Do you find it disturbing that the White House is collecting information from citizens on those that oppose them? I do. Where does it lead? Terrorist watch list? Do you get a visit from the Secret Service or the FBI? Especially if you are making an impact?
So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread "disinformation" about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a "public option" into a federalized universal health care initiative?
Whether its communicated through e-mail, web sites, blogs, or even casual conversation the executive branch of the federal government is asking you to make them aware of this "disinformation" because they can't keep track of all of the dissenters themselves.
From Tuesday's White House blog entry:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to email@example.com.
Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the president or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry?
Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so.
Hmm. Probably a good idea. Probably also a situation to start applying the Rules for Radicals. Shouldn't we be making a new rule #4?
There could likely be many good reasons for the White House to set up an e-mail address "firstname.lastname@example.org." -- Like reporting a suspicious truck parked in a place it's not supposed to be. Or the systematic movement of people that seek to attack the nation. Or even a suspicious piece of baggage that should not be left unaccompanied.
But reporting your neighbors for simply disagreeing on the unknown outcomes of a federally controlled, centralized universal governmental control of health care is not an acceptable use of such an effort.
Perhaps it would be different if we felt the administration was dealing with us honestly. At this point, they've all but admitted that they will have to raise taxes on the middle class. That cheery news, coupled with catching significant personalities on video--i.e. Barney Frank, Jan Schikowski, and President Obama -- all opining about their desire for a new "public option" to lead to a single payer system, gives the nation pause and little confidence to think that what the president says at prime time press conferences is genuine.
So what should our response be?
Greater demands for free speech...
Louder volumes at town hall meetings...
Bigger belligerence the tighter they squeeze...
In short, when free speech is threatened, screeching screams of volition are the only thing preventing the mandated, manhandled, chokehold of silence.
So go ahead... report me... I will shout louder!
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)Think on this, if they have a snitch program, start using it. Find where the populists vary from the elitists and report them. And then report the elitists as well. Report newspapers who report even moderate disagreements with the Administration. Report the CBO.
Now how do I get some group to actually ask its members to do this?