Dear Templar: I think his theory is if you don't fuel the fear of these forces, then you take away their thunder. Like the strategy in Benghazi, to blame it on an independent video so there is no public focus or fear of terrorists that gets the publicity.
If you say you can keep your doctors and health care, then people focus on that.
You just divert the public attention where you want it, and the rest becomes imaginary problems that aren't valid and thus don't exist.
I think this strategy could work well if done in reverse.
Tell everyone that the ACA is optional to follow, if you believe in it like a religion you are free to follow it. And if you don't, you cannot be legally forced to by any government entity.
Forcing people to pay for some national system that isn't proven yet, is like forcing a national religion on the public and requiring us to fund it. Even penalizing people for believing in funding health care other ways. If you believe in the Constitution and separation of federal from state powers, then you have equal religious freedom to fund and follow what you believe to be lawful alternatives instead.
The govt cannot require you to follow a religion or religious leader you do not believe in and hasn't been proven to be Constitutional.
Those who believe ACA is Constitutional and/or believe in Government to handle health care on a federal level
are like those who believe in one God for all people, but cannot penalize people who have the right to believe in other things and/or they choose to believe in the same God.
This belief or faith cannot be forced by government, by forcing people under regulations or penalties based on this faith and excluding equal freedom to believe in funding other options for health care.
Even if such belief is true or the best policy, it still cannot be forced by govt much less penalized by law for "not believing" or for "believing in something else."
Go set up your own health care alternative systems, invest there, deduct all business or charitable expenses from your taxes, and ask your local state leaders or legal bar associations for legal help to defend your free choice to fund alternatives to health care according to your Constitutional beliefs in "free choice" or states rights, which are protected by law by the First and Fourteenth Amendments as beliefs.
And ignore Obama and the ACA that are optional to follow or else they discriminate against and penalize you for your beliefs in free choice and states rights.
If they aren't valid in your mind as having authority, like these terrorists taking over, then they don't really exist.
This strategy seems to work for Obama, so why not use it on him!
I couldn't help but remember back in 2004 during the thick of the Iraq War, how our men and women fought hard and paid for every inch of ground they took with their life's blood. Today, 10 years later, in Ramadi and Fallujah, places where the fighting was the fiercest and where the most of our troops died, the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that Obama claimed had been "decimated" and put "on the run" has retaken those places with little resistance. Their flags now fly over those cities once again. In Robert Gates' new book Duty, he recalls how Obama's decisions regarding the war were purely political. He recalls a particular disdain for the military in general which exuded from the President. This all leads me to ask, what were we fighting for? Was Obama pulling out of Iraq purely indeed motivated by politics? Did he care that one day that such a pullout would create a power vacuum there? Did he realize he was relinquishing all that our troops fought for back to the enemy?
What were we fighting for? What on Earth were we doing there, if not to win? It's saddening to know that our president thinks so little of our men and women, to end a war prematurely and give up everything they fought hard and died for, simply to put himself in a better political position to trounce his rivals. Why did he have military advisers if he was simply going to ignore them as he did Mr. Gates? I fail to understand how a man can have simply no commitment to the efforts his men and women in uniform are putting in overseas. I'm a Libertarian, and I don't take too kindly to foreign intervention in the first place. But I was also taught as a boy, "If you start a fight son, you finish it."
What were we fighting for? Nothing it seems, nothing but the political gains of one man. My Father fought in the first Iraq war, and I can tell you the he is none too happy to see what he fought for, risked life and limb for--- gone; taken back by the enemy. What were we really fighting for? You tell me.
