The OutloudOpinion Network
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Previous Version
FREE Podcast Software: iTunes Juice
Podcasts Only
Subscribe: iTunes | RSS

February – Health Care in a Free Society – Paul Ryan

Listen to Article
SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties. The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress. Brought to you by
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

    Tags: great waves, health care reform, Obama, progressivism, robert lafollette, theodore roosevelt


    1. rn

      Andrew C. McCarthy re “America’s War On Islamist Terror Or Is It.” Some good points, but this guy was an Assistant U.S. Attorney? And he believes that America, such a nice country, has obeyed the protocols of war, such as “refraining from intentionally targeting civilians,” and that America has “well understood” this? That America believes targeting civilians is unlawful, and combatants who do this are war criminals… It all sounds very nice. Like all government propaganda, i.e. we are good and we know what’s good for you. But shouldn’t we be more interested in truth and reality? Start with Lincoln, for example. Lincoln and his generals declared total warfare against an innocent American people, willfully and intentionally murdering around 30,000 American civilians, not to mention the total destruction of private property and agrigulture (with the intention of starving everyone else they didn’t outright murder). What about the slaughter of innocent men, women and children in America because they were worthless native Americans? What about the intentional murder of innocent German civilians during WWII meant to terrorize the German population, purposefully bombing civilian (non-military) targets with incendiary bombs as well as normal bombs in order to make sure as many civilians could be killed as possible? And after all that murder, Mr. McCarthy seems to think it was a good thing that the American government executed (murdered?) young German soldier prisoners in the United States because they may have been saboteurs and Roosevelt needed to show how tuff he was, -as if murdering thousands of innocent German civilians in Germany wasn’t enough already. Whatever one may believe, whether these actions were “justified” or not, it is a lie to claim that America has refrained from intentionally targeting civilians. Yes, and what about the “President’s obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?’” What president has done that in the last 150 or so years? None. They have intentionally sought to destroy the Constitution, -and McCarthy disagrees and makes an issue out of Taney’s position? Maybe Taney didn’t have the “answer” that McCarthy wanted, but subverting the Constitution and usurping power from the American people isn’t the answer either. The Constitution of “…Lincoln, that of a free, self-governing people,” as McCarthy says, -is that a joke? Lincoln was a destroyer of self-governing people, a murderer of self-governing people, putting it mildly. Let’s see, about half of America decided that it wanted to exercise it’s right of self-government, of government by the consent of the governed, as our Declaration of Independence puts it, and without any Constitutional authority, Lincoln decided to put an army together in order to invade a sovereign, self-governing people, Americans, slaughtering and murdering them? McCarthy must be talking about some other Constitution, yes, probably a Lincoln Constitution, but not the American Constitution. McCarthy says “Lincoln suspended habeas corpus” because the “survival of the Union hung in the balance.” Let’s get this straight. Taking away American rights, conquering the southern half of the American population, murdering civilians, destroying a peaceful, self-governing people is saving the Union? The only reason he suspended habeas corpus was to make it easier to shut up his opposition in the North, try them in military courts and throw them in prison. Isn’t that normally called a Putsch? He even put out a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney when he told Lincoln that he couldn’t suspend habeas corpus. Putting a gun to the head of a self-governing people, forcing them to obey a government not to their choosing, occupying a person’s country with a foreign military, taking away all their basic American rights, -you call that saving the Union? What kind of Union is that? Certainly not a Union of freedom loving Americans. Next time you want to save your marriage union, just murder your spouse and call that saving the marriage. Makes a lot of sense. This is exactly why America is in trouble today. It’s NOT a country based on liberty or on truth or on a free, self-governing people, but thanks to people like Lincoln, who usurped their power from the American people through military force, we lost our original form of government, a republic of republics, getting what we have now, a type of democratic monarchy, or perhaps more accurately, a reverse type of Faschism, where big business and finance controls the government. McCarthy has good points, but they’re worthless when based on government propaganda and false history.

    2. Mica

      This octopus is absolutely the most honest prophet

    3. sw

      RN, quite a rant. What, in your educated opinion and observation, would your approach be to the address of the current geopolitical situation – where people of many nations seek to wreak havoc on other nations through terror (including Russia, the US, the UK. It is one thing to rant and justify, but quite another to look at the current situation and propose a path forward.

    Leave a Reply

    New to Podcasts? Start Here

    Our Podcasts


    Podcasts Only
    © 2016 OutloudOpinion. | Home | Contact Us | Subscribe | RSS(more) | Advertisers | Top^