How long have we been talking about so-called "Health Care Reform"? There was the almost three year campaign season which ended when millions of Americans failed to see how much of a fraud Obama was and elected him President. Now we're on year two of endless back and forth on a government takeover of Health Insurance and the Health Care industry (yes, it is a takeover).
The entire time we've been having this debate, there has been a large percentage of liberals / progressives who have flat out said that the reform being proposed wasn't a takeover of Health Care. Sure, they would like for it to be a takeover but they weren't going to get it. "Oh, no!" they said. "We're not going to have a wonderful system like the British NHS here. Relax."
Nevermind, of course, the times when Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Russ Feingold and others said that the plan was to destroy the Health Insurance industry and pave the way for single payer.
Those single payer zealots would simply give up their lifelong goals and settle for a smaller reform package that we'll all love. Promise.
Well, they lied. The Progressives in power lied and their minions lied. Single payer has been the End Game all along and now we have definitive proof.
But, said one attendee, Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders's measure was similar but doesn't kick in for several years. "He definitely wrote it down," said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he'd look into it.
The meeting was entirely non-confrontational, said members who were present, but Grijalva did raise the issue of the public option.
"He just said that the public option, something that he has supported along the way, is not something that we can pass. And he emphasized the fact that the decision now is between doing as much as we can do and doing nothing. That's it. He thought the whole foundation thing -- that this is definitely something we could be proud of, something we could build off [of]," said Schakowsky.
Woolsey told Obama that she'd be introducing legislation to create a public option and Obama said he encouraged the effort, according to Schakowsky.
So let's stop pretending that Single-Payer isn't the goal and that this bill isn't designed to set the table for it, shall we?
Do you want to see a perfect illustration of what's wrong with the "Progressive" view of the Constitution? Look no further than the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause is located in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (the section dealing with the power of Congress):
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
Pretty straightforward, right? This clause gives Congress the ability to regulate commerce among the States. That is, between the States. Specifically, it gives Congress the power to make laws that would prevent one State from inhibiting commerce across State lines. For example, Congress could step in and say that Virginia cannot impose a tariff on tobacco imported from Maryland in order to make it more expensive than Virginian tobacco. The Commerce clause was basically a free trade agreement within the US and among the individual States.
Progressives took a hold of this clause (and the Welfare and Supremacy Clauses) and twisted their original meaning so that they could justify all types of power grabs that were never intended, indeed OPPOSED, by the Framers of the Constitution. Today, we have Federal laws regulating INTRAstate commerce because of this hijacking by the Progressives. (I will add that Republicans have abused this clause too, they are not completely innocent on this but Progressives have far and away more counts against them on this point.) There are literally tens of thousands of pages of regulations that rely on this perversion of the Commerce Clause to exist. Congress has expanded the scope of the clause to the point that it is just a given (in the minds of Progressives and some Republicans) that the Federal Government can do whatever it wants.
It has gotten so bad that Congress was poised (and is still considering) to implement a mandate for individuals to buy Health Care Insurance. The Commerce Clause, which was intended to regulate States, not individuals, has been perverted by some to mean that the Federal Government can mandate someone buy a product or service that they may not even want to buy? For what? To force people to pay into a government managed Health Care industry? That's not what Congress was empowered to do. In fact, James Madison specifically warned against such a power grab and he is credited with being the principle author of the Constitution.
What Congress IS specifically empowered to do is regulate commerce among the individual States. Guess what? That means that they can pass laws that would nullify the States laws preventing Insurance Companies from selling policies across State lines. In fact, that is EXACTLY the kind of scenario the Commerce Clause was written for. Coincidentally, Progressives don't want it. They're arguing against it.
The pundits / talking heads / alleged political "experts" will have countless reasons and excuses on why Scott Brown won last night. But the fact of the matter is that the reason is very simple, and his campaign was very simple:
The American people are inately opposed to the Federal Government going beyond their Constitutional bounds.
Massachussetts is arguably the most liberal state in the Union. They're definitely not opposed to social programs, entitlements, etc. But they understand that States have the power to do these things where the Federal Government does not. Sure, they tolerated it for a long time because the Federal Government essentially left them alone to try their social experiments until now.
Scott Brown was a proponent of RomneyCare and I'm sure many other MA social programs. But his message was clear: the FEDERAL government is out of control. The Federal Government has grown too large in size and scope. The Federal Government is not supposed to be doing what it is doing and the taxes being collected to pay for these things were sucking the life out of the country.
Last night was a victory for the Constitution and Federalism. The very liberal State of Massachussetts said "We don't want Washington telling us how to run our Health Care system." Period.
The Progressives / Statists will downplay it and pretend it wasn't a referendum on their agenda. The media will parrot the narrative. Weak-kneed Republicans will fail to pick up the ball being handed to them. But that's what Scott Brown's election was about: Saying NO to what the Federal government is trying to do to this nation.
What if it were Hitler instead of Chairman Mao on a White House Christmas tree ornament?
There would be outrage from all sides of the political spectrum. People would be demanding how these ornaments made it through whatever screening process goes on in the Obama White House for these things. At the very least the worker hanging the ornament would have raised a red flag and pointed it out to his or her higher ups.
Mao Tse-Tong was responsible for a genocide that killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of killing. But for some reason, Mao is revered by today's Left. He's some kind of hero to these Progressives / Socialists / Statists.
And now, the White House is pretending they didn't know anything about it. If you believe that line of BS, you are the epitome of the useful idiot Mao and other Communists (like Saul Alinsky, for example) relied on to blindly follow them.
How on earth did we get to a point where a mass murdering Communist is considered a hero by a large portion of this country?
Dr. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gives ObamaCare a big fat F for not doing anything the Progressives / Statists (i.e. Obama and Co.) claim it will do.
I encourage you to read the whole article here. But here's one part that hits the nail on the head:
Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
The bottom line is that getting the government more involved in the Health Care industry is going to do what government involvement always does: Lower quality and increase costs.
Of course, Progressives don't care about that. All they care about is government control. Health Care is the lynchpin for Statist control of the populace. There are some liberals who simply don't realize this. When they do finally realize it, they usually become conservatives / libertarians.
A recent Gallup Poll showed that more people than ever before (since Gallup started tracking the question) are of the mindset that the Government doesn't belong in Health Care, so there's hope. Let's hope that this enlightenment hasn't come too late to reverse all the damage that Progressives / Statists and the Progressive-lite Republicans have done over the last 100 years.
Today marks the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. World leaders are gathering in Germany to celebrate the day when Communism was defeated.
The current President of the United States won't be there. He's too busy.
He wasn't too busy to fly to Copenhagen to make a self-centered appeal to the International Olympic Committee to bring the Games to Obama's hometown, Chicago, though. That little jaunt was easily squeezed in between all the "hard work" Obama was doing ignoring the urgent requests for troops to execute the strategy his hand-picked General had requested back in the summer. His supporters claimed that he could work during the flight and he wasn't really taking any time off. This is true. So why is he suddenly too busy to go and mark a very important date in world history?
The answer is simple: Copenhagen and the Olympics would have been a PERSONAL victory for Obama if he were able to secure the games. There is nothing more important than building our Narcissist in Chief's legacy. Going to Berlin would do nothing for him on that level. In fact, he would be celebrating the fall of an ideology that he was raised admiring (see Frank Marshall Davis). It may very well be that Obama wouldn't be able to hide his grief over the day Communism failed and Freedom won yet another war.
If the event isn't about him, Obama has no time for it. And I haven't even mentioned how the fall of the Berlin Wall is a triumph of American Foreign Policy and why that factors into Obama's decision not to attend, too.
Watching the circus that was the announcement of the "historic" Pelosi Health Care Reform Bill yesterday, I kept thinking about one thing:
All those people standing up there trumpeting the latest power grab by the Federal Government and not one of them could point to where Congress gets the authority to even write the bill, let alone pass it.
That's right, not ONE person there could do that because the plain and simple truth is that the authority doesn't exist in the Constitution. I've looked. It's not in there. Furthermore, I've read specific quotations from the Constitution's primary author, James Madison, and from his good friend, Thomas Jefferson, and you'd be hard-pressed to find where either of them even remotely hinted at the Federal Government having this kind of power over individuals. You'd find quote after quote, essay after essay arguing how the Federal Government couldn't do something like take over the Health Care system, but nothing supporting the idea. Not a word.
It is at this point in a conversation with a Progressive / Statist that we'd get into all the Judicial precedent, etc. where SCOTUS or lower courts ruled that the Federal Government was within its bounds under the Welfare or Commerce clauses to do this or that. But you know what? That's their trick. They think you're too dumb to know that those rulings were made by stacked or intimidated courts. They fall back on the "well, we're already doing it" defense as if that makes it right. It doesn't. Our founding document has been hijacked.
The debate we should be having is simple: Is Congress even authorized to do this? And we, as conservatives, need to make the case over and over that they do not have this authority and pull the debate back to where it belongs. This is about the expansion of government. It is not about providing Health Care for all (since this bill STILL doesn't cover everyone).
For a few weeks now, Democrats have been fighting attempts to post the "Baucus Bill" online so that we, The People, can see what they have in store for us. It's been called a "Vapor Bill" since it contains nearly no legislative language and, in essence, is a conceptual document. In other words, the Senate is actually debating and voting on a bill that will be finalized at some point under the cover of darkness, if they get their way.
That alone should raise gigantic red flags for every freedom-loving American. But wait, there's more! They've even convinced the CBO to "score" this conceptual document and wouldn't you know, it is going to allegedly trim $81 Billion from the budget over 10 years. I'd laugh if I didn't know that the completely-in-the-tank-for-Democrats-media will run with this one juicy detail at full speed to rally public support for the plan.
Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.
You'd almost think that Congress hasn't yet gotten the message that people are on to them. Have they not seen the constant stream of polls showing that people, across the entire political spectrum, don't trust them and overwhelmingly disapprove of their performance?
When you see this latest example of the utter contempt Congress has for us, and you recall how Pelosi once claimed this would be the most transparent / corruption-free Congress ever, there's only one conclusion anyone with half a brain could come up with:
Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said the Finance Committee will vote at that time on a 10-year, $829 billion proposal that covers 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the deficit. The positive estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was a breakthtrough for Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the plan's author.
Reading the blogs and op-eds out on the net it is clear that we are reaching a point where the Conservative message is at a crossroads. A lot of the talk has been about a leadership vacuum. In my opinion, the Right is currently undergoing a massive manhunt to find the one person (or perhaps a handfull of people) who can clearly articulate that Conservative message.
This begs an obvious question: What is the Conservative Message?
People are throwing around the usual catch-phrases: "Limited Government" or "States Rights" or "Fiscal Responsibility". All well and good, but the problem is that there doesn't seem to be anyone out there who can articulate this message AND survive the attacks on their record which the Progressive / Statist left will undoubtedly unleash in order to discredit them.
Another problem is that way too many of the "conservative" pundits out there are really just watered-down Progressives. Neo-Statists or Progressive-lite commentators who have accepted that government intervention (vs regulation) is the solution to the majority of the problems we face. I don't think there are many true Conservatives who would argue for outright anarchy. Of course there's a need for government. The question is how much do we need? Are the solutions to be found utilizing the power of the Federal Government, the State Governments, or the Private sector (The People). Better yet... What is the right mix? The Federalist system our founders handed to us seems to be disappearing before our eyes. It has taken nearly a century to get to this point, but it is disappearling. Progressives have successfully framed the debate. We, as a country, don't even blink when presented with a problem. We immediately run to the Federal Government. This wasn't how it was originally intended to work, but that's an argument for a different time.
Back to the question of message. We on the Right need to rally around a single message. The idea of Limited Government is my personal favorite because it really encompasses what Conservatism is all about. But we must also remember that "Limited Government" doesn't mean "No Government". It means going back and checking the playbook (The Constitution) to see which entity should be the force behind implementing a solution.
Where are the leaders who have consistently approached a problem from this perspective? Who are they? Who looks at a problem and doesn't immediately think, "Let's create a Federal Program around it"? Where is the politician who can consistently make the case that nearly every problem we face today is a direct result of Progressive policies that have slowly erroded our Federalist foundation?
Or is there a larger question? Are we on the Right sure if we really believe that anymore?