Govt Healthcare Bill - Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.

The Presence of the Past

We should keep that phrase in mind whenever we hear, often from those who are likeminded with us, maybe even from ourselves, that the current state of affairs is unprecedented. When we hear how unprecedented it is that a President should try to limit the pay of CEO's and other executives... you should be aware that FDR did the same and more. He didn't operate under the fig leaf that the acceptance of bailout money justified his actions... he just limited the pay of all executives. Period.

When you hear of Govt pushing it's policies and propaganda, enforcing it on the people... whether through 'green jobs', or telling people who they can sell to and at what price, as with today's healthcontrol bills, we should think back to FDR's inflating the idea of interstate commerce to cover any transaction that MIGHT involve materials and prices between states, such as his administrations suit against a farmer who dared to raise some crops for his own families usage, despite govt regulations against it.

We should think of Wilson APL (American Protective League), Palmer Raids and more, as well as FDR's 'Blue Eagle' programs that bullied Americans into buying and selling only from or through approved outlets who supported govt policies.

We should think of hundreds of thousands of Americans imprisoned for opposing the policies of Wilson's administration.

When we hear of emergency bills being rushed through congress and mutter about this being unprecedented, we should think of FDR's forcing through a bill, unread, through congress, in the dead of night, because of 'the need to act now!', we should think of things like FDR's seizure of the citizens Gold. When we hear of assurances from govt that "this is temporary" or "that is fear mongering, and will never happen!", we should think of how the Dollar Bill went from 'Redeemable of one dollar of Silver', to... being redeemable for... nothing (see the pictures above, of a paper note redeemable for money, to a paper note which we pretend is just as useful as money).

When we hear of legislators laughing at questions such as "Where in the constitution is govt authorized to do any of this?!", we should recall Supreme Court Justice McReynolds, lamenting as he read his dissent to the courts ok'ing FDR's gold clause cases "this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone."

We have incrementally lost our freedom and liberty, lost the precious protection of a nation of Laws, not men (tyrants), because we allowed our educational x-spurts to downplay and denigrate the classical humanities, history, literature, in favor of 'educating' students to 'get a job' - very few of us realize that the core meaning at the center of that policy shift, is to ignore those lessons that the past could teach us, (because they could teach us - read Dewey) and we are condemned to not only repeat the same errors as before, but in doing so we submit ourselves to the power of those who don't care whether their desires and power lust is beneficial or destructive, for them it is sufficient that they want it and want it to 'do good'.

In 1848, de Tocqueville, demanded, in the French Parliament, that they bring the true topic of their discussions out into the open, that they name the forces they were playing with. He insisted that the issues be identified and discussed. He dared to identify the proregressive policies, and choose. This is from his speech, the bracketed words are the reactions from the members of parliament listening to his speech:

"Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man. [Signs of approval.]

Thus, some have said: “Let us rehabilitate the body”; others, that “work, even of the hardest kind, must be not only useful, but agreeable”; still others, that “man must be paid, not according to his merit, but according to his need”; while, finally, they have told us here that the object of the February Revolution, of socialism, is to procure unlimited wealth for all.

A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that “property is the origin of all the ills of the world,” to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that “property is theft,” all socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property. [“True, true.”] I do not pretend to hold that all who do so, assault it in the frank and brutal manner which one of our colleagues has adopted. But I say that all socialists, by more or less roundabout means, if they do not destroy the principle upon which it is based, transform it, diminish it, obstruct it, limit it, and mold it into something completely foreign to what we know and have been familiar with since the beginning of time as private property. [Excited signs of assent.]

Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. [“Excellent.”] For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.] "

The republicans and so called 'conservatives', are approaching this healthcontrol bill from the proregressives turf, and with their values and goals. They speak of how their plan will ensure more people, and for less cost, completely unawares, apparently, that such a rebuttal concedes the principles of the argument to the leftist proregressive. It concedes that, as de Tocqueville put it,

"... an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man..."

was a perfectly acceptable focus and concern for govt to take and secure.
When they complain that the proposed govt 'Shalls', fee's, fines and taxations to force people to become insured, are too excessive. It concedes as acceptable that it is ok for govt to have, as de Tocqueville put it,

"...always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property..."

completely unaware, apparently, that such a position abandons the right of the individual to their property and choices of how it should be spent, and ultimately results in the individual having no means for exercising any Rights.

The republicans and so called 'conservatives', are seemingly concerned only with costs, unemployment and whether the economy (anybody have any idea what that entails?) might be 'hurt', but the idea that govt can have a say, any say, properly and acceptably, in the decisions of individuals and businesses as regards health care, or anything else, unaware of the control of our own lives it rips from us, and hands over to govt. It concedes a function and nature of govt as being uncontroversial, that as de Tocqueville put it,

"Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual."

So called republicans and 'conservatives' like Newt Gingrich, have no problem speaking of a govt role in deciding our most personal choices and decisions, negating our right to be individuals, and they are clueless about what men like de Tocqueville, Jean Baptiste Say & Frédéric Bastiat, not to mention men like John Adams, Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry, saw so clearly well over a hundred and fifty years ago, that,

"...They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.] "

If we argue with the leftists on their own turf, the materialist concerns of benefits, working conditions, pay, goodies; we will lost. We will lose, because they will always be willing to offer more pleasure, and we have only pain to offer in that realm, responsibility, self reliance, hard work, patience - who, with no further knowledge or cares, is going to choose stale bread over Twinkies?

The argument MUST be over Individual Rights, they absolute dependence upon Property Rights for the existence of ANY Rights, and the structure, purpose and meaning of the United States Constitution.

Any damn fool who argues for electing candidates with an "R" after their names ("A RINO is better than no R at all."), rather than candidates who stand for the principles of Americanism, is only arguing for the forces of anti-Americanism, but a new system of serfdom - and if you look at the comments under that stupid post, the Tea Party people are very, very much aware that an "R" is worthless, without the principles it supposedly stands for, and they intend to target such RINO's for extinction.

Please God, let there be "Lively assent" from the American people, to that. In that same speech, de Tocqueville, humorously suggested that his plague of socialists try their ideas out on Americans, confident that they would be ignored at worst, more likely roundly thumped for their foolishness,

"I mentioned a while ago that socialism pretended to be the legitimate continuation of democracy. I myself will not search, as some of my colleagues have done, for the real etymology of this word, democracy. I will not, as was done yesterday, rummage around in the garden of Greek roots to find from whence comes this word. [Laughter.] I look for democracy where I have seen it, alive, active, triumphant, in the only country on earth where it exists, where it could possibly have been established as something durable in the modern world—in America. [Whispers.]

There you will find a society where social conditions are even more equal than among us; where the social order, the customs, the laws are all democratic; where all varieties of people have entered, and where each individual still has complete independence, more freedom than has been known in any other time or place; a country essentially democratic, the only completely democratic republics the world has ever known. And in these republics you will search in vain for socialism. Not only have socialist theories not captured public opinion there, but they play such an insignificant role in the intellectual and political life of this great nation that they cannot even rightfully boast that people fear them.

America today is the one country in the world where democracy is totally sovereign. It is, besides, a country where socialist ideas, which you presume to be in accord with democracy, have held least sway, the country where those who support the socialist cause are certainly in the worst position to advance them I personally would not find it inconvenient if they were to go there and propagate their philosophy, but in their own interests, I would advise them not to. [Laughter.] "

That was during a time when the proregressive elite had yet to break into our educational system, when We The People still saw socialism as the foul, immoral, evil it is, they didn't yet accept any notions of materialist goodies as having more value than the real concept of Liberty; and they still knew that Liberty rested squarely upon constitutionally delimited government and Property Rights.

That has nearly been diseducated out of us. Why? Because as John Adams said, in a work well known to virtually all of the Framers of the Constitution, and most Educated (mostly at home) Americans afterwards, this from his report on a constitution for Massachusetts, "Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law", such desires to ensure that the people remain ignorant of the true meaning and scope of rights...

"...has been known by the great to be the temper of mankind; and they have accordingly labored, in all ages, to wrest from the populace, as they are contemptuously called, the knowledge of their rights and wrongs, and the power to assert the former or redress the latter. I say rights, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government,-Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws-Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe."

It is our task, our responsibility, to re-Educate Americans to the timeless truths which our founders understood, and which any departure from, means nothing but reactionary ideology and regression into servitude and barbarity.

I tried to leave a comment to a post by Bad Bad JuJu (what's with the comment system there?), which he said,

"The (American) People need to understand, if the Health Care Bill is passed, it is nothing less than a government takeover of the whole health care system."

Which is very true... and worse. It really is nothing less than the repudiation of Individual Rights, Period.

It is a declaration, through taxation and decree, that govt defined x-spurts should have first say over the living and maintenance of their own lives.

What we've got to do, in the next two years, is Educate the core of the American people, to what has been de-educated out of them. The meaning of the ideas which lay behind the Constitution, and why it was written in the way it was - and to take vocal political action to restore to this land, a nation of Laws, not men.

Here's a good place to start.

It's not going to be easy... but it'll be fun to tell the grandkids about!