The following was received from a friend who insisted on anonymity. He uses the nom de plume "Whistler", as in whistleblower. I do not agree with him but I believe his discussion to be of interest. The title is his.
A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy?
The evidence is clear. American liberals, having found themselves faltering in their drive toward forcing government (Obama) control of the U.S. economy and society, have cunningly designed and thus far successfully implemented a set of underground conspiratorial tactics to gain the same objective.
The prototype came in 1994. California Governor Pete Wilson, a "moderate" Republican, was afraid of a strong challenge to his reelection from Kathleen Brown, the sister of former Governor Jerry Brown. (Now Jerry's running again. Will we never be finished with these Browns?) So, knowing that the California electorate was concerned about the incoming tide of illegal immigrants, Wilson encouraged and endorsed Proposition 187, refusing public services to "undocumented" aliens. He won, which he almost certainly would have anyhow. But in doing so, he guaranteed that the Republican-sponsored proposition would turn the inevitably increasing number of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats and make the state their blue stronghold. (And then the courts threw out 187 anyhow.)
Perhaps some liberal spy among his advisors put him up to it, but Wilson was quite intelligent and an effective politician. He almost certainly knew what he was doing. Why did he do it? Were the liberals trying out their clandestine strategy?
Fast forward to this year. Obama's plan to legalize the illegals now among us and open the door to a deluge of many more was clearly going nowhere. It wasn't even on the back burner; it was off the stove. But liberals had learned from their success in 1994. Just when the administration's ill-formed immigration plans were disappearing into oblivion, the Republican legislature and governor of Arizona brought the issue back to a boil by passing a law mandating strict enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration.
Make no mistake: the law was justified to relieve the burdens on suffering Arizonans. But its passage in April 2010 has caused the predictable nationwide protests by advocates of law-breaking and their liberal supporters, and thus revived their almost-dead plans for national legislation to reward the illegals. Such legislation may or may not pass this year, but that is almost beside the point. California's Democraticization of the growing number of Latinos will now go national. As planned.
The immediate future of the immigration laws may still be conjectural, but the liberal conspiracy has already had one immediate and notable success this year. Obama's intricate and oppressive plan for government-run health care was dying. Last summer's protests by patriotic Americans around the country caused its near-collapse. While the administration's efforts in the fall and early winter to revive it did make some progress, they were countered by the growth of the Tea Party movement. Obamacare seemed to be confronting a growing and insuperable barrier.
But then--suddenly and "coincidentally"--the leading health insurance company, WellPoint, had its California subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, announce a rate increase up to 39 percent. Democratic liberals used this "unjustified" rate hike as the lever to put Obamacare back on the stage and ultimately to force its passage. It is now upon us.
WellPoint's $30 billion annual revenues make it the largest corporation in the hundreds-of-billions health insurance industry, represented in Washington by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), one of the most powerful of lobbies. These are not stupid people; far from it. They knew--they had to know--that the California increase (it may not be coincidence that these things start in California), timed as it was, would revive the health care bill. Yet, they went ahead with it. Why?
And now we are in the midst of an almost identical scenario. The Obama
administration's efforts to regulate the free-market allocation of credit by imposing a huge new federal bureaucracy on America's banking industry were running up against the same barriers as the health bill. True, Wall Street does deserve some chastising, but not by substitution of bureaucrats for bankers. Conservatives, particularly in the Senate, were able to separate the issues and were well on their way to holding up the liberal bulldozer until the new legislation could be moderated and rationalized.
Then along came Goldman Sachs. By committing and then defending some questionable-seeming transactions that would have gone unnoticed had they been better designed, they reopened the door to the Obama takeover of our entire financial system. Here, the conspiracy is hardly even concealed. Goldman Sachs has been and remains a Democratic firm with Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin leading the charge. And the man at the center of the alleged malfeasance, Goldman's French-nationality executive "Fabulous Fab" Tourre, is a caricature. (I have asked my Paris sources to look into his connections with the notorious French intellectual left, but they have not yet reported on that.) In any case, it is the role of Democratic Goldman Sachs in pushing through radical revision of our financial system that surfaces the liberal conspiracy.
And now, most recently, has come the Gulf oil spill. Who was responsible for the "negligence" that led to the explosion, the fire, and the contamination of the beaches and industries of Louisiana and Mississippi (both reliable red states)? It is too early to be specific, but it seems part of the pattern, in this case designed by liberals to stop in its tracks the drilling of enough off-shore oil wells to make us self-sufficient. That has been the conservative answer to the liberal clamor to change our way of life by substituting other fuels for petroleum. Now, unhappily, it will be delayed, perhaps indefinitely.
In this case, the conspiracy is even more complex. President Obama had just come out in favor of more drilling. Could this be subversion by the most liberal elements in his entourage. It is surely unlikely that he was in on it from the beginning.
Or is it?