Posts Tagged ‘single-payer’

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

April 25, 2011

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Got Oil? Pictures, Images and Photos

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word “Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist WorkersBecause that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].

[…]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[…]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[…]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[…]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and “collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year – more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And – disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home – the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.

Advertisements

ObamaCare Declared Unconstitutional – Not That Democrats Give A Damn About The Constitution

February 1, 2011

ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  But Democrats could frankly care less what that meaningless moldy old document says.

Twenty-six states demanded that ObamaCare be declared unconstitutional in this decision, not counting Virginia which previously got its own successful decision against ObamaCare.

Federal District Judge Roger Vinson’s incredibly well-reasoned Constitution-based decision is available here.

A good article on this story was written by David Whelan for Forbes:

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by the health reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill passed last year.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson writes.

With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who ruled the constitutional challenge lacked merit.

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill. Vinson, in an earlier ruling, suggested that the federal fine for not buying insurance is more of a penalty than a tax. If it’s a penalty, the legislation relies on a broad interpretation of federal regulatory powers. If it’s a tax, as the Department of Justice’s lawyers argued, it’s much more difficult to make a constitutional objection.

In today’s ruling Vinson considered two arguments made by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit. The first was the legislation forces states to expand Medicaid in a way that’s unaffordable. Vinson quickly dispatches that legal theory, pointing out that Medicaid is and always has been a voluntary program.

The second argument revolves around the individual mandate. The health reform legislation makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against patients regardless of their health. With that change there’s a risk that only sick people would buy insurance and healthy people would wait or be priced out of the market. To address that problem, the bill forces everyone who does not have insurance to buy it. The combination of “guaranteed issue” and the “individual mandate” is the beating heart of the health bill.

While the new rules banning medical underwriting are popular, the individual mandate has bred resentment. The bill’s authors never anticipated the mandate would become a ripe target for legal challenges.

The argument that’s had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity. The question raised by the lawsuit against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

Judge Vinson marshalled quite a few opinions against ObamaCare.  Interestingly, one of them was Obama’s himself.

From the Washington Times:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Democrats have established quite a recent history in thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th about Democrats literally boycotting the reading of the Constitution on the House floor:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

It wasn’t just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscored that better than anyone.  It was contemptible citizenship.  It was the act of unAmerican people.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.  Obviously, liberal Ezra Klein is an ignorant fool.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” in the direction set by Karl Marx; never the one set by George Washington.

A Muslim extremist named Tayyip Erdogan had this to say about democracy, comparing democracy to a bus: “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”  Democrats were elected democratically; and then they started imposing their 2,700 pages of fascism using every procedural gimmick in the book.  Nancy Pelosi actually said:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Let’s take another bus tour to how we got ObamaCare shoved down our throat:

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.  Because it never was about the Constitution or even about any right to privacy; it was always about using whatever rhetorical argument they wanted to get the result they wanted.  So they said we had a right to privacy until the right to privacy got in their way.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Democrats spent over a year imposing 2,700 pages of unconstitutional “laws” upon a people who never wanted it.  And now, amazingly, they’re demanding that Republicans merely recognize that it’s done and over with, and move on.

Fortunately, Republicans DO care about the Constitution.  And they’re going to fight Democrats for the soul of this country.

If Democrats give a damn about the American people, they will join Republicans in demanding that this verdict go immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final judgment.  Rule 11 of the Supreme Court allows particularly important cases that are of imperative public importance to gain such an emergency hearing.  But only if both sides agree.  If Democrats don’t demand this, they will continue to do even more harm in keeping the American people in the dark about how to plan.  Businesses will continue to hold off on hiring, and the economy will continue to suffer until this decision is finalized.

Democrats And Socialism Go Together Like Cookies And Milk

March 27, 2010

Great 5 minute video:

This goes to my earlier question, “The Democrat Party Is Different From The Communist Party How, Exactly?

The answer is, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

But remember the Democrats’ mantra:

There are of course plenty of great moments in official Democrat Party socialism – such as Maxine Waters wanting to socialize the oil companies –

“And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …  Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”

– that didn’t make this new classic presentation of Democrats and their most beloved economic and political philosophy.   But it still deserves to another viewing.  And another one after that.

.

Democrats Believe Their Power To Regulate Our Lives Has No Constitutional Limit

December 26, 2009

We can sing the below story to Nancy Pelosi’s famous tune, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” regarding whether she should give the faintest of consideration to the Constitution while she tries to regulate one-sixth of the US economy and force citizens to purchase insurance.

Sen. Feinstein ‘Assumes’ Commerce Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to Mandate Health Insurance
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The health care bills in both the House and Senate require that every American purchase a health insurance policy. At the Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Feinstein: “Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate?”

Feinstein said: “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”

CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: “If there’s a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that can’t be mandated?”

Feinstein responded: “My own view is that there is not, within health insurance.”

The Commerce clause is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It states the numerous powers authorized to Congress, including the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Senate version of health reform imposes an historic mandate on all Americans, requiring them to have government-approved health insurance, either through an employer or individually. The mandate also can penalize people with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year if they do not have a health insurance policy.

The bill, which looks certain to pass the Senate sometime on Christmas Eve, is unpopular with the public, garnering the support of barely 40 percent of Americans, according to recent national polls. Those numbers led Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to accuse Congress of “flipping the bird” to the American people.

“This is a bad bill, it is bad, certainly for individuals and enough is enough,” Steele said in a conference call on Monday. “I am tired of Congress thumbing its nose and flipping a bird to the American people. I’m tired of this Congress thinking it knows better than me and my family how to provide for our health care now and in the future. I’m tired of this Congress not listening to me and to the American people – to all of us.”

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

My own view is that California should elect a Senator who actually understands or even cares about the US Constitution.

If Feinstein’s “view” were true, then the congress has no constitutional limits whatsoever.  On anything.  If they can regulate private citizens’ behavior or purchases as “interstate commerce,” then they can “regulate” anything and anyone on anything they want.  And this gives them the precedent to do more and more.  The Democrats’ vision of health care “reform” makes the entire idea of constitutional limits null and void.

Let’s call this what it is: a naked power grab.

Fascism, Marxism, take your pick.  We’re getting a hybrid of both (they’re both quintessentially leftist and socialist and totalitarian systems, you know) shoved right down our throats.

The Commerce clause regulates commerce between states.  It has NEVER been used even ONCE in our history to regulated the behavior of individual citizens.

This is almost as appalling as liberal activist judges reading “penumbras and emanations” into the Constitution so they could pull abortion out of thin air.

Democrats have been telling us quite openly that this bill is a clear pathway and vehicle to a government-controlled single-payer system.  It is past time that we took them at their word and started to realize the ramifications of what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

Democrats aren’t focused in transforming either the quality or the costs of health care coverage.  Their bill does nothing to improve either.  Rather, it lays the architecture for a future socialistic system which they believe that they will ultimately be able to control and use to their own political advantage.  They want power and control.  They want to be able to wield the levers of government and “take care” of everyone and everything – or punish everyone and everything that get in their way.  And when big government has the power to shape things, it shapes them in a way that always favors big government, and favors more and more accumulation of big government.  And Democrats are nothing if not the party of big government.

These people aren’t going to let a little nuisance like the US Constitution get in their way.  Even our own president has repeatedly said disparaging things about our Constitution as well as the men who wrote it.  The once sacred and sacrosanct Constitution has come to mean whatever liberals want it to mean.

Tragically, a look back at history should tell you that the system the Democrats want will hardly be a success.  The fact of the matter is that Democrats are making the same arguments (that health care is a right) and the same promises (that every American will be guaranteed health care) that the Soviets made.

The former Soviet propaganda mouthpiece Pravda is watching America fall into the same catastrophic mistakes Russia did and is laughing hysterically .

The Obama administration and Democrats can swear all they want that rationing won’t be a part of their system, but you sure wouldn’t know it by looking at Obama officials such as Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel.  They will be all about rationing.

To summarize, this is a flagrantly unconstitutional power grab, packaged on lies, which can’t even in theory fulfill the pantheon of bogus promises it was sold on.

Milton Friedman prophetically Described (BAD) Move Toward Government Health Care In 1978

September 29, 2009

Legendary economist Milton Friedman explained why he believed there would be a move toward government health care – and why it would be a really bad idea.

Some things change.  Some things stay the same.  And some things “change” greatly for the worse.

Health Care: Why ‘Public Option’ A One-Way Trip Off A Cliff

August 13, 2009

Alan Miller, chairman and CEO of Universal Health Systems, provides about as damning a diagnosis of the Democrat’s health care fiasco (I mean, “reform”).

If you don’t read anything else, at least read the section in red font:

AUGUST 12, 2009, 7:30 P.M. ET

Medicare For All Isn’t The Answer
My company ran a hospital in London. We don’t want to go the government route.

By ALAN B. MILLER

With Congress now in recess, the debate over health-care reform has moved to each member’s home district. The American people have rightly been asking elected officials many probing questions. While few Americans deny we need health-insurance reform (too many people lack adequate coverage), most believe we receive the best quality health care in the world and do not want to see it compromised.

Several advocacy groups and members of Congress want a single-payer insurance system, modeled after Medicare, to cover all Americans. They say Medicare works to provide health care to seniors, so government should extend the program to Americans of all ages. Others want to create a government-run plan, sometimes called a “public option,” which they say would compete with private insurance but would only be two steps away from a single-payer system.

There are more than 1,300 insurance companies competing for business without unneeded competition from a federal government plan. Backed by tax dollars, a government-run option could offer artificially low rates without regard to profitability, or even meeting operating expenses. That would push businesses to move employees to the public-option plan, ultimately putting private insurers out of business and leaving only a single-payer system run by the government.

A single-payer system may appear attractive to some. But as someone with more than 30 years of experience running a leading hospital company with international operations, I have firsthand knowledge of the hidden costs.

Medicare reimbursements to hospitals fail to cover the actual cost of providing services. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent congressional advisory agency, says hospitals received only 94.1 cents for every dollar they spent treating Medicare patients in 2007. MedPAC projects that number to decline to 93.1 cents per dollar spent in 2009, for an operating shortfall of 7%. Medicare works because hospitals subsidize the care they provide with revenue received from patients who have commercial insurance. Without that revenue, hospitals could not afford to care for those covered by Medicare. In effect, everyone with insurance is subsidizing the Medicare shortfall, which is growing larger every year.

If hospitals had to rely solely on Medicare reimbursements for operating revenue, as would occur under a single-payer system, many hospitals would be forced to eliminate services, cut investments in advanced medical technology, reduce the number of nurses and other employees, and provide less care for the patients they serve. And with the government in control, Americans eventually will see rationing, the denial of high-priced drugs and sophisticated procedures, and long waits for care.

My company’s experience with health care in the United Kingdom illustrates the point. In the 1980s, we opened The London Independent Hospital to serve the private medical market in the U.K. The hospital had not been open long when representatives of a 1,000-bed government-run hospital located a short distance away approached us to borrow high-tech equipment and instruments. Because people were ill and needed procedures the government hospital could not provide, we provided that hospital with the help it needed. But that experience convinced me that under a single-payer system hospitals do not receive the money required to purchase advanced technology or provide quality care.

Advocates of a single-payer system say that hospitals would survive if they learned to operate more efficiently. While we are always looking for ways to improve efficiency, the economic conditions of the past few years have already forced most institutions to reduce expenses and increase efficiency as much as possible.

The reality is that Americans have come to expect the best health care in the world, and to provide that, hospitals must continue to invest in advanced medical technology, salaries for well-trained nurses and technicians, and state-of-the-art facilities. If hospitals were required to operate solely on revenue from a single-payer system, they could no longer afford to provide the care that Americans deserve.

Single-payer systems have proven to be wholly inadequate in Canada and the U.K. Most people in America are satisfied with the care they receive, so it is important that we take the time to fix only the parts of our system that need repair. Let’s not destroy a system that works well for most Americans. Let’s judiciously change only the areas in need.

Mr. Miller is chairman and CEO of Universal Health Services Inc.

The Democratts’ health plan won’t provide far better coverage for far less money.  What it will ultimately do is provide greatly INFERIOR coverage for far more money.

This isn’t about being a Republican or a Democrat or a conservative or a liberal.  It is about deciding whether or not we want to put big government ideology over common sense.

Obama Health Care Plan Is Backdoor To Nationalized Health Care

June 16, 2009

This is SO not surprising:

[Youtube Video]

I came across this by watching Glenn Beck.  He credited Verum Serum for the video, and then improved it.  Only for some reason my browser doesn’t access Fox News video.  Just to give full credit to where it is due, and to direct attention to what may be an even better damnation of the liberal-Obama agenda on health care.

Some great quotes:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

“Someone once said to me that this is a Trojan horse for single-payer, and I said, ‘Well it’s not a Trojan horse, right?  It’s just right there!  I’m telling you!  We’re going to get there.  Over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance – as we should – but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance” – Dr. Jacob Hacker, New America Foundation.

“This is not a principled fight.  This is a fight about a strategy for getting there, and I believe we will” – Rep. Jan Schakowski

We see that there is no intention of telling the American people the truth; rather, the idea is to keep the American people from realizing what is happening until it is too late.  And the people who are running this deception-campaign don’t give a damn about principles, but only about the ends they are trying to impose.

Verum Serum is on top of this: they also have videos revealing that prominent Senator Russ Feingold sees the ultimate goal of the health care plan to be a single-payer universal health care system.

They have a very good article to show that there is a clear agenda to sell a “public plan option” while smuggling in universal health care by poisoning the health insurance industry.  That article includes this statement by Rep. Jan Schakowsky with a corresponding video.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and co-sponsor of HR-676 answered criticisms from single-payer advocates. She said the public option is not a compromise, but a strategic step toward the single-payer system and the elimination of the private insurance industry

schakowskyThe public option is simply the opening salvo against the private sector, Schakowsky and other speakers said.

Both Schakowsky and McNary stressed the need for solidarity among health care reform activists, in order to build mass support and momentum toward the goal of a single-payer system.

Liberals such as Schakowsky are literally boasting at liberal rallies for Obama’s healthcare initiative that their government-provided healthcare plan will put private insurers out of business – ending any privatized system.

The American people need to wake up and realize that they are NOT choosing any sort of compromise between a private system and a more government-controlled system, but that the Democrats are determined to usher in a total-government controlled nationalized socialized healthcare system based on the failed European model.

We have frankly known this was coming since the so-called “Stimulus” bill was passed.  And even back then, we learned that the bill would ultimately create a rationing system that would result in the premature death of senior citizens as bureaucrats determined that their care was too expensive.

Aged-based health care rationing will be the cornerstone of any Democrat universal healthcare plan.  You can count on it.  Bottom line: it is a fact that the largest consumption of health care resources occurs in the final six months of one’s life.

The problem is that there is no way to know exactly when that “final six months” actually is.  Take a 75-year old woman with cancer: she may very well die in six months without treatment; but she might well live another 20 years if she HAS treatment.

What you need to do is decide RIGHT NOW whether you want a bureaucrat making that assessment based on a chart in some office in Washington, rather than you and your physicians.

D. James Kennedy made a prophetic statement:

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa: Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you.

And that day of reckoning is coming under the first president to come from that very generation.  Unless we stop him.

As a PS, Obama in his speech today claimed that 46 million Americans are uninsured.  That claim is false, and in fact is an implicit statement as to his intention to cover illegal immigrants.

My mother – who is nearing her mid-70s – has been undergoing treatment for an aggressive form of breast cancer.  The oncologist repeatedly said that the chemotherapy mortality studies did not even include women in her age group.  In hindsight, I reflect on those words and realize how easy it would have been for some bureaucrat to deny her lifesaving treatment.

And when I realize that my mother – who I would throw myself under the path of an oncoming bus to save – might well someday be denied essential treatment so that someone who doesn’t even belong in this country can gave full access to our medical system, I am enraged.