STUPID AMERICAN DOGS?

In case you missed it, Obamacare is back in the news with Jonathan Gruber’s comments that Obamacare passed due to a “lack of transparency” about the bill and the “stupidity of the American voter.”  As if these comments were not derogatory enough, Bill Maher chimed in comparing American voters to “dogs” that are simply not smart enough to know what’s good for them: “You basically slip a pill in the dog’s food, in a piece of ham, to get the dog to eat the pill.”  Bill Maher went on and admitted unabashedly that he had been making statements for years about the stupidity of the American voter.

Finally, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews simply could not help himself from jumping in to bolster the Liberal agenda: “Gruber was right”, Matthews said, “we’re going to take money from people who can afford insurance, who are healthy and young and don’t have expensive illnesses and give it to people who are sick and older.” 

Apparently if you thought that Liberals were pro-democracy, because they believe that the voter is the best one to make political decisions, you have just been proven wrong.  Clearly, Liberals do not think very highly of the American voter and that they are nothing more than stupid dogs who need a small group of elites to be their masters using deceptive means in order to get voters to swallow their masters’ decisions.

Ironically, the pro-democracy left are also the same group of people who claim that the electoral college is outdated, because it is nothing more than “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass” to elect the President.  Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 68. 

Despite all of their talk about democracy, the objective person can now more easily surmise the true motives of the liberal.  Remember that Hamilton cautioned us that “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.”  Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 1.

Constantly hammering the virtues of democracy at the expense of our Republican institutions, while confessing their belief about the stupidity of the American voter can only mean one thing—Liberals do not believe in the principle of democracy.  In actuality, they believe that democracy is a tool they can use to easily manipulate the 51% through the mainstream media in order to control the voter. 

In the beginning of our Republic, it was impossible for the left to control anything.  We had a “double security” established under the Constitution along with all of its other complicated system of checks and balances, wherein the state and federal governments would “control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”  Madison, The Federalist Papers, Letter 51.

However, once those checks and balances were removed, first by changing the election of Senators to a democratic 51% vote and then doing the same with the President, the left began their quest to control everything.

Of course, in order not to be discovered for their anti-constitutional beliefs, no member of the band on the left has ever publically excoriated the Constitution even though it repudiates democracy and specifically establishes a government that is “strictly republican.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Letter 39.  It has always been important to the left to keep up appearances.  As such, they always give lip service to the Constitution, while simultaneously undermining every major provision of that document through deception.

Even now, we hear cries from the left telling us that Obama’s most recent immigration actions are well within his constitutional executive power as president.  Even more so, the left is always careful to take care that they direct the bulk of their arguments to the heart of democracy, a principle they have convinced the American voter belongs at the very foundation of the Constitution.

A recent example can be found in an OpEd of the LA Times entitled “Obama’s order forces democracy”, wherein the writer calls Obama’s recent immigration Executive Order a “democracy-forcing . . . initiative.”  This OpEd even goes so far as to compare Obama’s unconstitutional action on immigration with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. 

Of course, the biggest fallacy with this analogy is that Lincoln’s Proclamation came in a day when the country was being torn apart by a civil war wherein Americans were killing other Americans to the tune of over 600,000 American soldiers—roughly the same number of American soldiers killed in all other conflicts combined. 

Also, Lincoln issued his Proclamation as part of a war strategy as the Commander-in-Chief in an effort to win the war.  Finally, Lincoln’s proclamation was issued on behalf of legal American citizens who were being held as slaves.  If you are going to make such comparisons as similar, then they need to be similar.

The only thing similar to Obama’s action and Lincoln is that they were both Presidents.  That is where the similarities end, since: we are not in a civil war; Americans are not killing each other in a massive civil war; Obama is not directing a war campaign as Commander-in-Chief trying to preserve the very existence of the Union; Obama’s order was not issued as part of a war strategy to end a civil war; Obama’s order does not protect people who are American citizens; Obama’s order was not made in the interest of time in order to stem the destruction of the Union; and Obama’s order protects people who have been breaking our laws.  In fact, many of these illegals have been treated as anything but slaves.  Unfortunately, Obama’s order and his continued lawlessness may soon cause a civil war.

If you have not figured it out by now, the tactics described above are what the left admits to as the “piece of ham” used “to get [us] dog[s] to eat the pill” of economic equality—in this case, forced national healthcare.

Government was only meant to protect a person’s property rights according to Madison who tells us that “the protection” of the “faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate . . . is the first object of government.”  Madison, The Federalist Papers, Letter 10.  Unfortunately, the left understands, as did Madison, that the “most common and durable” method to “unite and actuate” the citizenry is with the argument against the “unequal distribution of property”.   Id.

While Madison called this “rage” for the “equal division of property” an “improper or wicked project” for government to be engaged, he admitted that there would always be those “politicians” who “erroneously supposed” that they could reduce “mankind to a perfect equality.” Id.

It is laughable that Matthews and Maher see themselves as superior in intellect to the American voter because of their belief that government should take money from the “healthy and young” in order to give it to the “people who are sick and older” thereby making everyone equal. 

Yet, when one considers all the examples throughout history that prove the veracity of Madison’s wisdom on the subject, one can only wonder how Maher and Matthews can be taken seriously in the least degree.  Communism, which is the epitome of the Maher-Matthews principle, has been a dismal failure in every single, solitary instance–the two biggest failures being communist Russia and China. 

Lenin produced a system of supposed economic-equality that was filled with nothing but graft and murder from the start.  His successor Stalin butchered millions of his country’s citizens until, finally, the entire system collapsed and passed into oblivion.  Mao Tse-tung also adopted the state-enforced economic equality philosophy only to end up murdering 50 million of his country’s citizens.  Today, China has had to adopt capitalistic measures in order to survive.

What the proponents of government controlled economies do not understand is that their positions are actually a step backwards.  The American Republic was actually the progressive movement.  In the very first letter of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton predicts that the American nation, being “the most interesting in the world” had been “reserved” to “decide the important question”—whether people can exercise “choice” to govern themselves or whether “they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” 

By supporting government’s forceful taking from the younger section of society in order to give it to the older section for healthcare, “Mao Tse”-Maher/Matthews are actually promoting the system that existed in the world before the American Constitutional Republic was established.  The system of government taking people’s property by force to give to others has never worked, so how does wanting to go back to that way of governing make Maher and Matthews smarter than the rest of us?

Like Hamilton explained, our Constitutional Republic all boils down to personal “choice.”  This is exactly where charity belongs and not with the Maher and Matthews styled elites who want to make those choices for us.  The individual should only give to others, when it is a matter of free will and choice.  Under our Republic, the government has no place and can never force people to give unwillingly. 

The only institutions that should even be involved are the churches.  American churches should preach this principle from the pulpit in an effort to prevail upon their congregations to give willingly and freely of their possessions to those less fortunate, but no one should ever be forced to do so under our Republic.  Such is the genius of the American Revolution and the Republican government it created.

©November 2014 Stupid American Dogs?, Madame Publius™