Those of us who are attending Tea Party events know that the people showing up are not “organized.” They are ordinary citizens who are happy that somebody has organized an event at which they can show their displeasure and concern. They are Republicans for sure; but also Independents and Democrats. And from what I’ve seen in VT, there are more self-identified Independents and Democrats at these events than Republicans (not that hard an accomplishment in VT).

And while it is true that there are public people (talk show hosts, politicians) urging Americans to go to their local Congressional Representative’s town hall meetings, there is no “organizing” in the normal, community-organizer sense of the word. The people showing up are driving themselves, at their own expense and on their own time, to make their displeasure and concern known directly.

The mainstream commentators and left-wing bloggers not withstanding, that’s grassroots activism.

By contrast, at the direct and public encouragement of President Obama, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is now instructing and even paying union employees to attend their local Democrat Congressperson’s town hall meetings to oppose the “right wing activists,” and to “protect” their party’s Congressperson. And the SEIU is providing buses to get their people to and fro. Assigned, paid, and transported. At the President’s request.

This is no different than ACORN busing union activists to protest in front of AIG executive’s homes to further the President’s agenda.

Hello, mainstream media: that’s astro-turf activism. Manufactured. Bought and paid for by unions, left-wing activist groups, and now the White House.

The difference is that the grassroots citizenry are showing up without being assigned, paid, or bused to do so. The astro-turf activists would not be there if they were not assigned, paid, and driven to an event. They are ‘rent-a-mob’ cretins.

And as if that weren’t bad enough, now the White House is trying to chill this growing and increasingly vociferous opposition by encouraging Obama supporters to report to the White House any persons and comments they hear that are critical of the Obama plan. Criticism is labeled “distortion” and “incorrect information.”

I wonder two things:

First, since when is it wrong for someone to have a wrong opinion? I mean, assuming opponents are, in fact, wrong in their perceptions, why is that now an event that merits being reported to the President of the United States? A friend of mine told me, long ago, that being free means having the right to be wrong. When we are no longer permitted to make wrong-headed statements or to behave in wrong-headed ways, she said, we are no longer free. Looks like we’ve just about arrived at that point.

By the way, that definition of freedom is well worth reflecting upon. To be free is to have the right to be wrong and to do wrong-headed things.

Second, how does the President know that the views and opinions of citizens are wrong? He says he doesn’t know what’s in the health care bill. If that’s true, how can he accurately evaluate anybody’s comments – and if those comments are based on the citizen having done what the President hasn’t – read the bill – the President may target as “distortion” and “incorrect information” something that is very accurate, simply because he is judging from a position of personal ignorance.

Add to that the fact that there are multiple versions of the bill working through the House and Senate, and that the public discussion has only been on one plan, the House plan, and the simple fact emerges that nobody knows what the final outcome will look like. Or what is right and wrong information. In the most technical sense, there is no “right” information because there is no definitive bill. For the same reason, there is no “wrong” information.

What the President really wants is agreement with his desire to nationalize healthcare. Any opposition to that principle is viewed as de facto opposition to the President, which he finds intolerable. Anyone who opposes the principle of nationalized care, as a principle, is necessarily “distorting” the President’s desire, just by opposing him.

See the perception on his part is that since he wants to improve and help Americans, anyone who says that what he is doing is not improving or helping is – necessarily, from his point of view – distorting the truth. Anyone who says it’s not a good idea to nationalize healthcare is disseminating “incorrect information,” simply because the President and Democrat Party leadership think it is a good idea to nationalize healthcare.

It’s really that simple. Since they are certain they are correct, anyone disagreeing with them is wrong, and the arguments of those opponents are distortions and dis-information. And should be stopped.

(It’s the same perspective from which Gore said the global warming debate is settled, there’s no point in discussing it any further, and opponents should be silenced. Never mind the contrary evidence, the limits of computer modeling, and the clear evidence that the earth is now in a cooling phase; he is so certain he’s right, he’s not interested in looking at conflicting models, evidence, or interpretation – that’s all “incorrect information” and “distortion,” simply because it does not support his correct view. [Besides which, he has a huge personal investment in several areas of alternative energy, and carbon-tax trading cartels. He has a lot to lose if global warming legislation is derailed, but hey, who am I to distort his high-minded, public-spirited commitment? Or to point out that his seed money came largely from oil company stock his daddy handed on to him?].)

Finally, keep in mind the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The President’s actions – to have people report on those they hear say critical things about the plan, and to load town hall meetings with paid stooges – is not making a law to curtail freedom of speech and the right of assemble, but it is definitely treading around the edges of it. That, coming from a President, is chilling.

How ironic that this President, who cut his political teeth by organizing people who felt disenfranchised to coordinate their voices, gather, and express their displeasure with the status quo, is now the President who wants to discredit, discourage, and silence those who (more spontaneously than his groups ever did) gather together to express their disfavor with the current direction of the country, and specific programs promoted by the federal government.

We are…

Getting In Their Faces For A Change

(To read the Investor’s Business Daily take, click on the link.)