Skip to comments.Steve Forbes: A Grotesquerie [ObamaCare, The Markets and Socialism]
Posted on 04/03/2010 4:54:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With an ice-cold disdain for public opinion and an obsession worthy of Lenin, President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed ObamaCare through the House by unprecedented parliamentary trickery, bribery and deceit. The President has thereby poisoned the national political well.
But the health care fight has just begun. Substantive constitutional court challenges are coming. Congressional elections are around the corner, and there's a growing opposition that wants to undo what Obama has just done. The President will discover that, ultimately, the American people's tenacity will overwhelm his--and he will be a failed President. But the cost of his public-be-damned attitude will be immense.
Marx Would Be Impressed
Socialists believe that the way to paradise is for governments to own "the means of production." Thus, decades ago even democratic countries such as France and Britain nationalized considerable swathes of their economies to achieve "social justice." That didn't work so well; therefore, since the days of Margaret Thatcher there have been wave after wave of privatizations in Europe and around the world.
Today's neosocialists are smarter than their ancestors.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The greatest miscalculation was that these idiots actually thought they could make America a socialist state overnight.
I have been saying this same thing since before Obama won the election. I said then, that if he were to win the White House, the Democrats would over-reach and push through every Socialist wet dream they've had for the last 40 years, which would result in an unprecedented level of OPPOSITION from the general, patriotic public.
Like children suddenly unleashed with Dad's credit card, they've run totally amok, and have created a backlash like nothing ever witnessed in this country. And that backlash is gaining steam, even though the full effects of Obamacare are only barely perceptible at present. When the pain of their destructive health care "reforms" comes to pass, the anger in the country will explode.
If the Democrats are simply voted out, en masse, they should consider themselves lucky. In earlier, saner times, there would have been mass hangings for such unbridled treason.
There was no master plan. They just threw it all into the healthcare bill—including a whole lot of really sinister stuff having nothing to do with healthcare—and rammed it through.
I read a couple of articles about a few of the more outrageous things in the bill but I didn’t save them.
It will all start coming out. But healthcare will be unworkable from the get-go. Not to mention the total job-killing qualities, which we’re just now hearing about.
I think Forbes got it about right.
With respect to the adoption of Euro-socialism, (the Marxists are always wrong on so many points) the US did not transform itself over time from a feudal state. We might be tempted to say that such a system succeeds in more homogenous societies, but does it really? Been to Europe? Seen the work ethic and optimism of the average European? I would argue they still live in serfdom, but don't know it.
Yes, they did. Just like a bunch of stoned teenagers running amok with Daddy's credit card. I doubt if a single Democrat who voted for this monstrosity even knew what was in it.
They're off the hook, and in a state of total abandon. They have no idea which way the train is going -- they just know that uncle BO is gonna take care of them when they get there. Screw The People.
What they have done will open the floodgates on every manner of destructive government intrusion into private industry and individuals' lives and affairs. The rending of the well-established fabric of our country will upturn the social order in countless ways, and will lead to something that finally sparks a backlash of sufficient force from The People to STOP THE MADNESS.
Unfortunately, for Democrats, that will possibly mean citizens arrest, and forcible removal from office, with justice meted out in various ways, from so-called "frontier justice", to civilized trials and convictions.
It all sounds a bit like science fiction, or maybe an apocalyptic horror novel, but I'm afraid that was yesterday's reality.
Great comment. It will be interesting to watch, although I wish I didn’t have to be part of the whole mess. *sigh*
Steve Forbes nails it!
The question is, do we have the stones needed to hold them accountable? Or will we simply do as we're told, roll over, and accept some form of martial law as handed down from upon high?
It's pretty clear to me that our Constitution is not only being ignored, but openly and brazenly urinated upon. There's a very good term that describes these actions, one that I haven't seen on this site lately; treason.
>>one that I haven’t seen on this site lately; treason.<<
My apologies. That word WAS used in a previous post. I’m glad that someone with sand finally got around to using it in its proper context.
Because that’s EXACTLY what’s going on...
This so-called "intellectual" President and his fellow "progressives" in Congress and the Senate either do not understand the lessons of history, or they willfully ignore them.
Any Democrats who truly want to help those in need in the society should heed the lesson on Constitutional principle explained to Congressman Davy Crockett by one of his constituents. That constituent was upset that Crockett had voted for a bill to help some families in Georgetown whose homes had been destroyed by fire.
As Crockett related the story (Told in "Not Yours to Give" - the full story available at Foundation for Economic Education web site):
Crockett: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
Crockett: . . . . "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road, I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again''
“This was a sockdolager .. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question'
,,'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in this country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000.00. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.''
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him-
“Well, my, friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot'
Later, Crockett was called to vote on another bill. Let him relate that story also:
Crockett: "One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
If this principle was in effect in the days of the Congressman from Tennessee (Crockett), then the principle remains unchanged. It is the tyrannical "redistributionist" theory which is different.
Excellent piece from Steve Forbes.
Great post! Really enjoyed the story.
In order to answer that question, I'm going to pose another.
Put yourself back in April, 2008. That's two years ago. Really get a sense of that time frame. We were in the presidential primary season, and George Bush was still our president.
Keeping your mind in that time frame, think of all of the egregious and despicable things we've witnessed since Obama came to office. Here's the question: from that viewpoint, can you believe that we have seen all that we have in the last 24 months?
You would have thought it preposterous if anyone had predicted all that we've witnessed, just 24 months ago.
Now, cast forward another 12 months. Given all that we've seen in the last two years, and especially in the last 12 months, is there any doubt that we're going to see events transpire in this country that would seem mind-boggling today?
Now consider this: the wretched actions of the political elites in Washington have elicited a citizen response that is nearly unprecedented in this nation's history. That response has grown larger, as the threat to our way of life has become more evident. I expect that response to grow in direct proportion to the assaults against our liberties.
The little tyrants are shredding our Constitution and attempting to institute a European-style Socialism in place of it. The more damage they inflict on the people, the greater the response from the people will be.
We never expected to see such unrelenting and overt treasons committed by our own government, and we never imagined we'd see millions of ordinary people stand up in such overwhelming defiance, but we've seen both. I predict that both are going to increase, and that the people will demand their "pound of flesh" for the destruction which has been done to our nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.