Health-Care and The Destruction of Families
You can’t discuss Obama’s plan for universal health-care in America without examining Hitler’s Nazi Germany health-care plan because there are some scary analogies.
The Nazis offered them an opportunity to get beyond politics. For example, the Reich anticancer committee proclaimed in its first annual report:
“The year 1933 was a decisive one for that war against cancer. The national socialist revolution has created entirely new opportunities for sweeping measures in an area that until now has been rather limited. . . the energetic and unanimous engagement of the medical profession have shown that new avenues have opened for the struggle against cancer in the new Germany.” (Proctor, Nazi War On Cancer, p. 158)
Vast moral and public health campaigns were put in place to promote safe working environments, along with the production of wholesome organic foods, anti-animal cruelty measures, and other progressive advances.
Many of these reforms were imposed from above by social engineers with the willing compliance of businessmen now freed from the usual concerns about such costly modifications. In addition, the Nazis also worked tirelessly to cultivate and encourage demand from below for these reforms.
Everyone from the lowliest worker to the wealthiest baron was encouraged to believe and enforce the idea that if you weren’t part of the solution you were part of the problem. German consumers, too, were lectured relentlessly to buy products that promoted the “common good.”
“Language itself was bent to what could only be called Nazi political correctness.” Victor Klemperer, a professor of Romance languages at the University of Dresdon, fired for his Jewish ancestry in 1935, dedicated himself to chronicling the subtle term formations of such and daily life brought about by the Gleichschaltung, The mechanism of the individual.
Phrases like “Hitler weather” – to describe a sunny day – crept into everyday conversation. The Nazis “changed the values, the frequency of words [and] made into common property words that had previously had been used by individuals or tiny groups. They confiscated words for the party, saturated words and phrases and sentence forms with their poison. They made the language serve their terrible system.They conquered words and made them into their strongest advertising tools, at once the most public and the most secret.” (Claudia Koonz, The Nazi War on Cancer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003, p. 73).
Today, Obama insists we not use the words “War on Terror” because they offend Muslims in America and abroad, but, instead, they have encouraged we say, “Overseas Contingency Operations.”
It got so bad in Nazi Germany that Himmler became vexed by the slow pace of his efforts to transform the way Germans ate: “The artificial is everywhere; everywhere food is adulterated, filled with ingredients that supposedly make it last longer, or look better, or pass as enriched” or whatever else the industry admen want us to believe. (Author’s note:The above is a statement where I agree with Himmler)
He said Germans were in the hands of the food companies whose economic clout and advertising make it possible for them to “prescribe what we can and cannot eat. . .[after] the war we shall take energetic steps to prevent the ruin of our people by the food industries. (Proctor, Nazi War on Cancer, p. 138).
Yoking Industry to National Policy Agenda
Listen to Jonah Goldstein: “Al Gore’s rhetoric about the need to “tame Big Oil” and the like is apposite. He doesn’t want to nationalize “Big Oil”; he wants to yoke it to his own agenda. Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s proposed health-care reforms, as well as most of the proposals put forward by leading Democrats and a great many Republicans involve the fusion of big government and big business. The economic ideas in Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” are breathlessly corporatist. “A number of our most powerful telecommunications and computer companies have joined forces with the government in a project to connect every classroom in America to the Internet,” she gushes. “Socially minded corporate philosophies are the avenue to future prosperity and social stability. It doesn’t take a Rosetta stone to decipher what liberals mean by socially minded corporate philosophies,” says Goldberg.
How Health Care and Other Industries Tie Into Obama’s Agenda
Close observers say the new Obama form of health-care doesn’t require doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies to give up their infrastructure – their well-trained employees, chemical labs, buildings, operating rooms, and high tech equipment – to government. Rather, government will use these means of production and services by proxy. According to orthodox Marxism, the capitalist system becomes fascist as its internal contradictions get the better of it. GM is an excellent example of this. Living in an imperfect system which requires it to pay its union employees twice as much as Japan’s companies in the U.S. pay its nonunion employees, GM is stuck.GM knows that it cannot succeed – or even go onward – without an unholy alliance with government which we have seen recently when the “Obama banks” gave U.S. car makers about $70 billion which some of them wish they hadn’t had to take [Ford wisely did not] because Obama has required that government actually take over these companies and, In GM’s case, Obama named his own president and new directors. With that move President Obama has sacked important officers who had the capability of running a company, replacing them with inexperienced hacks. The company might as well be known as OMC now, Obama Motor Company, because the old GM no longer exists and this one may soon go into liquidation where it should have been to start with.
OMC exists solely for the 14 million union members’ benefit, so that OMC can mete out health care – if it survives beyond Obama’s first term. If it doesn’t, it could bring down the Obama administration which in my opinion is teetering and ready to fall. The problem is that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are no better than the current president in wisdom and in love for what used to be a free country.
Jonah Goldberg says “GM offers an ironic confirmation of Marxist logic. According to orthodox Marxism, the capitalist system becomes fascist as its industrial contradictions get the better of it.”
GM failed a long time ago, when it knew two things: it could not compete with Japan in making quality cars or in convincing Americans to stop buying Japanese makes and to switch to GM cars and trucks.
By voting in a populist fascist and sitting there watching him dismantle our freedoms, we have gone to a national form of corporatism and socialism, a place most of us abhor. The only answer now is to throw the bum out of office next time at the polls.
When you can’t compete, you quickly are taken captive by designing politicians on both sides of the isle ostensibly seeking to protect jobs, donations, or both. It is not of question for the automakers any longer, they now prefer the nanny state and protectionism which will ultimately lead to tax favors, tariffs and ant-competitive practices which will be met with retaliation in foreign countries.
Goldberg said our auto industry has fled from the rough-and-tumble capitalism, embracing the warm embrace of Hillary’s “It takes a village” economics, AKA “progress” via populism.
Populism and Fascism Require The Right Moment
Obama’s timing has been lucky and impeccable. In order for populism and fascism to come on strong and circumvent conventional rules, an atmosphere of crisis must be maintained. Thus, the urgency in Obama’s voice whenever he suggests bold, new initiatives or bills for which there isn’t enough time for adequate debate, not to mention reading and studying, as he circumvents even time-honored give and take, negotiation and the Constitutional-protected practice of time to debate – and we know he will resort to “reconciliation” to bypass Senate debate on non-tax bills whenever he can.
With fascists like Obama, it’s all or nothing. It’s now or too late. Starting with what was called his first assault on unemployment in January, 2009, the bill that ended up helping 23% of the employed find jobs in 2009, this trillion-dollar bamboozle should have been all about putting Americans back to work, but instead was used for infrastructure and political debt pay-back.
Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Congress only 12 hours to read and pass this bill. Pelosi had to fly off a few hours later to London in her spiffy gas-guzzling government jet plane to receive a Queen Elizabeth honor and Obama had a vacation to Chicago in mind for Michelle and the kids. But the bill had to be passed by Congress immediately, else the entire country would blow up in Obma’s face and cease to exist. Congress and the American public bought that lie, but as soon as the bill passed and the urgency was over both Pelosi and Obama boarded their expensive planes and flew away. Obama left the bill unsigned on his desk for four days until he returned to the White House. So much for honesty in office and faith in the promise of openness and real “change.”
Meanwhile, America became the country of ultra-expensive social change, a workshop for tinkering and experimenting, a “place of security and community and clear moral values.” (Carney, Big Ripoff, and Alan Brinkley in End of Reform and New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War.)
The late Christopher Lasch in a 1992 Harpers article said of Hillary Clinton’s worldviews that Clinton is a modern “childsaver,” a term critical historians apply to progressives eager to insert God-state into the sphere of family. Goldberg believes her avowed aim is to “set down a full universal theory that adequately explains the state’s appropriate role in child rearing – advocating abolition of ‘minority status’ – that is, legal codification of what distinguishes a child from an adult. This would represent a great “progressive leap” forward in line with – Clinton’s words – “the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of married women.” Children would be presumed capable of exercising rights and assuming responsibilities until it is proven otherwise.
While they’re at it, why don’t they adopt the view that life begins at conception – that the initial cell and the developing fetus represents life and should enjoy the same rights as a born child. Then they could do away with “the killing fields” known as America’s hospitals and clinics that do abortion for hire. It’s a total disgrace that Democrats do not respect life in this and other ways, yet they are the first to pass animal brutality laws.
But the ultra-left go way too far when they proscribe for children the same rights as for their parents, the adults. Allowed to stand, this kind of thinking will wreck havoc on our society as it has in foreign countries. But of course, that’s exactly the aim of progressives. They look at Europe’s decadence and say, “I want that kind of thing for America.” What total fools!
This line of thinking would validate:
- Social engineering
- A direct assault on the family
- The end of home schooling
- The end of an Amish tradition of keeping kids out of high school
- The end of parental notification and approval for child abortions and other matters
Progressives like Clinton and Obama believe kids’ voices should be entitled to be heard over those of the parents. Children “should be masters of their own destiny’ according to Justice William O. Douglas.
- The state would be able to pass out condoms, run sex education classes, and approve what is good and what is bad for children – not the parents.
- It mandates total state assumption of parental responsibilities in all facets of life including health care paid for and supervised by the government.
Hitler and Stalin Youth Camps, Here We Come
Does this remind anyone of Hitler’s youth camps? How about Stalin’s mandatory young communist training, the pulling of children out of school and out of the home to enroll them in state training schools where they would be schooled and reared as communists?
This is what progressives want, what far-left liberal Democrats like Clinton and Obama are passionately moving America toward. In this new system of demagogues and forced authority the place of the parent in rearing the child is abrogated and grabbed by an unfeeling state.
Goldberg says Clinton’s writings “leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, the state that sets them free.
“The movement for children’s rights…amounts to another stage in the long struggle against patriarchy.”