Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Obama Rubs Our Faces In It

    Posted by Jonathan on March 22nd, 2010 (All posts by )

    “We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people.”

    That’s what Obama said after House Democrats passed his health scheme. It’s a revealing remark. The Democratic leadership ignored broad public opposition to pass this extremely consequential bill on a bare majority by a combination of dishonest rhetoric, bribery, scummy parliamentary maneuvers and sheer willfulness. Then the President had the nerve to abuse Lincoln’s great words to tell us — most of whom opposed the bill, as he well knows — that he and his colleagues did it at our direction (“of the people and by the people”) and for our benefit. I interpret his words, a characteristic inversion of the truth, as a direct insult to his political opponents, who on this issue are now the majority of the country. He knows that we know he is lying and he doesn’t care, because he thinks he can get away with it. And he appears to enjoy it. This is not someone who can be trusted with power.

     

    18 Responses to “Obama Rubs Our Faces In It”

    1. Dan from Madison Says:

      I am only hoping that there will be court challenges to much of this and/or much of it gets struck down the next time that the Republicans capture both houses and the presidency. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I can’t believe the investment taxes folded into this farce of a bill on TOP of the crazy rate hikes that my company will likely see.

    2. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Oh, there will be. The massive anger over the bill itself and the way that it was rammed through – there will be a tidal-wave at the polls in November. Depend on it.

    3. Tatyana Says:

      This all has been predicted long ago and was to be expected. Actually, I am surprised it took them more than a year.

      These people are ruthless – and they follow well-trodden path. African (or Arafat-like) politics is no place for “concern for the governed; a bit of demagogy to throw to the masses will suffice. And it does – if I’m to conclude from conversations with my eye doctor, cosmetologist and a Cont-Ed-school instructor.

    4. Michael Kennedy Says:

      I think Obama may actually believe that statement. The left seems to me to be so certain of their rightness that they consider any opposition to be liars or scoundrels. Robespierre comes to mind.

    5. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Democrat Stephen Douglas was happy to have pushed the Kansas Nebraska Act through the Senate in 1854. The aftermath lead to civil disturbances in Kansas, the creation of the Republican party, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the destruction of the Democrat party, slavery, and plantation society.

      Be careful what you wish for, you may get it … and all of its consequences.

    6. Tatyana Says:

      Robert, you think people now have the same guts as in 1854?

      I don’t.

    7. tehag Says:

      Obama embodies the will of the people. That’s his belief and purpose in life, well-supported by the wide admiration in America for other politicians that embody the will of the people: Castro, Chavez, Lenin, et. al. For more than 100 years, academics, bureaucrats, intellectuals have condemned dithering, irresponsible democracies. I’m sure they are proud that the silly divisions of a democracy are behind us now.

      Obama’s election and post-election victories are no more reversible than the New Deal. The courts will uphold whatever he does, just as the courts have used penumbras and commerce clauses to further other tyrannical aims. In the next elections, conservatives will conserve Obama’s “gains,” just as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan conserved the innovations of FDR, LBJ, and Carter.*

      Long-term trends are long-term trends for a reason. The age of Fascism/Socialism/Communism/Bolivarism is as broad and deep as the Age of Enlightenment. It represents the fundamental wishes of billions of people. Everyone speaks its language, though, for example, “classes” have no more reality than “angels.” That America’s elites were late to the party, only joining the hatred of international money-lenders, capitalists, Christians and the rest beginning in the 1930s, will not stop the triumph of the people’s will. Now George Lucas and Sean Penn won’t have to go abroad to fulfill their innate natures as toadies and sycophants.

      * Yup, that right. Reagan promised to abolish the Dept. of Education. It’s still here despite several years when Republicans controlled House, Senate, and Presidency. If the Republicans think they can undo universal health care, demonstrate it now: in their choice of state, abolish that state’s income tax. Only then will I consider voting in November. Otherwise, I have better things to do.

    8. Robert Schwartz Says:

      “Robert, you think people now have the same guts as in 1854?”

      I hate to be non-apocalyptic, but resolution of the slavery issue, was far more important to the Republic, even now, than this.

      By way of comparison this fiasco, is merely a failure of prudence. Although, I will readily concede that it is a failure on a spectacular scale and its consequences, political, economic, and, social, are likely to be astounding.

    9. newguy40 Says:

      It WILL be interesting to watch the March of History over the next decade or so…

      People just did not wake up in 1860 and decide it was time for seccession on a single issue. Heck, it went back to Jackson and nullification. Take your pick of some or all. Freesoil movement, Fugitive Slave law, Pottawatamie massacre.

      The American Civil War did not happen. The anger, fear and angst built up over many years.

      Anyway…

      I agree. I don’t think people have the same guts as 1854. I don’t think we have the same folks as 1776, 1860 or 1941.

    10. HUGH EVERLY Says:

      REGARDING THE CONTENT OF MOST OF THESE REPLIES 1854 1776 1960 AND 1941 MORE THEN 75PERCENT OF THE POPULATION HAVE NOT THE VAGEST IDEA OF THESE DATES AND HAT THEY STAND FOR,AND WHY NOT, THE SCHOOLS IN THESES UNITED STATES ARE THE SORRIEST GOING.IM EIGHTY YEARS OLD AND AT THIS TIME IN GOOD HEALTH, i AND MANY MEN OF MY AGE AND ABOVE AND BELOW WOOD STEP FORWARD,WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE AT THIS POINT IN OUR LIVES. i AM AN AMERICAN AND PROUD OF IT. HUGH R EVERLY

    11. skh.pcola Says:

      Tehag, we have no state income tax here in Florida, although RINO Crist has managed to increase many fees to absurd levels. Still…no state income tax. Will you vote now?

    12. tyouth Says:

      Robert Schwartz said “I hate to be non-apocalyptic, but resolution of the slavery issue, was far more important to the Republic, even now, than this. ”

      Slavery was an important and complex problem. Without doubt, sooner or later an assimilation of the southern slaves would have occurred, driven by economic and cultural pressures in any case (perhaps, even, with better results).

      Philosophically, the question “states rights” (which can be read as “the peoples rights”) was far more important than slavery on the course of political development of the U. S. In that respect abolition was largely a somewhat cynical by-product of events. The health care bill can be seen as reduction in the people’s freedom, a centralized mandate. (You may be right about the slavery issue being more important but only if you think it impossible for that issue to have been settled in any other way at any other time.) It seems a large portion of the population of the country seem to be opposed to Obamacare; so many that a temper in the country might even approach that of old Dixie.

    13. Alcibiades Says:

      The Slave States caused the war. They chose to secede and start a fight rather than hold any sort of Constitutional debate. (The Supreme Court having previously destroyed the concept of Free States and any hope of compromise, something that dated back to the Nortwest Ordinance and the Jefferson administration.)

    14. tyouth Says:

      ” a bit of demagogy to throw to the masses will suffice. And it does – said Tanya”

      Yes, as others here have noted here, democratic freedom is fleeting and dependent upon the morals and intelligence of the people. The general loss of principles and morals. The shallow and craven will lead those who are not satisfied with their propaganda and demagoguery to an authoritarian regime rather than be ruled by the tyranny of nincompoops.

    15. tyouth Says:

      Alcibiades,

      The creation of the constitution would, if some signatories had their way, have had words to the effect that “the various states will form a perpetual union”. If this language had been included the constitution would not have been adopted by the states. It’s adoption was dependent upon those words not being included. If the USSC has ruled otherwise they were wrong. The states and the people are guaranteed rights not specified in the constitution. The perpetuality of the union was clearly and intentionally not included in the document.

      Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the U. S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    16. tyouth Says:

      If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.
      — Jefferson letter to William H. Crawford, Monroe’s Secretary of the Treasury, 1816

    17. Robert Schwartz Says:

      ObamaCare Is the Democrats’ New Kansas-Nebraska Act

    18. Bill Waddell Says:

      Were Lincoln alive today I suspect he would re-use the quote he threw at Douglas in the debates – that much of Obama’s rhetoric is “a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse”