Barack Obama has rammed through Obamacare Obamacontrol despite 59% public opposition. Helen Clark rammed through the anti-smacking law despite 83% public opposition. All politicians are ideologically driven, and my guess is that 99% of them think they know better than everyone else and therefore don’t care about public opinion unless it will have an adverse affect on their career. But this blatant ignorance of the opinion of the majority of the people that they supposedly serve is extraordinary, even when compared to the high-handed standards of most politicians. What are the parallels in these situations?
- both politicians are from the far, far left
- both measures increase state control of individuals
- both measures are very unpopular
- both measures involve legislative changes, and pro-state laws are rarely reversed
- both measures will have a profound and ongoing effect on society, affecting generations to come
- both measures further the anti-family agenda of the far, far left. Obamacare will almost certainly lock in state funding of abortions, and the anti-smacking law resulted in school children being told to call the police if their parents smacked them (thus showing the true purpose of the anti-smacking law, i.e. state control of the parent-child relationship).
Barack Obama and Helen Clark are two politicians with many parallels and this can seen in their actions: these actions show their true agenda (state control, anti-family, etc). Pushing through such unpopular measures is tantamount to political suicide, and I suspect that the politicians on the far, far left are willing to ‘die’ for their cause.
1) Watch a video where Obama says that he wants to put private insurance companies out of business. The legislation that has been passed is their coffin.
2) Gary North says
Why is government-funded medical care so important? Because it is the symbol of a state that has the power to extend life. It is the supreme agency of healing. Any government that does not pass laws funding and controlling the health care delivery system is seen by the apologists of state power as being inconsistent. A state that cannot heal is not a true god. The modern humanist state presents itself as the final court of appeal. It supposedly possesses final sovereignty.
Four centuries ago, this was called the divine right of kings. That meant that the king was the final court of appeal. There was no one or nothing higher, other than God. Today, the government’s position is that there is no God. Therefore, the state is the final sovereign. It is God by default.
A final sovereign must possess the power of life and death. So, we live under the jurisdiction of a welfare-warfare state.