Ringer: All out rebellion is the only way to stop universal healthcare (mentions Paul and Woods)Submitted by kevinkervick on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:41
As the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of Obamacare plays out, I’m probably one of the few people who is not biting his nails over the outcome. In fact, I’m dismayed that a majority of Americans are actually taking this media-hyped event so seriously.
First of all, as Thomas Woods has often pointed out, the whole idea of an arm of the federal government ruling in a case where states are suing that same federal government is perverse. Let us not be naïve. The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch are all part of the same team. It’s true that the Court may occasionally rule against the government, but, nevertheless, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
Second, the nine judges who rule on major issues such as the constitutionality of government-run healthcare are lifetime presidential appointees. When a true conservative is in the Oval Office (which is rare), he may get to appoint one or two conservative judges. And when a progressive or socialist president is in the White House, it is a 100 percent certainty that he will appoint far-left judges when vacancies occur.
Thus, the Supreme Court’s decisions have nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral, or just or unjust. We all know how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. Did that make it right … or moral … or just? Nevertheless, if the court says something is so — e.g., that killing unborn babies is legal — it becomes accepted as a legal fact of life that only “extremists” would dare challenge.
So in this game of judicial musical chairs, it all gets down to who happens to be on the Supreme Court when any given case is heard. To underscore this point, it’s ridiculous that one man — Justice Anthony Kennedy — is going to decide whether or not to allow the president and Congress to ignore the Constitution. And once Justice Kennedy casts his vote, no matter how immoral or how anti-constitutional it may be, U.S. judges will forever refer to the outcome as “case law.”
Third, while the media crowd is all atwitter talking about what the Supreme Court’s decision might ultimately be, the truth is that it doesn’t matter. Many readers will not like my saying this, but the reason it doesn’t matter is because government-run healthcare, even if Obamacare is overturned, is our future.
In fact, we already have lots of government-run healthcare. It’s called Medicare, Medicaid, and free emergency-room services. And more — much more — is on the way, no matter how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare. Like all other insidious government programs, government-run healthcare only gets bigger with time.
While it’s true that a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court might buy us a little time, the long-term result is inevitable: government control of every aspect of America’s healthcare system.
If the Dirty Dems lose the current battle, I can promise you that they will immediately roll up their sleeves and implement the Alinsky strategy yet again — meaning they will resort to even more audacious, illegal tactics to institute additional government-run healthcare services without regard to the Supreme Court ruling.
Further, if Obama wins next November, look for a slew of “executive orders” to give new life to Obamacare. But what if a Republican wins? Do I really need to answer that question? Wasn’t it a Republican president that gave us No Child Left Behind, TARP, and, yes, more government-run healthcare in the form of a prescription-drug benefit?
And what about that long-forgotten “conservative,” Richard Nixon, who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970? Or the most popular conservative hero of our time, Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in 1986?
Most Republicans, even those who want to repeal Obamacare, are talking about a better way to “reform healthcare.” Other than Ron Paul, who has had the courage to step forward and point out that it is not the government’s job to become involved in healthcare in any way, shape, or form? Healthcare reform is a euphemism for more government involvement in healthcare.
For those of us who still believe in the Constitution — and, even more important, in Natural Law and natural rights — the fact that Obamacare was allowed to come into existence in the first place shows just how far we have moved away from our founding principles. The sleight of hand with which it was forced into law is more proof of how corrupt our politicians are, how unafraid they are of usurping the Constitution, and how unwilling we, the people, are to rebel.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason we have come this far down the road to serfdom — be it in healthcare or any other aspect of our lives — is because most of us want redistribution of wealth.
That’s right, when push comes to shove, the majority of Americans are more than happy to ignore the Constitution and live in a redistribution-of-wealth society — so long as they believe they are getting the better of the swindle.
To end on a positive note, I do believe there are some constitutional saints among us, but you have to look long and hard to find them. And the first place each of us should look is in the mirror. If you don’t see a constitutional saint staring back at you, you know what you can do right away to start helping the cause of freedom.
The awful truth that few people are willing to come to grips with is that the choice is between servitude and all-out revolution. Understanding this reality is far more important than what the Supreme Court decides about Obamacare. Count on it, universal healthcare is coming — unless enough Americans are willing to resort to all-out rebellion.