The power of one
The Weekly Standard reports on the difference one person can make:
Pamela Key does not work for the Republican National Committee. She has no formal training in journalism. An illustrator of children’s books, she never finished college. And yet, her oppositional research, her investigative journalism, and her philosophical convictions have all come together to shape the national mood, receiving even the attention of the White House. On August 4 of this year, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House, released a video where she instructed the public, “My job is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this,” she reads the Drudge Report from her computer screen, “‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’”
What most don’t know is that Douglass was targeting a video unearthed by Key, first released on her video news website, Naked Emperor News, and then picked up by the Drudge Report. The video, which pieces together various Obama statements, damningly quotes the president at an SEIU forum in 2007 saying, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
That is a truly damning quote, and this is why so many people wonder just how left wing is Obama.
Looking through the archives of Chicago’s public radio stations, of C-Span, of YouTube, and various other forums, Key uncovered clips of Obama saying cap and trade will bankrupt coal plants, of Van Jones calling for a revolution against “suicidal, gray capitalism,” and of congressional democrats refusing to regulate and audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. In one of her most viewed videos, which received nearly three million hits, Obama advocates for redistribution of wealth. In that 2001 Chicago public radio interview, Obama tells a radio talk show host, “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was [the] tendency to lose track of political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” To this effect, he criticizes the radical Warren court (1953-1969) as not being radical enough: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution generally, the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what states can’t do to you, says what federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
Again, this is superb research from one person. Who knew Obama thought the Warren court was not radical enough.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Good on you to post that link, you may want to blog some more on these and other issues unearthed by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and our own Trevor Loudon. This is all truly scary stuff and it worries somewhat that our own dear leader is fawning around the Obamessiah like a teenager in love.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am
This post reminds me of what various National Party MPs got caught out saying on tape before the 08 general election. Wasn’t it something like we want to sell Kiwibank, privatise ACC and we think Obama is too left wing?
October 19th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I wonder if Obama’s personal political ideology even particularly matters. His administration seemingly lacks the force of will to change or even challenge the status quo. Whether or not this is good will depend on your own views, but it’s certainly disappointing considering the hype we were led to believe.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Meanwhile the mainstream media scuttles to hide all they can, because they’re all part of the left wing scam, a clique of anti-liberty traitors and treasonists, the enemy within, and like Obama devoted to the ideology that will lead to the destruction of Western capitalism.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:30 am
RB
Yes but who by?
October 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Western capitalism has shown it can destruct itself. Greed is it’s biggest enemy.
Pamela Key is no comparison to Beck, Limbaugh and “our own Trevor Loudon” – she comes across as well researched and makes a convincing case. It’s a pity the right wing media are obsessed with promoting populist crap.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m shocked you even get out of bed in the morning.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@Pete George: You just copy and paste what is being fed to you Pete, switch off your brain and stop thinking. Grab that gun when they offer it to you and start shooting your family for failing to see the light and the right way. Before you do, though, google “Mao Tse Tung”, “Pol Pot” and “Adolf Hitler” and see what collectivist ideologies always end up like, and what the role of real greed, the lust for power, is in that development.
Then ask yourself whether the excesses of financial greed are in fact possible in a true capitalist and individualist society, or whether they are a by-product of attempts at “regulation” and “social justice”.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Except Hitler was a Nazi, not a collectivist – hence his opposition to Stalin and the breakdown of his uneasy alliance, and his further alliances with Horthy, Mussolini and Franco, and his love of the free market, private industry and his reliance on patriotism and national character. I did enjoy your simplistic nominative determinism though – because as we all know, when you give something a name, it’s always representative of the actual thing. The German Democratic Republic was really democratic, right? And the People’s Republic of China – that really belongs to the people. Oh, and in case you missed it while you were studying up on your political history, China is now one of the largest economies in the world.
I’d pick your communist dictators a little better. There’s plenty of crappy ones out there. Try using Google!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Except Hitler was a Nazi, not a collectivist – hence his opposition to Stalin and the breakdown of his uneasy alliance, and his further alliances with Horthy, Mussolini and Franco, and his love of the free market,
Absolute bullshit! Just because Hitler attacked Communism, doesnt mean by default he loved Capitilism. Hitler considered the US and its Free Market to be held in contempt.
Love of the free market my arse!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@ Bevan was just going to post the same response. Hitler was anti-free markets.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Sorry Chris
Lets make in a Trifecta
so was I!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Pete George – greed is capitalism’s biggest organising factor. Without greed capitalism doesn’t work. I mean that in a good way. I strongly value greed and laziness.
Laziness is the attribute in my staff that means they sit there pushing a button on their computer and think “maybe I can automate this so tomorrow I won’t need to push this button.” The constructively lazy are the people I promote.
Greed is the attribute that leads people to want to produce more, it is the attribute that gets you out of bed in the morning to go to work. Very few among us would go to work at all without greed – and in a communist economy the evidence was that fear of the government is not a reasonable substitute for greed as an organising thought.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
There is no such thing as a true capitalist and individualist society, never has been and never will be (correct me if I’m wrong). “Individualist society” is a contradiction. There is plenty of merit in commercial enterprise and free trade, but they are far from perfect and fair for everyone.
The US was supposed to be the shining light of capitalism but it has brought the world economy to it’s knees once, nearly did again and the way they are going it still could. The numbers are so big over there vested interests and greed run rampant over some fairy tale capitalist society.
There is a good reason why most people tend to be centrist rather than hard left or hard right – they can see that a balance of ideals is more likely to work better and be more fair.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Paul, are you confusing greed with striving to achieve and being fairly rewarded? Many businesses, especially small businesses, do well without having to be greedy.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Pete – are you in possession of the official left wing dictionary?
Who decides what someone needs or deserves? If we compare our society to others around the world, particularly those in the third world, we would easily conclude that everyone in NZ has a desire to possess more than they need or deserve.
Need is a powerful word, needs come down to air, water, food, clothing, shelter? We could of course look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs. Either way, most people in NZ, even those on welfare, have possessions that are way beyond their needs if strictly defined.
Deserve is a very loaded statement. You cannot assess what someone deserves without applying some very subjective assessment. Is what I deserve based on how long I work, how hard I work, who I am as a person (i.e. I am deserving in some way – perhaps I am disabled?)?
In short, I’m not a real fan of that definition. I would have seen greed as the desire to possess more than you currently have – the pursuit of possessions for their own sake rather than because you need them to survive. In short, pretty much everything that drives the capitalist economy.
Where did your definition come from?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
@Pete George: I said collectivist, not communist. A fascist socialist is still a collectivist. If you fail to see the distinction you should google collectivism v individualism and get to grip with the principal differences. It’s not so much what’s in the words, they are just words and therefore simplifications, so not really worth arguing about. What is important to argue about is ultimately where you see individual responsibility and authority, whether you prefer a restricted and shackled state or a restricted and shackled individual, whether you think the state should be restrained from interfering with inalienable individual rights or whether you think that such rights are somehow derived from the state. Think about it.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Random House Dictionary
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Online Etymology Dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greedy
dimmocrazy, do you believe there should be no tax and no laws?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Again we hear the usual tripe trotted out by people who think that there’s a massive communist conspiracy, and who get their history from Rush Limbaugh and the History Channel. It’s really tragic to think that you actually believe that Hitler had anything in common with socialism, really – it shows a staggering ignorance of European history and political history.
Among the native businesses that flourished and traded inside and outside Nazi Germany were Porsche, Volkswagen, Bayer, Farben, Osram, Krupp and Bosch – all businesses that predate Nazi Germany and exist today. American companies had a great foothold in Germany – including Kodak, General Electric, IBM (implicated in organisational roles in the holocaust) and DuPont. Ford and General Motors also traded in Nazi Germany, even after the invasion of Czechoslovakia – Henry Ford was greatly admired by Hitler and accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle in 1938. In fact, the only thing that stopped these companies trading with Nazi Germany were the American embargoes that came into place in 1940.
Now your turn – name some of the great Russian pre-war associations with business.
Oh, wait. There aren’t any, because National Socialism and collectivism are two different things. The only thing they have in common are the things common to all war economies, and that societies with radically different founding ideologies often share, out of necessity, some of the same structural attributes.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“dimmocrazy, do you believe there should be no tax and no laws?”
For myself I say there should be no taxation…..but we should fund a legitimate state to carry out its role…..the protection of individual rights.Theres a difference.
A states purpose is to enforce law….objective law derived from and not in conflict with the protection of the afforementioned individual rights.Any law that does conflict is bad law and should be discarded ie anti drug laws,anti prostitution laws,bussiness regulations etc….basically any “law” that prevents consenting adults from freely interacting with each other with their own persons and property.
Chris C; “Except Hitler was a Nazi, not a collectivist – hence his opposition to Stalin and the breakdown of his uneasy alliance, and his further alliances with Horthy, Mussolini and Franco, and his love of the free market, private industry and his reliance on patriotism and national character.”
Were you serious when you wrote that utter cock? Hitler was most certainly a collectivist. The only difference between Nazism and Communism is that Nazism was a Germany centered nationalised version of the Communist internationalism… Communists should be held in the same distain as Nazi’s….and for the same reason.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Read above. I know you’re eager to spunk out a half formed opinion glossed from Michael Laws, Rush Limbaugh and Republican advertising campaigns from the 1980s, but you should try reading before you write in future. You could even try thinking.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@Chris C: Why is it that the first thing you communists do is always attack the man instead of the ball, while the second is to start an argument about the meaning of words and the boxes thus categorized. Large corporates do of course flourish in collectivist states, that is by definition the case, simply because purchasing power is concentrated at state level. Your argument doesn’t help your point at all. Neither does your remark about studying European history, what do you mean to imply?
October 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, and I smell the hypocrisy, mate, don’t worry.
The very fact that you can’t see your mates with the commie conspiracy agenda attacking the man, not the ball – for instance, everything is reduced to philu’s status as a beneficiary – tells me that you’re not interesting in doing anything except arguing your own weak, poorly thought out points. “You communists” – tell me, is that based on any real facts you know of me or my political viewpoint, or is it a crap attempt at an insult? I suspect the latter, because all you know about me right now is that I’ve learned more about the topic at hand than you’ve ever bothered to. So please, don’t use the play the man argument, because that’s the first thing people do on Kiwiblog.
As for your weak rebuttal there – well, you’ve argued nothing. If you think you have, then please, go back to the start and try again.
Most of you splurge on about things you only have a half-baked understanding of. Experts on everything, ignorant of nothing, eh? You’re not worth arguing with because you’re so blind to anything that doesn’t fit in with your worldview, you can’t even accept that in this world there’s things called “compromise” or “alliances” or even that you might, shock horror, be wrong.
But don’t worry, because you can just carry on using “communist” as an insult, you can carry on calling things “scams” and “conspiracies”, and as long as you don’t actually talk to anyone who thinks differently, or actually engage and listen, you won’t ever have to realise how incredibly blind you sound.
Enjoy the rest of your life – I guarantee it’ll be filled with as much impotent frustration that you’ve apparently experienced so far.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Chris C at 2.27 challenged:”…name some of the great Russian pre-war associations with business…” He asserts there weren’t any.
Untrue! Here are two examples. Ford set up a the Nizhny Ford company in 1929 and it worked until the mid-1930s. Ford invested a sizeable sum for those days.
Second, Armand Hammer, an American best known for his Occidental Petroleum, had a long and close business association with the Soviet Union. One example was a Soviet mandate to supply the country with pencils from factories he built in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union also had many import/export deals with Western businesses, including mass exports of Ukrainian grain while up to 15 million Ukrainians died of starvation.
Remember Chris, the very name Nazi is an acronynm for the National Socialist Party. Hitler wouldn’t have used that name if he was a capitalist.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I already knew this a year ago. Of course, the twats at AUSA and Crappum say he’s a wonderful moderate, and why shouldn’t I listen to those sensible people?
October 19th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Peteypoos don’t like it when you think Bammy’s a pillock.
“Hitler,” “not a collectivist,” “his love of the free market.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Sorry, Chwissy. Fascism is anti-individualist, anti-conservative and anti-capitalist. Nice try anyway.