7 07 2012

i was much less surprised than most people, it seems, when the Supreme Court, in one of its notorious 5-4 decisions, upheld the so-called “national health care plan” that has become known, among both its revilers and defenders, as “Obomacare.”  My lack of surprise came from two considerations:  what this law mandates, and where it originated.  What is surprising to me is the seemingly complete lack of public awareness of the broader context of this struggle.  But hey, this blog is called “Deep Green Perspective,”  not “Shallow Green Snap Judgement,” so if you’ve been following me for a while, it’s because you expect the long view.  Here goes.

Obamacare was upheld by the widely unexpected swing vote of Chief Justice John Roberts.  It makes perfect sense to me that Roberts would vote to uphold this godsend for the private insurance industry.  The Bush-Cheney stacked Supreme Court has never turned down an expansion of corporate power, has it?  So, in a sense, this decision was an extension of “Citizens’ United.”  Not only do “corporate citizens” have the “right” to spend freely in order to influence elections and legislation, those of us who are mere flesh-and-blood citizens  must give them our money so they have plenty of funds to expand their prerogatives.

But the really bizarre part of all this political drama is that everybody seems to have forgotten where the basis of “Obamacare” originated.  Republicans denounce it as “socialism,” Republican governors vow to do what they can to block its implementation in their states–which they can do, since part of the Supremes’ decision struck down the part of the law that mandated expansion of Medicare, and Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if he is elected.  On the other side, Democrats cheer the Supremes’ decision, viewing it as a somewhat unexpected “liberal” victory.

All this sturm-und-drang conveniently ignores, or forgets, the actual origins of Obama’s health plan.  May I remind you that Obama got the basics of it from the plan Mitt Romney passed when he was governor of Massachusetts?  It should be called “Romboma Care”–credit where credit is due! And may I remind you that Romney received the plan from the Angel Moroni–oo;s, no, that’s the Joseph Smith story–but, by the way, what does it mean that the Founding Angel of the Mormon faith has a name so dangerously close to a derogatory term for a person with a dull intellect?  But I digress….The plan Romney passed in Massachusetts originated with the deeply reactionary Heritage Foundation, spiritual home of Newt Gingrich, founded by Joe Coors, Paul Weyrich, and Richard Mellon Scaife.  The Heritage Foundation, whose patron saint is Margaret Freaking Thatcher.  Moloch!

thanks to the Platzner Post for this!

And so, all America’s Democrat Party “liberals” are celebrating a Democrat President’s implementation of a reactionary, corporatist “health care plan,” as if it were a great victory.  And somewhere, Spiro Agnew, who is reputed to have predicted, “This country is going to swing so far to the right that you won’t believe it,” somewhere Spiro Agnew smiled. Read the rest of this entry »


9 10 2005

John Roberts, a fascist, is now leading the United States Supreme Court, and two of the Democrats that I still had some respect for—Pat Leahy and Howard Feingold—helped put him there. Thanks, guys…So much for the two-party system.

Fascist? ! Fascist?! What do you mean, calling him a fascist? Didn’t we fight World War Two to stamp out fascism? No, sweetie, we fought World War Two to stamp out German/Italian/Japanese fascism and make sure American fascism would prevail. Sure, “fascism” is a loaded word—but it was Mussolini himself who defined it as the collaboration of government and big business for their mutual benefit—and that’s what’s going on in America today, and that ‘s what John Roberts and Harriet Miers are all about. Sure, they’re both anti-abortion (unless it’s for one of their kids, I’d bet), but that’s just a subset of their belief that people need to be tightly controlled and predictable for the sake of a better business climate. Gay rights? Hey, if that’s what it takes to keep you a satisfied citizen of the corporatocracy, they’ll give you that. Don’t be fooled.

A lot of people are wondering why on earth Mr. Bush has asked Ms. Miers to be on the court. They must be blind. As criminal investigations unravel the administration, as the Valery Plame affair points more and more at Rove, Cheney, and Bush, any potential felon who could would put his lawyer on the bench that might judge him.

The Republicans like to talk about the importance of impartial judges—but they’ve got a funny definition of “impartial.” To them it means, “someone who agrees with us.” Just look at the Native American Trust lawsuit, which I reported on in an earlier show. Judge Royce Lamberth is being taken off the case because it seemed likely that he would find for the plaintiffs—the Native Americans who have been ripped off by the U.S. government, which would result in the government having to pay billions to the tribes, who overall are some of the poorest people in America. But I digress.

And the Democrats? What are they doing about unindicted co-conspirator Bush stacking the courts in his favor? The Democrats are just playing along. Harry Reid even suggested Miers for the court! Not a word about impeachable offenses, not a word about war crimes, give the man what he wants. I am disgusted. I am glad I have a Green Party to turn to—but I sure hope we grow up fast.

%d bloggers like this: