Health Care “Debate” A Total Scam, Phony War, As Demicans, Republicrats Ignore Most Important Questions Re: Godly, Constitutional Government
R.L. DABNEYBy John Lofton, Editor
The most important questions (in this order) re: any proposed government program are: (1) Is it Godly, which is to say does the program fit within the limits God has set for civil government (see, among other Scriptures, Romans, chapter 13.) (2) Is the program Constitutional within the limits set by Article I, Section 8 which lists the categories where Congress may spend money.
Providing “health care” is not allowed by God’s Word re: civil government. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize any spending on “health care.” Thus, any Federal “health care” proposal is un-Godly and un-Constitutional.
But, no Democrat, no Republican has said this - not one. *
Republicans — majoring in minors, as usual - have argued against the Democrat “health care” bill saying it is too expensive, increases taxes, increases the debt, etc. - all bread-alone arguments. Not a word has been said re: the Democrat “health care” bill being, per se, un-Godly, un-Constitutional.
This is typical of what passes for a “debate” in our Congress. The only things ever protested by Republicans are the cost, the intrusiveness, the debt raising aspects of un-Godly, un-Constitutional proposals. The un-Godliness of a proposal, the un-Constitutional nature of a proposal — these crucial, threshold, key, seminal questions - are never raised, never. That they are never raised tells us a lot about why all the unfunded promises of Congress add up to an approximately $56 trillion debt, according to David Walker, former head of the General Accounting Office.
An example of precisely that to which I am alluding is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). I heard Coburn on CSPAN radio saying that President Obama made a mistake by going too fast with his “health care” idea. He should have taken it slower and dealt with the few individual “health care” problems there are one-by-one. The President, said Coburn, should have sought to meet the Republicans “in the middle” on the “health care” issue instead of trying to run them over with his Democrat Congressional majority steamroller. Coburn added that if all this had been done, and 80 percent agreement between Republicans and Democrats had been sought by the President on “health care”, the “reform” of “health care” could have been achieved.
See what I mean? Coburn is majoring-in-minors. He’s straining at gnats but swallowing camels.
Coburn is supposed to be a “good guy,” a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is hard-liner who takes no prisoners. But, in fact, he is an ignorant, cowardly compromiser who does a lot of what R.L. Dabney* * called “respectable growling” but then caves in. But, Dabney put it much better and more succinctly than I can. Here’s what he said re: the secular, Godless, Coburn conservatism of his day (which was more than 150 years ago.):
“Conservatism’s history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”
Amen! And Amen!
*Yes, I know, some Republicans have said that certain mandatory aspects of the proposed “health care” plan are un-Constitutional. But, none of have said it is un-Constitutional for the Federal Government to be involved in any way with “health care.”
**Dabney was, among other things, a Presbyterian theologian and “Stonewall” Jackson’s chief of staff and chaplain. Read anything by him you can get your hands on.