settlement to the 60-year-old argument. He has done so not at the end of his term, as other recent presidents have done, but at the beginning. He has changed the traditional U.S. starting point -- that the security of Israel is the fundamental priority -- and made the achievement of a two-state solution the top priority. Obamaians, he said, point out that the old approach had been tried and tried and wasn't getting results.
Weber said, as he did on many of these topics, that he favors the approach.
But if you want a proper nightmare, here's Jeniffer Rubin's interview with Weber on how Romney would handle things.
Weber says that Romney supports the Administration’s approach (which includes a Middle East conference in the fall and a desire to work with the Fatah government) but recognizes the dilemma we face. On one hand, Weber notes that Hamas was rightly placed on the terrorist watch list by the Clinton administration yet it has shown itself to be “more competent” than Fatah politically and paramilitarily as well in its ability to provide social services. He notes that we are placing our faith in “the less competent” faction with the hope that Fatah will improve.
This is a downright creepy line, as it borderline suggests engagement with Hamas. That was 2007 so Weber is not endorsing Obama's policy as that did not yet exist. But it means that Weber has been a two time Romney adviser and last time around was answering questions on his foreign policy views.
If you want to amp up the creepy factor some, there's this...
A few days ago I wrote about John Kerry’s speech on the Senate floor touting the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. Yesterday Mr. Norquist’s group was briefed by Vin Weber, a member of the leadership group of the same U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project.
Weber is a managing partner at Clark and Weinstock, whose clients include the UAE government. C&W have lobbied on behalf of the UAE. Their proposal called for broadening the UAE's relationships with the US government, think thanks and opinion leaders and policy makers. Also on the menu was "enhancing the reputation of the UAE as a strategic ally."
"We always advised them that if we had a sufficient amount of time — 45 days — we had a real chance to educate the Congress and the public," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who is a lobbyist for the emirates. "But that we needed time."
The rather clear problem here is that a member of Romney's team of advisers was identified as a lobbyist for the Emirates. Is he educating Romney now?
Clark and Weinstock is owned by Omnicom, which is every bit as creepy as it sounds, a multibillion dollar communications storehouse for just about everything. Omnicom has three operations running in Saudi Arabia. It has a Middle East HQ in Dubai.
Is this what the end will look like? If Obama and Panetta have their way, then yes.
Story #4551. Tourism to a Muslim country makes as much sense as skydiving into a cactus. It might end well, it might not. But there are safer places to skydive.
In utterly shocking news, Al Qaeda has actually been strengthened by Obama's Libyan war.
Most troubling, is the Administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its “religious” character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration’s ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization’s religious principles.
And Agudas Yisroel
The Obama Administration had an opportunity to declare that there is a fundamental American value at stake here - religious freedom - and provide strong and unequivocal protections to religious employers. Instead, it took a step backwards by imposing religiously-objectionable mandates on countless religious entities, and by devising a cramped limitation on what “religious groups” are and what their public mission in society should be.
From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News