Or a large man-eating rat by any other name, from The Princess Bride.
A friend sent me an article that makes the point that the Health Care Bill is a sort of Ponzi scheme to make us all dependent on government in matters of health care, but in my opinion, this falls far short of the truth and the nature of the pure evil behind it. Why were 40 Democrats sacrificed to pass the health care bill (they will lose in the next election for voting for this), and why do the people behind this want a "dominant role of government in health care"?
The short form answer is, as I said in a previous post, that I think the guys orchestrating health care "reform" want much more than just that. Their goal is a Chavez-like incremental communism with an end-game of the Cuban model. That's why I often say Obama is a Castroite, and why I'll now append that title to Nancy Pelosi. It was Pelosi's sacrifice of so many members of her own party to her agenda that finally convinced me she is a committed communist and not just a socialist.
She would only do this, by the way, if there was some Plan B, not yet revealed, that would make her and her ilk (including Obama) unconcerned about the next election. Stay tuned.
As I said previously in "The Real Meaning of Health Care Reform" (9/4/09), the primary goal of this "reform" is the enactment of the legal basis for totalitarianism. I do not think the bill was a simple product of the "Far Left", but was concocted as part of a broader plan by committed communists whose ultimate goal is the destruction of capitalism and the United States. The health care bill (like Obama) is a stepping stone to that end.
I make a big distinction between socialists and communists. The latter are active conspirators, whereas socialists are simply "me-too-ers" who aren't part of any conspiracy but just really, really excited to promote their agenda out in the open. (And rank and file average Democrats are simply ballast to them.) Communists have a goal and a plan, and actively work together in secret to implement it.
If you'll pardon the speculation, their plan (and it is a loose conspiracy, I think, that includes a great number of people around the world) is to put their people in all top positions of our government. The Presidency of the United States was the "holy grail" they've sought for 60 years -- access to every single top secret of the U.S. government, and the highest influence of all domestic and foreign policy. Obama's "appearance" on the stage was not accidental. A black man was groomed for this role for a reason -- to get out a large base of normally uninvolved voters, to cash in on all the latent guilt fostered in public schools for decades over the legacy of slavery, and to insulate him from a lot of criticism as just motivated by "racism".
In my opinion the timing of the economic collapse only weeks before the election was also not an accident. It was an essential part of the Plan. The preconditions of the collapse had been building (created and encouraged) for several decades. I think the seizing-up of the credit markets was pushed as far ahead as 2-4 years before the election. These people knew that a bad economy and widespread fear and panic would gain them substantial points in the election.
I think Hank Paulsen (former Secretary of the Treasury) was probably part of the plan because of his central role in bringing the "crisis" to Bush for immediate action only weeks before the election, but it's possible the strings were pulled from below to manipulate him to that situation. When it was evident that Obama had even a small chance of losing (his margin was shrinking rapidly), they had Paulsen pull the trigger on the boldest and most desperate move of all -- Paulsen would take a catastrophic meltdown crisis to Bush (the dumbest shrub on the planet) with the immediate need for a trillion dollars. The point wasn't the state of the economy itself, which was admittedly bad. It was to precipitate a catastrophic crisis, by goading Bush into asking Congress for an emergency authorization of a trillion dollars -- a few weeks before the election. They knew this would scare the living hell out of everyone in the country and get Obama and the Democrats all the swing votes necessary to ensure victory.
The evidence for Paulsen (a Democrat) being more than a dupe and probably a closet communist is that his job as Secretary of the Treasury was carefully orchestrated in my opinion. Paulsen's motivation for wanting the job was simple: at Goldman, he was the one who put the entire company at risk by promoting the mortgage backed securities market (MBSs). Goldman for a time made a lot of money on this, and Paulsen was sitting on $500M worth of stock options as a result of the "success" of that strategy. But his options were going to be worthless soon -- when the MBS house of cards collapsed or when the trigger was pulled on the economy to make it collapse.
As Secretary of the Treasury, Paulsen would be in an ideal situation to not only pull that trigger, but by law required to divest himself of a "conflict of interest" before he had to pull it -- to liquidate his options at Goldman. A key company officer dumping such a large number of options on the market would normally devastate the price of a stock, but everyone knows that stock divestment was a legal requirement for anyone to take the Treasury top job. Paulsen was smart enough to know the MBSs he promoted at Goldman were a ticking time bomb. So it was perfect for him -- he made out like a bandit before chickens came home to roost. Then he had no reluctance at all to go to Bush with an outrageous call for a trillion dollar "bailout" of the banking industry.
Look a step further at how perfectly this all came together for the communist conspiricists. Requesting a trillion dollars not only ensured Obama the election, it got them the authority to seize control of the entire banking industry. And then the auto industry. And then carte blanche to demand more regulation of every other industry.
Seriously, if you were a committed communist, and your goal was the destruction of capitalism and the nationalization of private industry, what could be more perfect?
Most people are very reluctant to openly suggest there are communist conspiracies or that particular people are communists, even in the face of glaring evidence. (Eg, Van Jones making explicit public statements such as "I AM A COMMUNIST", and Obama spending his entire life consorting with communists, including his parents and mentors and preachers and fellow intellectuals.) People think (rightly) that it makes them look wild-eyed and un-credible -- and I would agree in many forums or circles, you just can't do it. Labels are usually a diversion from underlying intellectual issues.
But there are cases where a label is appropriate: when the issue isn't simply intellectual. If a country, for instance, was planning to attack the United States with atomic weapons, you wouldn't mock anyone who used the label of "The Soviets". You would use that label to more precisely identify the nature of the threat and the plans the Soviets were making. Well, the Soviets may be gone (at least in Russia), but their ilk live on and plan and work towards their goal. That is the value of the label "communist".
Belittling of labels was one of the goals of the post-McCarthy era, for that reason. Even if McCarthy and HUAC were temporary (and minor) setbacks, the communists brilliantly spun those hearings to demonize anyone as lunatics for seeing communists under every table.
And communism didn't go away after McCarthy -- it flourished in the twilight for decades, especially after the government and teachers unions cemented control of the school system post-Kennedy. The "black-listing" was an ideal cover, for this -- it made the communists much more cautious about revealing their affiliations. (Van Jones is, relatively speaking, just a loud mouthed moron in those circles.)
So, even if you can't produce "smoking gun" evidence in the form of CPUSA cards for these people (though you could for Jones and for Obama's father, and for Frank Davis, Obama's mentor), that doesn't mean communists and a broad conspiracy aren't out there, but you do have to be willing to risk being called a conspiracy nut to see it. The signs are everywhere, if you know what to look for.
What are the signs? To see them accurately, the key is to not get suckered into thinking all Leftists are communists; most aren't (communists are a very small minority). While Leftists and communists share the appeal of altruism as a moral ideal, communists are not interested in fostering a "greater good" (however flawed that concept may be for Leftists in general).
What differentiates communists in particular are two defining mental traits: first, a sort of megalomaniacal belief in their own superior intelligence (observe Obama's nomination and inauguration), and second, an unbridled power lust (look what he's done and who he has surrounded himself with). The second breeds their over-arching hatred of individualism and capitalism (how can you be superior to everyone if you can't control them?), and the combination leads communists to concoct conspiracies. Altruism is what gives them the means to that end, and conspiracies are their modus operandi. The psychology of a communist is ultimately that of a pathological liar and killer. For more on this, see my post "Good Night, America" (6/28/09).
This reasoning may sound like a self-licking ice cream cone -- "their love of conspiracies is why you have to believe my conspirializing about their conspiracies"-- but I'm not a big fan of chance. As Auric Goldfinger said, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." Labels can occasionally be useful, and a communist by any other name is a large Rodent of Unusual Size in Grandma's clothes, waiting to devour little Red White and Blue Riding Hood.