What are they thinking????

Maybe it is just me, but I am beginning to see a pattern of half baked political maneuvering on the part of the current administration. Some of it's actions are
seemingly naive and ill advised at best or calculated malevolence at worst.
Either way, this does not bode well for the short term future of the US.

Here is the most recent exercise in extremely poor judgement.
Wavels



EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

by Patrick Courrielche
**NEA conference call full audio and transcript here**
Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?
That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”
The question still requires debate but the facts do not.
The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/09/21/explosive-new-audio-reveals-white-house-using-nea-to-push-partisan-agenda/

even the most cursory examination of american culture will lead all but the most obtuse observer to understand that we are a nation with an incredibly short attention span. all too many receive their news through sound bytes and headlines, never delving any deeper than the superficial or questioning information that reinforces their preconceptions. we've got a bunch of folks running around that believe jon stewart is a trustworthy journalist and that reality shows actually depict someone's reality. so it's not that surprising that the political leadership should attempt to indoctrinate the masses through what is essentially entertainment.

this is nothing new. from popular music to film stars selling war bonds, the masses have always been reached through such mediums. the difference now is that there is little or no substance behind the flash. our current charlatan in chief is a perfect example of the brainwashing of the american public by the liberal establishment. after years of being inundated with the liberal dogma that the old guard (old white guys) are ruining everything from the environment to our children's health, we are sold a face that is the opposite of our manufactured foe. we are given a young, healthy black man (not too black, that would be a bit intimidating). he is well spoken, but not too intellectual, and he promises to make the wealthy (another scapegoat for the masses to target their ire upon) pay for the inequities of our society. never mind that he has no real experience at leading anything larger than a prayer breakfast. pay no attention to the fact that he has a hard time stringing together more than a few words without a teleprompter and a team of speech writers or that his entire ideology comes straight out of an outdated marxist pamphlet. all that matters is appearance.

so is it any great surprise that art should be bent to the will of the state? something that has meaning on such a personal level is the perfect tool for guiding the hearts of the unwitting masses. what is most disturbing is that public funds would be used for the creation of these tools of indoctrination. i find the entire matter eerily reminiscent of the state sponsored "art" used by the leaders of the soviet union and china to fuel the permanent revolutionary zeal of those benighted peoples. but that is the point, isn't it. this is the revolution. it's not the sort of revolution that frees a people, but that enslaves them. it is the sort of revolution that uses the talents and wealth of the individual to crush individuality.

Hi under,
Thanks for the excellent post.
I would prefer not to agree with some of your post. However...
Your contention is that this POTUS is intentionally engaged in a campaign of disseminating propaganda to the ignorant masses in order to win hearts and minds.
I wish that I could reject this notion.
Alas, it is not easy for me to do so.
I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I no longer think I can.
There is indeed an undercurrent of contempt and blithe dismissal emanating from the White House towards those with the temerity to disagree with Obama's policies. He really thinks that he knows best.,,,hence his astonishing performance discussing what a tax is on ABC this past Sunday...





President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows yesterday, with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"
"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."
"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"
Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."
Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"
Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574425294029138738.html

Wavels said:

I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I no longer think I can.

Click to expand...

nor should you. the condescension with which brak and his cronies disseminate their "wisdom" to the masses has become an insult to the intelligence of the people. he seems to consider his election, by no means a landslide, to be a mandate from the people to give his every harebrained socialistic scheme a try. giving no thought to whether his plans may be constitutional, all he has done has been a steady march toward the orwellian wet dreams of big government bureaucrats and a constant infringement on the liberties of the individual. this bizarre notion that government's duty is to act as nursemaid to its citizens may be popular with the self-described victims of the world, but every step toward that totalitarian future weakens the nation and the resolve of its people.

the liberal establishment sees taxpayers only as a source of revenue to finance the growth of a bureaucracy to run the lives of men and the more you earn, the more indebted you should be to the men and women of government who understand what is best for you. the abolition of consequence and the profit motive in the marketplace may seem a grand idea in the minds of these maniacs, but without those incentives progress slows and then halts. we have seen the giants of the automotive industry were bought out with taxpayer funds and placed in the control of petty bureaucrats and their union lackeys. we sat idly by as banking became the property of a few unwieldy institutions, almost totally under the thumb of these political animals. now we are supposed to watch as government co-opts the management of our health care and wait to see what a mess they can make of that.

It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good.

Click to expand...

if he were to admit it was a tax, he would be forced to admit the true price of this fiasco. instead it is likened to the requirement for auto insurance, a scheme to protect the rest of society from the folly of the individual. once again we find an assault on the individual by the forces of the nanny state. the concept that any individual may may choose to forego the tender mercies of the health care industry and risk the consequences of being unprepared is totally alien to them. instead of finding ways to make the actual care more affordable, they prefer to use the only tool they really understand, force, to entrap every citizen in the gamble of insurance. why? because the government receives financial benefit from your hard earned wealth spent on insurance and only the individual benefits from the money he keeps to himself.

is he correct in refusing to label it a tax? technically, yes. it is disingenuous and cowardly, but he can get away with it because it is government that decides the definition of the term. in the self-serving realm of politics, such things are to be expected i suppose.






how the hell did i get from the nea to healthcare? oh well, i guess that's just the price i pay for enjoying my rather schizoid tendencies so much.