   |
|||
Socialized MedicineHoward S. Katz The “passage” of the Obama “health care” proposal is a significant change in the political scene. Some of it directly affects our program as gold bugs. Some goes beyond this. But it all is one integrated whole, and it has to be understood if we are to make our way in this world. “Passage” and “health care” are in quotations for the following reasons. There are passages in the bill which will be interpreted to institute a European-style program of murder of elderly people who are judged too expensive to treat. This was openly advocated by Obama-supporting Newsweek Magazine whose Sept. 21, 2009 front cover presented “The Case for Killing Granny.” Every European country (plus Canada) has followed the German practice of killing those people expensive to treat. In Germany, this practice morphed directly into the Holocaust. And of course there is no way that killing people can be described as health care. It is the exact opposite of health care, which involves the saving of life. Second, the Obama-supported legislation did not pass into law (despite the loud proclamations to the contrary by the media). First, no act of Congress can become law in the United States unless it is in accord with the Constitution. The Constitution lists 17 powers of Congress (areas in which it can legislate), and health care is not one of the 17. This is important because the Tenth Amendment specifically states that powers omitted from the list do not belong to the Federal Government. Therefore, no health care legislation can ever (or has ever) pass(ed) Congress. Second, everyone is aware of the corruption and outright bribery which was used to get 219 votes in the House. It brings to mind the old saying that an honest politician is one whom, when bought, stays bought. The problem here is that these politicians were bribed with the public’s money. If Obama had taken the bribe money out of his own pocket, that would have been very bad. But instead he stole money from us to bribe our own congressmen to kill us. This stealing of money by the executive branch is also unconstitutional. Obviously, if used to the full, this “power” could pass any legislation at all and would over ride the Founders system of checks and balances (under which the Presidency was the weakest of the 3 branches of government). And third, it is basic legal theory that a contract is a meeting of the minds. If two parties have a written contract, this is a guide to what their minds intended. But if the court has proof that the parties meant something different from the literal words, it is the meeting of the minds which is decisive. In the same way, when legislation is enacted, it is the meeting of the minds (of the legislators) which has to be decisive. In the case of the Obama bill, the House was openly told that the bill it was formally voting on (the Senate bill) was not what would become law. At this writing, nothing else has become law (leaving aside the other objections), and indeed we were told repeatedly that the Senate bill was unacceptable to the House. Therefore, there was no meeting of the minds, hence no bill. The basic gold bug position was set forth by Harry Browne in 1971 (How You Can Profit from the Coming Devaluation). At that time, the only real danger Americans faced was that they would be robbed by their own government, with the counterfeiting of money being the preferred form of robbery. That is, the only problem we faced was the violation of our property rights (this being soothed over by the lie that the government was only robbing from the rich to give to the poor). Harry Browne advocated that Americans protect themselves from this robbery by owning gold. The government counterfeiting would make the price of gold go up, and the gold bugs would make back what the government was trying to steal from them. And if their timing was good, then they could do better and make a profit on the events. However, now the problem has mushroomed far beyond this simple scenario. Formerly, we faced a government which wanted to violate our property rights. But now we face a government which wants to violate our right to life. Obviously the original gold bug strategy is still valid. Owning gold will still protect our property rights. However, now something more is needed. “Wait Katz,” you say. “This makes no sense to me. I can understand a person who wants to steal from me. It’s immoral, but I can understand his motive. However, I can not understand a person who does not know me yet who wants to kill me.” This is a good question. Unfortunately history gives us the answer. There are people who don’t know you but who want to kill you. And the prime example occurred about 80 years ago in the country of Germany. From 1880 to 1920, Germany was the most admired country in Europe. Germany was considered the most “progressive” and the most “civilized” country and received high praise from most of the world’s intellectuals. Germany was the country of love. Then in the 1930s this country began a program of killing. Since Germany was the country of love, this killing had to be killing for love (if such a thing makes any sense) and hence was called mercy killing. This “mercy killing” gradually mushroomed into what we today call the Holocaust and was itself a part of a much larger killing program, which ultimately took the lives of 50 million human beings. The importance of this for America today is that the German mercy killing program evolved directly out of another program. In 1880-81, Germany passed legislation imposing socialized medicine on the country. Over the 50 years from 1880-1930, the cost of the socialized medicine system became so expensive, that the Germans decided to save money by killing those people expensive to treat. So the Germans of that day were not really killing people out of love; on another level, they were killing people to save money. (Note that, after 45 years of Medicare/Medicaid, America seems to have reached the same stage which Germany reached after 50 years of socialized medicine.) There is another aspect of German history which is important to understand. We all have the image of the brutal tyrant who imposes his will on the people. But history teaches that this is only an image. The ruler who makes his people do what they do not want will either be voted out of office (if democratically elected) or murdered (if he has seized power by force). People cannot be led where they do not want to go. A good example of this is a comparison of Germany vs. Italy during WWII. The Italian people did not like Mussolini. Italian troops surrendered with big smiles on their faces. They would not fight. But German troops fought very well, often to the death. Study the Napoleonic Wars in which German armies were smashed by Napoleon. How different it was in 1940 when the French crumbled before the German onslaught. What had happened in the intervening century-and-a-half? The answer was that the German people loved Hitler. Their claim that, “Hitler made us do it,” was a blatant lie. (There is a further lie, widespread in the American media, that Hitler was not elected by the German people. In the German election of March 1933, there were 5 parties which received more than 10% of the vote. So it was virtually impossible for any one of them to get an absolute majority. This was the case for every country in Europe. In 1933, the Nazis received a huge plurality, of 44%. Then 2 smaller parties, each of whom received 11%, joined the Nazis in electing Hitler dictator. Altogether, Hitler was the choice of 66% of the German people.) After Hitler was elected dictator, a wave of pro-Hitler sentiment swept the country. Stores sold little Hitler do-dads. Hitler was embarrassed and put a stop to it. And of course, the German people fought like tigers. They often fought to the death. On the battlefield, there is no way that a commander can force his soldiers to fight. The enemy is already threatening them with death. Over and over in history, armies which do not want to fight break and run or go through the motions. The Germans did not do this. We cannot escape the conclusion that the Germans loved Hitler. Why did they love him? Because they were full of hate. And Hitler gave them a chance to kill people. Well, what has been happening in this country over the past 80 years is that a group of German professors came here and infiltrated our colleges (particularly the history and government departments). They gave out high grades to attract the laziest and stupidest students. They converted these to their pro-German philosophy and then sent them out into the world to take over the U.S. media. These people are now full of hate. They claim to have a philosophy of love, but the emotion inside them is hate. (Two smaller, but more familiar examples are 1) the New Left of the 1960s, which began with the Flower Children and ended by throwing bombs, trashing cars and assassinating Robert Kennedy and 2) Jim Jones and his Guyana commune, which began preaching love and ended with a mass murder/suicide.) My answer to your question is that the media and the political left are filled with the students of these German professors. These people preach a sappy, stupid, unreal love in their formal philosophy (just as Hitler did prior to 1919), and are filled with hate in their hearts (which they never admit publicly but which can be seen by their actions). Why would these people want to kill you? Because hate is their primary motive, and they will kill those who put up the least resistance. If I am scaring you, it is because I am scared. If America turns Nazi, both ourselves and the world are in great danger. Fortunately, the polls show that Obama and his health care bill are extremely unpopular. Hopefully, the Democrats will suffer an overwhelming defeat in the November election, and this nightmare can be put to rest. If not, then we will have to fight. There is no way you can compromise with this evil. There is no way you can mollify it. It can be fought, but you have to decide to fight. In 1940, the world started to fight Hitler. It was almost too late. They fought because one man, Winston Churchill, raised them up and preached fire and brimstone.
For the past 14 years, I have been publishing the One-handed Economist, a self-protection newsletter along the lines advocated by Harry Browne and dedicated to the protection of your property rights. I now intend to add a section dedicated to the protection of your right to life. You are probably aware that the economic projections for Obama’s socialized medicine bill are outrageous lies. All past government programs since the start of the New Deal have ended with cost overruns, most of them very large. But these were the product of exaggeration, puffery and wishful thinking. I have never seen such a cynical piece of lying as occurred with this bill. The result will be that the budget deficit, already enormous, will turn out far larger than anyone expects, and all of these deficits will be financed by the printing of money (by the Fed). This will be very bad for the country, but it will be very bullish for the price of gold. The small bounce that Obama received in the polls last week, from the media hype in the wake of the “passage” of socialized medicine is now settling down, and the Democrats in Congress face seven months of pure Hell. Obama said that he feared white men with guns. Now we know why. It was his intention to kill us, and he is afraid that we will fight back. Hitler was able to disarm the Jews by a gun control law (1938) prior to the Holocaust, but the United States has the Second Amendment. That is an important difference. ### Mar 29, 2010 Howard S. Katz holds a BA in mathematics from Harvard University. He became interested in Austrian economics and started a successful investment newsletter, The Speculator which focused on gold and gold stocks. He is a lifelong advocate of gold and gold stock investing. Later, he published The Gunslinger for investors interested in gold and gold stocks. In addition, Mr. Katz authored three books on gold, the gold standard and money in politics: "The Paper Aristocracy", "The Warmongers" and the soon to be published "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". He was involved in the Objectivist movement in New York in the 1960s and was an early member of New York's Free Libertarian Party. Mr. Katz is a contributing author to The Ludwig von Mises Institute where his writings appear along with those of contemporaries Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Murry Rothbard and Robert Murphy, among others. He has been interviewed on numerous radio programs. He is currently Chief Investment Officer, editor and publisher of the gold and gold stock investment newsletter, The One-handed Economist.
321gold Ltd |
