[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]The news is not always as logical as we are told it is, especially on the northern side of the aisle where Democrats are accustomed to dealing with the rubes who form their base. Being uncomplicated people, rubes are incurious. They do not require explanations.
For several years, Democrats have been telling their open-mouthed base that 47 million Americans are suffering without healthcare.
Who says they are “suffering”?
May I introduce you to Mother Goose?
Tens of millions of Americans have no use for, no desire to purchase health care. Sorry, pal. Their money. They can choose. Or can they?
Non-Thinkers Line up Over Here
Since liberal philosophy is heavily invested in rubes, just telling the base that government knows what is best for them, usually works. Just ask my fellow Jews and my non-fellow blacks.
These two groups are biggest and dimmest and most loyal rubes of all.
Every Election Day, like good little robots, they pat down their hair, empty their minds and drive off to the polls to vote the way they have been directed much of their lives.
As long as Democrats can count on 95 percent of blacks and 85 percent of Jews to be in lockstep, they have an excellent chance to win.
And so the beat goes on that 47 million Americans “suffer” from the lack of health care.
Gather ‘Round, and Ye Shall Hear
“Forty-seven” is an impressive number — sounds big because it is close to one-sixth of America’s population. “Forty-seven” also appears to be the product of scientific research, not a rounded-off number.
Closer inspection shows that “47” is not even related to the truth by marriage, that the number of Americans who desire but cannot afford health insurance is much closer to 7 million. There are lots of “7 millions” in this country, including unhappy young men who just need a nudge to try and overthrow the government, Democrat or Republican.
Nuttiness in Vogue for a Dem
We told you last Friday about the Westside’s updated version of the Nutty Professor, Paul Cummins, the founder of two prestigious Westside private schools. He believes that too much personal freedom caused slavery, the subjugation of women and homelessness. Where do you start with such a balmy fellow?
In last Friday’s column in the liberal weekly the Santa Monica Mirror, the Nutty Professor said that “health care for all Americans” was the No. 1 priority on his agenda, not an original idea but respectable.
Like many liberals, he craves impreciseness. What does his nifty-sounding phrase mean?
Since John Kerry’s defeat in ’04, Democrats have turned their socialized notion of health care for all Americans into a baseball bat to swing at President Bush. “Health care” packs such a sympathetic ring.
From Madame, a Lesson in Morality
If a Democrat is elected nine months from today, “Health Care” may replace you-know-what as our National Anthem.
With a heavenly choir chirping in the background, Madame Clinton said last week that “universal coverage is a Democratic core value and a moral principle.”
Consider what she said, no doubt unthinkingly: Universal coverage is a moral principle? By what socialized measurement?
Madame Clinton said on ABC television’s Sunday morning show yesterday that she might consider garnishing workers’ wages to force them to buy health care.
Wait a moment, Madame.
I thought 47 million Americans were suffering, not dawdling on a street corner, watching all the girls go by.
Parsing the Meaning of Suffering?
Why, Madame Clinton, would you be forced to garnish — wow, garnish — the wages of blue-collar workers whom you love if they are genuinely suffering and would do almost anything legal to obtain health care coverage?
Maybe, Madame, they are not suffering. Maybe you just made up the concept?
For honest Democrats, the answer is that compulsion forms a spine of traditional Democrat Party philosophy.
If the rubes refuse to do what you know darned well is best for them, force ‘em.
