Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion


VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Itching for a change, and they don't care what it is'

In the Oct. 7 debate between half the presidential candidates who will be on your Nov. 4 ballot -- no candidates who disagree with the "Big Banker Bailout" were allowed -- John McCain said health care is "a responsibility." Barack Obama said "health care is a right."

These are clever phrasings designed to allow the candidates and their parties to deny what they really mean. But we know what they mean.


Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...




  • Of course we can feel "responsible" to pay for medical care for a child or loved one. But that's not what Kleptocrat McCain meant. He meant it's "a responsibility" for the government to step in and pay for desired health care -- including elective sex-change surgery -- for someone who can't afford it.

    Of course, given that hospitals generally allow you to pay off a bill at $10 per week forever, and that folks who claim they "can't afford" medical care often own color televisions wired for cable, cell phones, Gameboys, iPods, two cars and a motorboat, I suspect "can't afford it" usually means "had other priorities than saving for a rainy day" -- which was certainly a lot easier back before the income tax.

    This is a role once played by private charity. Hospitals would take some part of the fees earned by delivering top-class care to paying customers and use it to provide second-class care to the poor at little or no charge -- the "charity patients" wouldn't get private rooms, stuff like that.

    Kleptocrat McCain, supposedly a conservative, could have said, "That's the role of private charity; we need to repeal these down-the-road-to-socialism Medicare and Medicaid 'entitlements' now." But he did not.

    As for Kleptocrat Obama, he could have said we have a "right to medical liberty." That would have been a wonderful thing for a candidate to say. Why didn't he?

    The Bill of Rights is misnamed. It should be called the "Bill of Prohibitions." Think you have a right to a jury trail? Go down to the courthouse and demand a jury trial. They'll tell you can't have one because you're not charged with anything.

    This so-called "right" is really a restriction on government. It means they're (supposedly) prohibited from killing you, locking you up, or seizing all your stuff unless they first give you a jury trial, at which they have to convince every one of a randomly selected dozen of your peers that you deserve such punishment.

    True "rights" impose no obligation on anyone else. If we still had the "right to medical liberty" that Americans had before 1787 -- right up to 1913, actually -- any American could grow marijuana or cocaine for his own use or to sell to anyone we see fit; any practitioner could prescribe medications or treatments without government license. That's the way things should be, since the government is granted no power in the Constitution to infringe our medical liberties, which are guaranteed by the 9th Amendment even though otherwise "unenumerated."

    But no current statist politician would tolerate "setting our people free" to that extent -- especially Fearless Drug Warriors McCain and Obama.

    What Mr. Obama means is that if a doctor won't treat you or a pharmacist won't sell your medicines because you don't have any money since you spent it all on beer and lottery tickets, the government must put a gun to that person's head and require him to provide you with the "medical care" you desire, at which point the government cop, still holding the gun, will "strongly urge" the practitioner to settle for one-third of his usual fee, to be paid out of funds stolen from someone else.

    This doctrine that '"health care is a right" is nothing new. It's the doctrine that drove all the best practitioners and innovators out of Eastern Europe between 1917 and 1939, reducing Soviet medicine to the point where the average male life expectancy is now 59, 17 years after those drunken boors supposedly "gave up socialism."

    Know anyone who flies to Russia in search of quality medical care?

    Kleptocrat Obama sighs and chuckles like it's silly for his opponents to point out the mentor at whose knee he grew up in Hawaii, the man to whom he refers in his book "Dreams from My Father" simply as "Frank," was in fact communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.

    Sen. Obama sighs and chuckles like it's silly for his opponents to point out the "father" mentioned in "Dreams from My Father" was Nairobi collectivist Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who enthusiastically wrote, "There is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

    Sen. Obama sighs and chuckles like it's silly for his opponents to focus on his close relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant Weatherman co-founder who participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, according to Ayers' own 2001 book, "Fugitive Days." Ayers told Chicago magazine in 2001 he wishes he'd blown up more stuff.

    And we haven't even gotten to the doctrines of Saul "The Red" Alinsky.

    None of these connections prove Sen. Obama is a terrorist, his supporters sneer, rolling their eyes at the absurdity of the charge.

    Of course Kleptocrat Obama is not a terrorist. He doesn't need to be. Instead, the velvet-voiced Obama is advancing the agenda of those four mentors by putting into play the Corleone Doctrine, that one man with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred guys with guns.

    Kleptocrat Obama and his party hope to get to the same level of wealth redistribution favored by Lenin and Trostky, though they're smart enough to see this country can be led into that death pit far more smoothly by first leading to the polls enough gullible women and children trained to these doctrines by their union tutors in the youth propaganda camps with slogans such as "We're all in this together" and "The greedy rich must be made to pay their fair share," than by simply lining us up and shooting us.

    The lunatics in the play "Marat/Sade" sang, "We want our rights, and we don't care how; We want a revolution now."

    My personal Congresscritter, Shelley Berkley, told me last week, "My constituents are itching for a change, and they don't care what it is."

    The best thing that ever happened to this crew was when the Right foolishly declared in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed of its own tyrannical weight, that "socialism was dead."

    No. As the socialist python finishes swallowing our newly state-socialized banking industry, it has just conquered what was once the greatest free nation in the world, without a shot being fired.

    Go ahead, tax the rich and their earnings. They will shift more of their capital to friendlier climes overseas and re-invest their profits there. You'll still be able to land a job ... if you're willing to emigrate to Indonesia.

    Vin Suprynowicz (vsuprynowicz@reviewjournal.com) is the assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of "The Black Arrow." See www.VinSuprynowicz.com/.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 19 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Bill Smith wrote on November 03, 2008 08:39 AM: If voting did any good, it would be illegal. When you vote, you have no right to complain as you are indorsing the system for what it is and accept the outcome.


    JB wrote on October 20, 2008 01:01 PM: "Go ahead, tax the rich and their earnings. They will shift more of their capital to friendlier climes overseas and re-invest their profits there. You'll still be able to land a job ... if you're willing to emigrate to Indonesia."

    They are already doing it Vin WITH THE LARGEST CORPORATE TAX CUTS IN HISTORY by your idiot president. You actually believe this crap when you are writing it. Pathetic.


    Rocketman wrote on October 20, 2008 07:50 AM: IMHO this country is being so incredibly poorly run that within 20 to 30 years at the outside it will break up to between 5 to 8 new countries just like the old Soviet Union did. Unfortunately, unlike the old Soviet Union however, it don't think the breakup is going to be largely peaceful.


    timinator wrote on October 19, 2008 08:06 PM: Well, let's review the last 20 years of prez elections: Every four years both flavors of republicrats pretend to be more conservative than they actually are, because they know the majority of Americans (even after the massive socialist brainwashing that has gone on for decades) would reject them if they actually declared what their radical agenda is.

    Whether it is raising taxes, instigating new socialist programs, interfering in other nations' affairs, creating unconstitutional laws, bailing out their corporate buddies, leaving our borders virtually unprotected, eliminating jobs via foreign trade agreements, etc., these have all caused a loss of liberty, destruction of our middle class and a multi-trillion dollar debt that cannot be paid off.

    A month or so ago, Ron Paul explained that because the Commission on Presidential Debates was created and is still controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties, it is nearly impossible to get third-party candidates a place in the debates.

    To further explain the problems with the current election process, Paul also quoted one of Bill Clinton’s favorite professors from Georgetown University, Carrol Quigley, who wrote "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time", describing how the globalists control America:

    "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

    Twenty years of attempting to "throw the rascals out" have only proved Quigley correct, and this year's "change agent" is no different - the result will be more welfare/warfare statism.

    "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss..."


    Bill wrote on October 19, 2008 07:41 PM: Just want to remind everyone that the Federal Elections Commission has made the following statement:
    "Due to the extreme divisiveness and anger between the two parties, all Republicans will be required to vote on Tuesday, November 4, and all Democrats will vote on Wednesday, November 5."


    Sandy wrote on October 19, 2008 03:45 PM: What a refreshing article, well-written and chock-full of truths about Sen. Obama and his 'plans.'

    I shook my head in agreement with several of your points on health care, Obama's father and mentors, and the Lenin/Trotsky comparison on wealth distribution and the youth propaganda camps. Those of us who cared enough to do our 'homework' on Obama have long ago learned about his background and the radical teaching of young children in his 'Obama Camps.'

    Rep. Berkley's constituents who 'want change and don't care what it is' had better think long and hard about this position. Sometimes getting what you wish for results in wishing you had not...


    Jim wrote on October 19, 2008 02:53 PM: You can change a dirty diaper, but in no time it will be full of you know what, so be careful, be very careful of what you wish/vote for. HITLER changed things, didn't he.


    Bob_Robertson wrote on October 19, 2008 02:06 PM: Unclear, the answer of who to vote for is for the candidate which most closely matches your opinions.

    If no candidate does so, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE. If there is no "None Of The Above", then leave that space blank.

    Asking someone else who to vote for is silly. If you have to ask, you shouldn't be voting.


    Wayne A. Violette wrote on October 19, 2008 01:41 PM: I want to thank you for telling it like it is in your Sunday column: Itching for a change, and they don't care what it is. We have never been in as much danger of losing our county to the radicals as we are now and this is one of the most crucial election we have had in our history. I have lost almost all of my faith in our leaders and the media. Thanks for helping to get the truth out.


    Jim wrote on October 19, 2008 12:14 PM: That was supposed to be Nov 5th, not October.


    Read All Comments