Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Drug Money for Democrats Buys Big Government, Not True Compassion

Posted May 29 2008 12:00am

Headline: Dems still in the pharma-contribution lead "...here are the newest figures: $639,124 for Sen. Barack Obama and $574,828 for Sen. Hillary Clinton, compared with $168,300 for Sen. John McCain."

Are you still under the illusion that only Republicans love Big Pharma? The two sides of the same coin are at it again, this time going donkey tails.

It's just the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex hedging its bets, as it always does. No matter who loses, they win. Unless and until we are courageous enough to support CONSTITUTIONAL candidates for public office, whether they be local, state or federal, we will get more of the same. I suppose that if you do not mind large, invasive government regulating when and how you can wipe your nose and if you can have herbal remedies or not, you're pretty happy with the Obama/Clinton/McCain ticket.

Another option might be a vote of no confidence, or no vote at all. It is not your civic duty to vote for your own medical enslavement, is it?

How could a country with so much promise get it so horribly wrong? For one, it doesn't help that we get our "nutrition" from drugs instead of whole, organic food. Another aspect of our descent into tyranny is our misplaced trust in a bureaucratic oligarchy; particularly one that attempts to regulate our lives to the point where we not only lose our freedom, but our imagination as well.

The political pundits (and many of those who listen to them) think that Ron Paul is radical because he proposes that government return to only the activities for which it is specifically authorized by the Constitution.

"However would we get by without so much government?"

What? The above question is often asked of anyone who would like to see government reduced to its constitutionally limited role (hint: Ron Paul Republicans ). The question itself indicates a critical deficiency disease.

"In this case what is lacking is the imagination to see that life goes on just fine without massive coercion and theft by the state."
In fact, if you are invested in freedom, it goes on much better. Those that do not share such liberty-loving ideals will ultimately be forced to change their views -- but not by force of regulation nor an angry mob. What then will change the hearts and minds of those lovers of Big Government?

Life. "Hard knocks" are inevitable as our overgrown bureaucracy collapses in on itself as it reaches the limit of its "unlimited" growth. Unreasonable taxation, borrowing from China and printing fiat dollars like there is no tomorrow are all serving to hasten the inevitable -- the demise of government of, by and for the corporation.

Those who want to dismantle the welfare/warfare/police state are often accused of being callous, cold, cruel and lacking in compassion for those "less fortunate" -- as if government is the only thing that can bring comfort and charity to those most in need. What is compassionate about the delusion that politicians working within an untenable bureaucracy can save anyone from anything?

True compassion is recognizing the problem and correcting it BEFORE it is a disaster. The blueprint laid out in is most compassionate because it allows for a transition for those who have become dependent upon the welfare state for their very survival. Obama, Clinton and McCain, through their feigned ignorance of the impending collapse are actually the ones who lack compassion.

Do career politicians really care what happens to the "neediest" among us when the welfare rug is pulled out from beneath them with no time for transition? Certainly you don't think that John McCain understands what causes catastrophic inflation. He's probably under the impression that oil producing nations are greedy, which may be reason enough for him to declare war on them with your money. Hillary will blame the oil companies and argue for universal gas coverage to go along with drugs for everyone. You can "yes we can" Barack all you want -- he can't put the "worth" back in worthless fiat money, even if it is pharmaceutical.

Only Ron Paul has a plan to head off disaster at the pass. Are we courageous and mature enough to take the road less traveled? Or what about Bob?

Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches