A disturbing video has surfaced regarding maneuverings in the House of Representatives to effect a national government takeover of the health care industry.
That's Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida doing the Indiana Jones imitation:
Indiana: Meet me at Omar's. Be ready for me. I'm going after that truck.
Sallah: How?
Indiana: I don't know, I'm making this up as I go.
Hastings, of course, is a former federal judge who was "impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury" (and just in case you need to ask...). He didn't play by the rules then, either.
The rules?
Yes. Here's the rule book.
The one prompting another rule-breaker to respond "Are you serious?" when asked where it authorized a federal health care takeover...
No wonder they so hate those who take their oaths to it seriously.
Here's the thing: the rules don't just protect us as citizens. They also protect the government.
If we throw out rule of law and replace it with rule of men, no one will be protected.
We'll be forced to protect ourselves.
How?
I don't know. I suppose we'll make it up as we go.
Also see:
Will House health care bill create new class of 'prohibited persons'?
Can health care bill still endanger gun owners?
Pelosi calls her financial backers 'villains'
Comments
Only two rules worth having:
Do not initiate or delegate the initiation of force and be prepared to defend yourself against the initiation of force by others.
Keep your promises.
If we keep those, we don't need any others.
Great post. Will mirror asap today.
The referenced recording clearly ends prior to the completion of the statement issued by Mr. Hastings, evidently begins following the initiation of the statement and lacks any meaningful surrounding context of the statement. Deriving conclusions regarding the intent of a given statement based upon a demonstrably incomplete statement divorced from any meaningful context is fallacious.
That's fine, we can put it in context. The C-Span original is here:
www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/20/HP/A/30894/House+Rules+Committee+Weekend+Meeting.aspx
He starts a 4:44.
He rues that we can't all "share" with "the least of us" (i.e., socialism), misapplies an Edison quote to justify collectivism and then afterward starts pointing out Republican sins, as if "Billy's mom let's him do it" is an excuse.
Nice try, though.
I have attempted only to note that presenting a quote out of context as a means of demonstrating the intended meaning of a given statement is fallacious. I am familiar with observing fallacious argumentation issued by civilian disarmament advocates, as it is one of the only two methodologies -- the other being dishonesty -- employed by such advocates. I am less familiar with such reasoning being employed by those who advocate civilian firearm ownership rights.
Dimensio:
I can't find the full clip anywhere. Care to give one, in the interest of giving the whole truth? We have the Boehner Edit above, but even the longer versions I have found are edited.
The most complete one I can find transcribes as follows:
"I wish that I had been there when Thomas Edison made the remark that I think applies here. ‘They ain’t no rules around here, we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all of this talk about rules – we make ‘em up as we go along. And I’m here now 18 years and a significant amount of [EDITED] time here under the leadership of the Republicans, who at no time, even when they claim all they did for the prescription drugs, they left that big old donut hole in. And they never talk about that they did not pay for it, while they are here now claiming that they are fiscal conservatives."
Also:
I'm not going to challenge the Congress' authority to make its own parliamentary rules. However, this doesn't change the fact that Congress has zero constitutional authority to seize the assets of millions of Americans for the purposes of bribing votes--or to destroy the medical markets segment with price-fixing justified by inexcusable ignorance.
I'm sorry that Medicare is about to go insolvent, and this will cost the Democrats a large chunk of previously loyal baby boomer votes--but hey, we tried to warn 'em.
We're arguing about parliamentary rules when the bill is flatly illegal. It's the same old baloney: when someone challenges Congress about the authority to spend the money illegally, they always perform theater while pretending their power to tax is what has been challenged.
Love it....
This is the first corollary to the Golden Rule, isn't it?
Ok you base an attack entirely off of a selectively edited NINE SECOND clip of one lawmaker. You did not even let him finish a paragraph. Do you realize how many ways every person on earth could be made to look like a tyrant if you cut out nine second portions of their speeches? At least try to be fair. Geez.
As for "rule breaking." No such "rules" are being broken. Health care is not being taken over. Do not confuse being in the minority with being in a tyranny. I was not happy with many of the laws Bush passed with Republicans but I never confused it with a tyranny or accused them of "breaking the rules." Our side lost the 2000 and 2004 election, we took our lumps and then we won. I personally never threatened violence, explicitly or implied, against the majority because they DARED to actually pass laws using their majority. I do not think you should either.
MamaLiberty, that's concise and immune to further argument. Beautiully done, mem.
"Health care is not being taken over. Do not confuse being in the minority with being in a tyranny."
It's okay, Mr. Witt, you don't have to defend LBJ--he won't be running for another term.
The federal medical voter-bribe schemes alone account for a fifth of the budget--84 million residents depend on it, and it determines what is covered, how much is covered and who may provide care. There is also federal legislation that determines how and where medical insurance companies may operate. I guess, using the same logic, we could also say that a quadriplegic isn't *entirely* immobile.
Our established form of government isn't a pure democracy. The federal government can only legally do what the Constitution says it can do, and there's an incomplete list of rights that the Anti-Federalists insisted be spelled out for the morons. If you're arguing that it's legal if enough people gang up on other to rob them, well that's not constitutional law, that's jungle law.
"At least try to be fair. Geez."
You haven't been paying attention to Codrea for long, have you? Fairness, honesty, and other related concepts are the LAST things he and his friends have in mind.
Well Charlie, I'm sure you'll be able to lay down it for us, then. Where are the examples of David lying and cheerleading the Republican flavor of the kleptocrat state?
I figure you'll be able to post them here within a few hours. At least, if I was going to accuse someone of lying, I'd have some sort of proof on hand, ready to go--you know, like links to articles about crimes and perjury. In fact, I'd probably post them along with my original accusation, so I wouldn't have to do it later.
TJP - You know better than to feed the trolls.
First, those who have the guns make the rules. Then moneylenders show up with gold and they make the rules and buy the services of men with guns. The moneylenders collude with gov't to use taxpayers as security for unlimited credit. Gov't empowers itself by amending the Constitution to tax everyone on any type of income, develops a million + word tax code with loopholes for corporations & cronies who’ll donate to their campaigns, an agency with men with guns to collect taxes, and gov't borrows more money than even exists. The whole ponzi-scheme gets totally out of control when money companies make billions of dollars off of bad loans.
Gov’t bails them out, then tries to take over the healthcare industry, dupe Americans into an evolved form of fiat currency with carbon credits under a global warming hoax & legalize illegals to get them on the tax rolls to hide the scam.
So. Those with the gold make the rules and buy the men with guns to enforce rules they make as they go along.
Frontiersman Davy Crocket, while running for relection to the U.S. Congress, was admonished by one of his constituents for voting in favor of a taxpayer-funded charity. Crockett knew it was unconstitutional; and all of Congress knew it was unconstitutional, but did it anyhow.
Just as then, today's problem is: 1] Congress must be constantly reminded by the voters that the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land". 2] It's axiomatic that we always have exactly the government we deserve.
Come this November, if we don't vote the bastards out, we'll have exactly the government we deserve...and nothing more.
Thanks and keep up the good work, David.
I strongly suggest all Conservatives with the courage of their convictions simply refuse to file and pay income taxes. They do not have the resources to arrest and prosecute millions upon millions of Americans! They will be forced to offer some kind of amnesty and negotiating with us. If they try to arrest us, shoot to kill! The democrat majority in Congress willfully and knowingly passed legislation opposed by a majority of Americans. The Federal Government is now, without doubt, illegitimate!
As of Sunday, March 21, 2010, we the people have been divested of the duty to obey any law we simply don't like. It doesn't matter if the law we don't like is constitutional or just or morally correct, we now have no duty to it. We can as Hastings said "Make it up as we go along". Congress has destroyed the Republic. We have no duty to a non-existant entity. They should have thought of that. But they didn't. They deserve all the unpleasantness we can supply. We deserve to serve only our own individual self interests as that is now the new rule as codified by Congress last night.
We are bound only by our own moral compasses from this point forward.
No court, no law enforcement agency, no governmental department has any legitimate right or power to now demand of us anything.
straightarrow- That line was actually crossed by Lincoln (if not before).
Yup, I called this one:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
"The first changes under the new health care law will be easy to see and not long in coming: There'll be $250 rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare drug coverage gap..."
They've passed a massive, crippling tax increase on overworked people (who can now barely afford their local taxes), and the businesses that can barely afford to keep them employed--during a depression with 10 percent unemployment--just so they can bribe the voters in time for November.
Learn more about Communist Congressman Hastings here:
www.commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html
YOU WILL BE SHOCKED!
David, isn't it surprising how the hypocritical Statists, anti-civil rights crowd cries foul telling us that States, Cities and Towns have the RIGHT to set their own gun control measures, but that those same entities do not have that same right concerning the intolerable act of taking over of 1/6th of our economy despite the 10th Amendment. Then, making this even more toxic, the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental, pre-existing right as detailed by our Founding Fathers and healthcare is clearly not! It’s enough to make you rush for the medicine cabinet and down an entire bottle of Pepto Bismol..
Kent,
I believe the line was crossed MUCH earlier.
In 1794, George Washington called out and actually led federal troops into Pennsylvania to enforce the hated internal tax on whiskey – The Whiskey Rebellion. It’s said that Washington’s action settled the question. A matter of, “do as we say or we’ll kill you.” Nothing much has changed - has it?
[W-III]
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!