The Classic Liberal Blog

Nancy Pelosi, the United States Speaker of the House and America's #2 most powerful elected official, claimed that Americans who went to "townhall meetings" to voice their opinion against a national health care bill, were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that."

Of course, Pelosi lied.

Today, she (and Steny Hoyer (D-MD)) published an op-ed in USA Today, labeling institutionalized health care protesters as "un-American." This is just more of the Democrats favorite strategery of triangulation. But let's test her claims anyways.

First, Pelosi's "Nazi" claim ... The term Nazi refers to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Nazi Party's "Twenty-Five Point Programme" includes:

... that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens ... the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations ... profit-sharing in large enterprises ... extensive development of insurance for old-age … land reform suitable to our national requirements …

Hmmm ... sounds a lot like the Democratic Party platform if you ask me. In a 1931 interview, Hitler told a pro-business newspaper:

“I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

Once again, we have an eery correlation to the Democratic Party platform.

The Nazis hated "profit!" In it's place, the economy was to be "guided" through regulation, based on the needs of the State. The Nazi State used government takeovers and/or threats of takeover, to get companies to comply to their demands. The Nazi's also heavily regulated agriculture, hated big banks, demanded 2-years mandatory volunteer service to the State, favored the abortion of "undesirables," and even promoted a "green" economy.

Oh, and the Nazis strongly favored nationalized health care too!

Then of course, we have the Nazi symbolism of the Democratic Party's health care plan. How can anyone ignore the similarities?

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate

Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care.

Health coverage for all was on the national agenda as early as 1912, thanks to Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose presidential run.

"Bull Moose" was the nickname of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party, so of course he put nationalized health care on the agenda. From The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

It was the Republican TR, who insisted in his 1910 speech on the "New Nationalism" that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." He was at one here with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans' respect for their Constitution as "blind worship," and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its "preface" -- i.e., the part of it that establishes the protection of equal natural rights as the permanent task of government.

In his New Nationalism speech he noted how, in aiming to use state power to bring about economic equality, the government should permit a man to earn and keep his property "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." The government itself of course would determine what represented a benefit to the community, and whether society would be better off if an individual's wealth was transferred to somebody else.

We can see the triumph of this outlook in progressive income taxation, which TR trumpeted in his speech (along with progressive estate taxes).

When the progressive movement started, the Constitution wouldn't allow (and still doesn't) the government programs they desired, so they set about trying to destroy the concept that all people are endowed "with certain unalienable Rights."

Political scientist Charles Merriam stated in 1902 that "natural law and natural rights" had been rejected by progressive social scientists "with practical unanimity." Instead, "the state is the source of individual liberty" and therefore "no limit can be set to governmental activity."

lib⋅er⋅ty
–noun, plural -ties.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

They even had to lie about the definition of liberty!

Pelosi and Hoyer continue:

Months after World War II came to an end in 1945, President Harry Truman called on Congress to guarantee all Americans the "right to adequate medical care and protection from the economic fears of sickness." From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all.

In defense of their socialist health care plan, all we get from them is more triangulation! The funny part here is, that Pelosi and Hoyer tell us that for over 100 years, "we the people" have been AGAINST nationalized health care, yet they see this as their defense of nationalized health care.

Um, Nancy, after 100 years, if Americans really wanted it, we'd have it by now! But we're all aware that this is about what YOU want, not about what "we the people" want.

We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate ...

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue ... protesters also shouted "Just say no!" ...

Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.

Hmmm ... does Pelosi mean SEIU's disruption of public meetings? Or maybe it's the Democratic politician who yelled at his constituents she's talking about. Because the Left doesn't want health care debated. If they did, they wouldn't spend all their time trying to discredit the American people. Think about it ...

If their plan actually had any merit, they wouldn't worry about protesters. Then again, if their plan had any merit, they wouldn't have exempted themselves from it either. In fact, if it was any good at all, they'd be the first one's wanting to sign up!