I have commented upon Fabian incrementalism.\u00a0 How wrong I was.\u00a0 Fabianism assumes legality and at least psuedo-morality; that is in the past … no longer will there be a step-by-step approach, but a stampede to Socialism.\u00a0 The Socialists in the government and their fellow travelers, the Democratic Party (the RINO’s, to this point, have chickened out), smell blood in the water and like all starved carnivores, are rushing in to the new kill to get their share of the carcass. \u00a0 With the passage of the health care bill, be it ever so unseemly, immoral, illegal, un-constitutional and unwanted, we can anticipate a passage plethora of nearly equally repugnant laws.\u00a0 Get ready for banking, business, union card check, cap and trade, environmental, school loan, bankruptcy, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, energy, climate change and immigration laws designed to punish American individualism, free enterprise, American business and American ingenuity.<\/p>\n
How will these political atrocities be paid for?\u00a0 The Socialists disingenuously tell us that rich people, those making more than $250,000 (the amount varies with the audience) will pay for these great programs. (Boondoggles?)\u00a0 It turns out that these “rich people” are, for the most part, sole proprietors or small businesses.\u00a0 However, the principle here is that someone else will pay for my (your) part of it.\u00a0 Some one will take from others to pay for my (your) part.\u00a0 In the non-governmental, real world, that is called stealing.\u00a0 A crime in the Bible and at Law.\u00a0 In the government, this kind of stealing is hidden by the euphemism of “taxing the rich.”\u00a0 I was always taught that Robin Hood was a good guy who stole from the rich and gave to the poor.\u00a0 I am beginning to wonder if some of those “rich” were just small business people like tinkers, tailors or candle stick makers.\u00a0 If they were, maybe we should revisit good ole R. Hood.<\/p>\n
The fight over the health bill has been a textbook primer on the methods of the totalitarian left.\u00a0 The people promoting this bill may not be Communists or Fascists, but they are certainly using the tactics of those practitioners of these methods in the 20th Century.\u00a0 They have blatantly threatened, bribed, lied to, cajoled and demonized opponents.\u00a0 They have ignored the rules of parliamentary procedure and the US Constitution in order to pass their law, in disdain of the will of the American people.\u00a0 In short, they have subscribed to the Communist credo: “The end justifies the means.”<\/p>\n
Bart Stupak, a Michigan Congressman and a key vote necessary to the passage of the health bill, steadfastly asserted that he would not vote for a bill that allowed for Federal funding of abortion.\u00a0 But he voted for the Senate bill, which includes funding for abortion and because of his help, it is now the law of the land.\u00a0 He says that in order to get his vote, the President has promised to sign an Executive Order that will prohibit using federal funds for abortion.\u00a0 The fact is that an Executive Order cannot pre-empt\u00a0existing law.\u00a0 Stupak was duped.\u00a0 He is a fellow traveler to socialism … and he is a dupe. (Dope?)<\/p>\n
Al Sharpton was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera as to his thoughts on the passage of the health bill.\u00a0 Rivera, in the course of the conversation, asked him if the bill wasn’t socialistic.\u00a0 Sharpton replied, that certainly it is; he said that socialism was what Obama was talking about when he promised “hope and change.”\u00a0 He said that that was what the American people wanted and what they had overwhelmingly voted for.\u00a0 Maybe you weren’t as clueless as I was during the campaign, but I don’t remember candidate Obama lauding socialism.\u00a0 I thought that he went to great pains to say that he was not<\/em><\/strong> a socialist … he couldn’t have been lying, could he?<\/p>\n For the time being, the Socialists have won.\u00a0 They with their misguided empathy will force all of us to have and to pay for health insurance whether we want it or not, whether we need it or not.\u00a0 They will force us to pay for those who will not buy insurance and for those who were formerly uninsurable.\u00a0 They will force us to subscribe to the Communist axiom: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.”\u00a0 Never mind that insuring the un-insurable will raise costs to all … WE<\/em><\/strong> think that it is the right thing to do.\u00a0 And certainly never consider that the free market can provide for anything that the public wants … in the free market it must be paid for … many socialist sympathizers seem to believe otherwise.<\/p>\n Ayn Rand in her novel, Anthem<\/em>, defined freedom as follows: “But what is freedom?\u00a0 Freedom from what?\u00a0 There is nothing to take a man’s freedom away from him, save other men.\u00a0 To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.\u00a0 That is freedom. This and nothing else.”\u00a0 In other words, if my brother can command me, I am not free.\u00a0 If I am free, I can, of my own will provide for my brother’s needs.\u00a0 This, I believe, has always been done for the deserving by their empathic brothers if in their means to do so.\u00a0 But I must respect my free brother’s judgment … only he knows what it is in his capacity to do.\u00a0 No government or bureaucrat can or should presume what I should do.\u00a0 My moral and ethical obligation is to harm no others.<\/p>\n The States immediately filed suits to abrogate the health bill within 10 minutes of Obama’s signing.\u00a0 This begins a long string of legal challenges to the law.\u00a0 There is no doubt these suits have merit.\u00a0 There is nowhere in the Constitution any tenet allowing the Federal government to enact a national heath care bill.\u00a0 The Constitution describes a limited national government with strictly enumerated powers.\u00a0 The document is very explicit that if rights and duties are not enumerated, then the States have the powers.\u00a0 This is codified in the 9th and10th Amendments.\u00a0 (Part of the Bill of Rights, remember?)\u00a0 It is an absolute cinch that there would have never been an USA if this had not been the case.\u00a0 The drafters of the Constitution did not think it necessary to have a Bill of Rights in their document.\u00a0 The other Founders in the States insisted upon the Bill because they did not trust those who would be in the new government, no matter who they were.\u00a0 The State’s ratification of the document was dependent upon the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.\u00a0 The ratification debates, State by State, make interesting reading. \u00a0 It is interesting to reflect upon how successful the Constitution would have been without the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n The Federal government believes that it has the power to do the health bill because of a string of Progressive Supreme Court victories empowering them in the first half of the 20th Century, foremost among them the rulings that almost everything imaginable fell under the powers in the “interstate commerce” and ” necessary and proper” clauses of the Constitution.\u00a0 The government’s position is being challenged, because, clearly, when the intentions of the Founders are considered it is in error.\u00a0 The Founders of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution, never intended for the Federal Government to be all powerful.\u00a0 If we want to be a free people we must stop this usurpation.\u00a0 Our forefathers knew tyranny and they did all in their power to make it impossible in the future of America.<\/p>\n We of today must take up the torch to preserve Freedom or its light will go out.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I have commented upon Fabian incrementalism.\u00a0 How wrong I was.\u00a0 Fabianism assumes legality and at least psuedo-morality; that is in the past … no longer will there be a step-by-step approach, but a stampede to Socialism.\u00a0 The Socialists in the … Continue reading