You are here

What does “Alter or Abolish” mean?

Error message

  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $decorators_applied declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/
  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $relations declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/

“Death Panel” was rhetorical genius. Theorists and legislators use complex and nuanced language that usually flies over the heads of the public. “No,” they say, “there will not be death panels, just procedural review boards and end-of-life counseling.” In the ivory tower there is a difference. But in practical effect and in common terms, it’s the same thing.

Public opinion is not a courtroom. So we see politicians on all sides debating the translation of nuance into common terms. “You can keep your doctor.” Only if he isn’t driven out of his practice by the nuance and detail of the actual legislation.

Vox Day provides an example from arguments about rationing medical treatment for older Americans:

It's always interesting to see how people [Barry’s medical adviser, in this case] use language to maneuver around the plain meaning of a term. Saying that a form of age-related discrimination is not "invidious discrimination" is an open admission that it is discrimination, you just happen to think that it's justifiable. Clearly, that's where the anti-civil rights forces went wrong... they should have argued that race-based discrimination wasn't "invidious discrimination" and was therefore perfectly acceptable.

I know a lot of words. I’ve seen “invidious”, but couldn’t give a precise definition. So I wasn’t clear on the point being argued. According to Webster, definition (3) for “invidious”:

(a) : of an unpleasant or objectionable nature —  invidious remarks
(b) : of a kind to cause harm or resentment — an invidious comparison

In plainer terms, then, Obama’s medical adviser writes that government rationing care to the elderly is not objectionable. Discriminating by age is O.K.

Vox concludes:

Many of America's liberals have not only transformed into full-blown liberal fascists, they have reached a point of literal insanity from the Constitutional perspective. They're now quite openly arguing that private individuals cannot legally discriminate while the federal government legally can. This is the exact opposite of the Constitutional position; one wonders just what they believe the Right of Free Association to be.

The term “liberal fascist” is open to misunderstanding, too. I’ve just finished the book, so here’s what I think it means.

Fascism is government control or influence over every aspect of life. Not necessarily direct and total control, but at least living within strictly enforced boundaries of behaviour.

Liberal Fascism is that kind of control exercised for your own good. Instead of a boot on your neck or fist to your jaw, like the image of Nazi fascism, liberal fascism is a tight and inescapable hug. It may feel different, but in both cases you are deprived of liberty.

According to the modern lefties, we as individuals cannot discriminate on account of age. I have to hire with a blind eye to the costs and habits of a geriatric job applicant. But the government can ration care to that same person for the same reasons. Death Panels are O.K. as long as the government controls them.

What is this country? Where did the United States of America go? If the Constitution is a living document, it has mutated beyond recognition.

You might have seen these words before:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The current government and the current President aim to decide who lives and who dies. They are not securing those inalienable rights. They are destructive of them. By our founding documents and founding principles, it is time for change.